The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Commission Packet - December 4, 2001CI"I"~' OIL C:I?tN'I'I2AI~ {'{)INT PI~~+~.NNINCx CC)MiVIISSIt)l~ f1CxI?,1till)A 4'ar} (:obi ~o~ 1~1c;Xt 1'lanlxing Ct}tx111115;iIC?II Resolution loo. 534 I. MELTING CALI~rI) TC) oI~DrIZ ;ll. RCILL CAI.sL, Chuck I'iland - Cazxdy° 1' isl1, I~olx I'c~ster, Karolyne Tohnson, John LeC3ros, ~'aul Luntc and 'tVayrle Riggs III.. CQ~RRESI'C)NIITNCIJ IV. MINUTI~.S A. Review and approval ofltilovc~nxber 6, 2(}C}1, PIalxlxing Colxxnxission Minutes V. PItSLIC AI'I'EAIZANC~;S VI, BLTSIl~lESS I'~ge I - ~3 A» Public l~eal•ing to review an application for a tentative land partitiozx that would create two lass fi•olxx a I .fl3 acre parcel. The subject property is located at 495'7 Ilanxrick Road in the R-1, Residential Single Panxily zoning district on N1ap 37 2W O1 BB, `I"ax Lot 1 ~~. 9 - 39 B. Co~lsideration of the Regional Problenx Solving Report Creating a 50 year [Jrban Reserve and tlxe Evaluatitln of Prospective Growtlx Areas around Central Point. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. AllJC}URNtl~IENT pity off' Centre Point Planning Com~~~i5sion l 110~/2fl01 ~. MEETING CALLED T() GIRDER AT 7:00 P,M. II. R£)LL CALL. Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, Paul Lunte, Don Foster and Wayne Riggs were present. Karolyne Johnson and John LeGz-os were absent. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; lien Gerschler, Community Planner; Matt Saznitore, Community Planner and Dave Arkcns Planning Technician. III. C4RRESP+JNDENCE There was no correspondence. IV, MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve tl~e zniz~utes froze the September 4, 2(}01 meeting as presented. There was no meeting in Cyctober and consequently no minutes were taken or considered. Commissioner Faster seconded the zxzotion. RC}LL CALL: Fish, yes; Lunte, yes; Foster, yes and Riggs, yes. Motion passed unanimously. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public Hearin to review site fan and variance a lications that would allow the addition of a new multi-purpose room, classrooms and the remodel of the Community Bible Church at S00 North 10"' Street. The subject property is located in the R-1 Residential Single Family zoning district on Map 37 2W 02BC Tax L of 20fl. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. Tl~e applicant, Community Bible Church, is requesting a Site Plan Review for the addition of a new multi-purpose room, classrooms and the remodel of the church complex on North 10'}' Street. A variance froze the minimum required number ofoff-street parking spaces is needed since the Church is only providing 129 of the required 266 spaces based on the addition of 21,848 square feet of building space. There is approximately one acre of open space that is S-6 feet below the existing building elevation and the majority of this will remain, The use of the church is a permitted used in the R-1-6 zone. If the Planning Commission were to approve a variance from the minimum ofd street parking requirez~ents, staff recommends a site plan modification to create additional parking spaces with the compact parking space standards and the preparation of an agreement with tlae IC}tJF lodge to create approximately 20 spaces for overflow parking. Alternative modes oftransportation to tlxc el~urcl~ were discussed, as well as staggcriztg service tunes to help alleviate the traffic problems. The Agent for the Applicant, Mike Thornton, 1236 Disk Drive, Suite 1, Medford, C>R 97501, stated that there will be adequate parking on tl~e site, once the constz~zction is fiz~isl~ed. The variance is mainly for presezving the private park the chczrch has created, which is an asset to the community. 1ViT Newport, of 1021 Temple Drive, Central Paint, QR 97502, submitted a signed petitioz~z stating that the neighbors opposed the Variance and the Site Plan because of potential traffic problems associated with the church, poor parking practices on Hazel Street and dust from the parking lot. Mike Thornton stated the church is willing to work out problems associated with the expansion and is willing to work with surrounding property owners to resolve the parking and traffic issues. The Pastor plans to make announcements to the congregation about parking properly in the area near the Church. The new parking areas on-site will all be paved. Commissioner Lunte made a motion to Adopt Resolution 530, approving the Variance and Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. B. Public meetin to review an a lication for a fence variance aloe the entire Easters bounda of the Brookfield Estates Subdivision. The a licant is re uestin that the fence exceed the maximum six foot hei ht re aired b code. The subdivision is located in a R-1-8, Residential Single Family Zone District on Map„372VJ' 2V+I10BA Tax Lots 6401, 6501, 6900. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the Planning Department staff report. The applicant, Pac-Trend Inc., is requesting a variance froze the 6 foot height requirement for a portion of a newly constructed fence located along its common boundary with Rustic Mobile Home Park. The park is an older park and the trailers are set on blocks higher than the standard for newer manufactured homes. The trailers are not set back the proper distance because they were placed near the property lines before the land was annexed into the City in 1983. The applicants would like the additional two feet ofheight to provide better screening between the uses. The Co-Applicant, Dan Mahar, 1014 N. Riverside, Medford, CSR 97504, stated that they would not be requestizag the variance if the park was built to the proper specifications. They are having some diffzeulty selling homes because there is not enough of a buffer between the two developments. Commissioner Lunte asked if the lattice could be added under a temporary variance so that when the Park redevelops the variance would no longer be valid. Mr. Humphrey stated that variances typically run with the land anti There arc no current plans fca sell the park. Commissioner Foster made a motion to adopt Resolr~tion 531, approving flae fence varia~ice application based on the findings of fact contained i-r the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. RtJLL CALL: Fish, yes; Lunte, no; Foster, yes; and Riggs, yes. Motion passed 3 to 1. C. Public Hearin to review an a lieatioza for a tentative coznzr~ercial subdivision and lot line ad'ustment on Ma 3? 2W 02D Tax Lots 18Q0 I9fll and Ma 3'7 2W 1 IA Tax Lot 101, The arcel is located in a C-4 Tourist and Office Professional Zone District. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the Planning Department Staff Report, Mr. 1'luznphrey explained that the City is still working with the applicants and the Pilot Trawl Center to work out traffic problems on Peninger Road. The motion had to be heard because of Oregon's I20 day rule, Mr. Humphrey talked to the applicants who agreed to write a letter stating the item could exceed the rule, taut no letter was received. Commissioner Fish made a motion to deny the Tentative Partition by Resolution 532 based upon the lack of a traffic analysis done for the site and ~zpon anticipated changes to the Pilot Travel Center circulation plan that will effect the subdivision. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion Passed unanimously. VICI(. MISCELLANEC3US VI<11. ADJC?LTRNMENT Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. R.4LL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. IVleeting adjourned at 9:32 P.M, PLANNING I)EPAZZTMENT S`I'AIt'F I2EPCJZt`I" 1-IEARINCr DA`Z'E: Dece~~~bcr 4, 2001 Tfl; Central Point Planning Conzn~ission FRdMc Ken Gerschler, Community Planner SI.IB.IECTc Public Hearing- Tentative Minor Partition for 37 2W OIBB Tax Lot-900, Scott and Teri fliginbotham 4vvnert Applicant: Agent: Proper Descriptionl Zoning:, Summary Scott and Teri I~iginbothan~ 4957 Hamrick Road Central Point, C}R 975£}2 Herbert A. Farber 120 Mistletoe Street Medford, (~R 97501 37 2W 01BB Tax Lot-900, 1.02 acres R-1-8, Residential Single-Family District The applicants, Scott and Teri Higinbotham are proposing the minor partition of a I.02 acrd parcel into two parc~Is. The property is located near the intersection of F-Iaznrick Road and New Haven Road in the Rw1-8, Residential Single-Family Zoning District. Authority CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing. and render a decision on arty application for a tentative land partition. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. {Exhibit B}. Annlicable Law CPMC 16.10.0 i 0 et seq. Tentative Plans CPMC 16.36.010 et seq. Major and Minor Land Partitions CPMC 17,20,010 et seq. R-1, Residential Single-Family District Distusszozz As the Coznrnission may be aware, the S-liginbathan~ property zs afzc of tl~e last remaining large lots in the area near the Hamrick Road and West Vilas Road curve. Surrozanded by the New haven Estates Subdivision on thxee sides, n~zuth of the lot is vacant and underutilized zrzaking this area one of a few ,remaining sections of the city that have not been developed to the full potential of the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive plan. fast rrzonth, The City Council annexed this parcel into the City at the request ofthe applicants so that the parcel could receive City services while providing the opportunity for the property to be partitioned. Scott and Teri 1-liginbotham have gradually been redeveloping the subject property. Last year they received approval from the County to build a new dwelling towards the rear of the parcel and have been in the process of removing the small alder home which should be completed by Spring 20f12. 3ackson County Roads and parks and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority have been notified of this application and have yet to Comment. 3ackson County will have concerns about access onto 1-IamriCk Road since this property is located near the curve that transitions from Hamrick Raad to West Vilas Raad. In 1999, l~arnritk and West Vilas Roads received major improvements that included curb, gutter and sidewalk. The applicants have been in Cantatt with the County and atknowltdge that no additional driveway access will bC granted to Hamrick Raad. Parcel 1 and 2 will share the driveway access {constructed in 1999 through a recorded easement. The Higinbotharrzs plan to widen and grade a portion of the driveway since the current steep grade does not allow f them to move their recreational vehicle onto the property. They should check with Jackson ,;; County to see if a permit is needed. Aside frorrz this no other frontage improvements are necessary. -.. Sewer service is provided by BCVSA with existin~ch line that connects into New haven Subdivision. The line is too small to provide adequate capacity far further development and ~ the applicants will be wanking with BCVSA to resolve the situation by servicing the property with a larger line. Parcel 1 has a proposed 1 ~ foot storm drain easement shown ~ see Exhibit "A°'} aver the top of an existing ten foot wide easement and catch basin. The additional five feet of width has been proposed by the applicant voluntarily. Central Point Water Department retards indicate that this property is not currently connected to City water. System Development Charges will be assessed when the property connects into the system. Jackson County Fire Uistriet Number Tlzrce will review the application to dctc;rminc compliance with fire code. The closest hydrant is located across ~ Ianzrick Road froze Parcel 2. The City Planning and Public Works Departz~~ents have reviewed the site plac~z and the tentative plan for the proposed minor land partition and have conclczded that they comply with city requirements when all conditions of approval pertaining to site development, minimum lot size, public works standards and specifications and access to public roadways are met. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Larv Minor Partition CPMC 16.10.010 requires that applications for tentative plans be subzrzitted with improvement plans and other supplementary information as may be needed to indicate the development plan. ~ The proposed minor partition satisfies the subdivision requirements listed in CPMC 15.36A30 and CPMC 16.36,040. The Public Works Department may request additional information to satisfy standard specification requirements. CPMC 17.8.050 establishes minimum area, width and access requirements for the R-l, Residential angle-Family district. ^ ~ Parcels I and 2 of the proposed partition meet the area, width and access requirenrrents for the R-1, Residential Single-Family District. A shared access easement will be needed to provide access from Parcel 1 across Parcel 2 to Hamrick Road. Any approval would be subject to access requirements of Jackson County Public Works, Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: Adopt Resolution No. ,approving the Tentative Minor Land Partition of 37 2W OlBB Tax Lot 9110 subject to the recommended conditions of approval Exhibits C and E ); or 2. L)eny the proposed Tentative Minor Land Partition; or 3. Continue the review of the Tentative Minor Land Partition at the discretion of the Commission. Exhibits A. Tentative F'Iat B. Notice of Pu61ic I-fearing C. Recommended Conditions of Aprovai f ~ ~~~~ ~S~ A~~S, PH A~~ ~ . .~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~a~~ ., ~~O"T~tT „ l `.. ti y' POWER FO1.E i _ Td' x }O' SHEp`, ~' F1LEti~I ~ 6 g" t7f{R}NAG£ i { `~ ~ `~ oe~ 0 pA,RCEt-- 2 ~ ..,,~" ~ `v~y,ET?OE Of 5}OEWALtC ~,U ~' ~,y" PR~"~~~x ~,tt, ~f,,Cwh'r ~ "'„~ ` tit ~ CtiRB ~p OLO `~'^ -^c`unuo ~. `" ^~., ~ ~ ~H ~SEY Q4 ~ HOU '~'° r"'R:sn C `~ ~e, f~t~ ~~'`~, ,„^~/ `~`'`- ~ / ~~~ ~- ~CASLiNE TEE t'a~ ~, '`~,`IB,,.-~ I#C 1ANH 130"" ~~. 0~~ ~ If I ;bo+ "`~ '.'"„ „~ S$ CLEANOUr,,.r'~ ,~ ~'~r¢^p '~.y`~,1 ~p ~~. ~'~n E~ `~, ,~ r `' ~f ~ 1l~~ Na. ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~I~ ORiVEN~AY A~1;~ ~ ~. h f r~ ~~ J # r. ~ t'Ltisnc r~PS-~ ~~ Y~ sl:i.~ ta~A /t r ~ j ~ I PROF t6§5G gq.tt. r~, ~.,, ~ ~o ~4gd ! PROPO'"~ ~ROPIERTY ~~jj~l ~' rryo I '~~'o. ~ F..Oi ~~ 2` 'M~, ?O / >}" Fs.h3'>gC P;P£^"1 ~ty~ j~4f~ ~ y(ATER VALVE j' '~. _~tRE t#YDRANT ~ gtORM ORA1N j ~~r $ti¢,~~~ ~~. / ~Rl~cnrc~t gAStN ,, ~4t '~ f ! / ~` FLASrtC PIPE"""' ~ ~ ' 5S GLEANOUr' EOCE Of ~,tOEWALK - _. '. r,. _ f PRrvn'~ / t 4F tt' PLA4~ Pis-. { ;' ~It.gACK Ct,#R9 ~ f '~" ~o l S POWER POLE - "` % Ott ~ ~ ~ f ~` .~ t~ ~~ ~~ t ~ ~ t ~ ~~" / Cats r ~`~' ~,,,,_.....-+{1f.TElt VALVE r.+~` nSSCSSOF'~ Mnn fltt Na. 37 ?W t7F89 rt._~ {reatad++' t3UARFRA ~ES~C~St3REGOls ~~ QVYN5H ER D AN~ JACKSON Ct7UN1'Y. ~{LLA~ET~ for f95? NhMRiCK RDhO CEN#RhL PCiN?. 6R£GQN 4750' "' {N~.C~-» ~ ~ ROAfl ~ ~ ~.w ~ ~ ~~,~~ ~' .. 5utvaYa ~r~,,,,,,,"'_ d~a ~AR8 7t _ {53r~ a S5: µhtUNG hCy2~6 A574Nt QpCItNOxCR£CON 47502 (7Pf{GE {-~ ^ rN7RA4 i20 MiS~coN~495vi c_ aaep~oRa.OR w' f sCnrS: flcroBCa ~. soo Oflx I{ nnvc: i~y..c~AVEH41+1+Gat8{tittJ~M 7Ct` ~B r+a.: p~Fwxrrt rice: s~es~~exrR,it rar+r~ CI ty of Central Poln t -~C L~.( (~l d 1' l.t JJ .f._I,t ~.[ L .[ TSYl _L_,l,(T ,L 7`o~n I-t~zmphrey, AICP Planning t3i~•ectaz~ Ken Gerscl~le~• Corr~znunity 1'ianner lvlatt Satn€it;ore C"oznmunity r'lanner Dave Arkens Planning Technician N©tiee of Meeting Date of No>~ice; November 13, 201 Meeting Date: December 4, 2001 '~""~"'""~"'"'"` City of Central ~'~rt Tune: 7:00 p.m. Approximate} Place: Central Point City Hall ~~~.~T tt~. tt 155 South Second Street Piannizig Beparirnen~t Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a tentative land partition application that would create two lots on a 1.08 acre parcel located at 4957 I~amrick Road. The parcel is located in the R-1, Residential Single Family zoning district and is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W O113B, Tax Lot 100. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Partitions are set forth in Chapter 16 of the Central Point Municipal Cade, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS l . Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 4, 200 i . 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 975(32. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to tl~e expiration ofthe conunent period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated 1.55 South Second Street ~ Central Point, C3R 97502 (54l} 664-3321 ~ Itax: (S4l) 664-6384 clearly to tl~e Planning Con~n~ission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applica~xt arc available for public review at City 1-lall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies ofthc same are available; at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional infori~~ation, tl~e public may contact tl~e Plan~ling Department at {541} 664- 3321 ext, 291. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURIt; At the meeting, the Planning Coarnmission will review the applications, technical staff reports, bear testimony from the applicant, proponents, oppone~xts, and hear arguments on the application, Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or tentative partition application. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. a VANNAH C?RlV ~ w~ r 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, C7I~ x`7502 +! X541 } 664-3321 !~ Fax: (541 } 664-63 84 E~HII3IT C PLANNING I3EPARTMENT RECt)1VIMENllE~) CtJNI7-ITI4NS QF AI'I'It4VAL l , The approval of the Tentative .plan shall expire in one year on December 4, 2~f12 unless an application for final plat or extension has been received by the City. 2. The pro}ect rz~ust comply with atl applicable local, state and federal regulations to include those imposed by BCVSA and Jackson County Fire District Number 3., 3. The tentative and final plats shall depict utility easements requested by the City, BCVSA and WP Natural Gas. Any changes to utility layout including fire hydrants shall require subsequent approval by the respective service provider. 4. This approval must include proof by the applicant that an access easement has been. created to benefit parcel 1, S. The second house shall remain uninhabited anal be removed from the property as soon as possible since the parcel is zoned for a single family residence. PLANNING DEP~Iit`C"Mi.t'~l'I" MEMORANDUM HATE: DetcmbCr 4, 2C}U I TO: Central Point Planning Camznission FROM: Tom Humphrey AtCP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Consideratiaza of the Regional Problem Solvixg Report Creating a 5~ Year Urban Reserve and the Evaluatiozr of Prospective Growth Areas around Centz~al Point Background The Rogue Valley Council of Gaverzurzents {RVCOG} has been facilitating azt RPS process to assist Rogue Valley jurisdictions in determining appropriate land areas for future growth and the expansion of Urban Growth Boundaries {UGBs}. The RPS process is supported by the State Department of Land Conservation and Development {DECD} and mast of the Commission is familiar with the details of this process and anticipated outcomes. In an effort to acquire a wide range of citizen input, planning staff is enlisting the support ofthe Commission to review the attached material, take public input and formulate a reCOznmendation to the City Council. Attachment A includes four maps which depict future growth areas currently under Consideration by an RPS TeCluzital Advisory Committee and a Resource Land Review Committee. The maps illustrate new areas in the southwest, northwest, north and northeast of the existing Central Paint UGB. One of the areas is not contiguous to the UGB but could be linked via land along the Bear Creek Greenway. The other areas generally involve exc~~xtir~n lands that were allowed to be subdivided in the County and which should be considered with any UGB ar Urban Reserve expansion. The Maps depict zoning and irrigated sails for five potential growth areas. The growth areas are identified as CP/MD -1 and CP-I through CP-4 and there is an associated narrative with each. The narrative explains the position or opinions of various groups who have been involved in the planning process. The City has already conducted two open houses and a mail survey to obtain public input. A cagy of the survey and the results are in Attachment B. One of the goals in the R.PS process is to preserve valuable agricultural Iand. Both committees have been looking at soil conservation maps and discussing t11e relative value of agricultural properties as part of the Urban Reserve analysis. Periodically the City receives requests from private citizens to consider the inclusion oftheir property in our expansion plans. Attachment C includes all ofthe written requests that have been received to date as well as Comments that have been retarded at open houses and special meetings. The City's Citizen's Advisory Caznznittee Considered the matter recently and a ropy of their minutes are included as Attathznent D. Actiau The Planning Commission is encouraged to invite public input, ask questions of staff and area residents and formulate a retommendatian to the City Council regarding prospective Central Paint growth areas and the reasonableness of Chase areas identified as part of a commercial resource land base. ., Attaci~ments A. Maps afAreas Araund Central Paint Beim Considered far Inclusian in the Urban Reserve B. Urban Reserve Planning in the Rogue ValleyJCity-Wide Survey and Results. C. Correspondence and Cazzxments Received fra~n Public Meetings D. Citizen Advisory Coznrr~ittee rninutos from. Novcir~ber 20, 2tJ~ 1 ~-~.~ Area around 7 Oasts interchange, and on either side of I-5, bordered to the Total Acreagre - 898 L4GATlON: north by Blackwell Rd., and an the south by Willow Springs Rd. Growth _ 862 Resource Base - 36 RESC}t#RCl SANDS REVfBW Capability: Less than 5°l0 of the area has class 1 - 4 sails. Those soils are an fiat land with irrigation. CtJMM1TTEE {RLRC} Suitability: The two small non-contiguous pieces of EFU land with class 9 - 4 soils are bordered by a combination of RR #racks, rural residential land, industrial land, future growth area, I-5, and EFU land. Determination: The two parcels on either side of Erickson Air Grane were determined to be part of the base. lror the parcel bordering 1-5, the decision was 9 in favor, 2 opposed. 1~or the parse[ to the west of Erickson Air Grane, the decision was 9'1 in favor. Detai€ed Soils Analysis (Commercial Resource Base ont}~ Estimated 40°lo class 2, 40% class 3, 16°Io class 4, 5°lo class 6. SOfJS t~ (:~~Ic'3'i?71~tt}~: 40°Jo is 900A {Kubli loam, 0.3°lo slope}. Class 3. Very deep, somewhat poorly drained, moderate permeability to 39 inch depth and very slow below that. Ava"sl. water capacity = 90 inch {very good). Soil is loam fo 39 in. depth, clay from 39 in. to 47 in,, and clay loam from 47 in. to 60 in. depth. Suited to irrigated crops. Tillage is nat limited by soil texture. Slight cropping iimi#ation due to very slow permeability of subsoil and soil wetness in winter. Winter soil wetness somewhat Iimits crop choices, but tiling improves drainage and crop choice. Perennial craps requiring year-round aerobic root zones {e,g, alfalfa, cherries;` are not ~- recommended. Well suited to mast annual raw crops. Perennial crops that tolerate wet winter soil conditions are suitable {e.g. t pears, ryegrass, grass pasture}. 30°lo is 9578 (Ruch silt Loam, 2-7°lo slope}. Class 2. Very deep, well-drafted; mod. slow permeability, Avail. water capacity ~ 8 inch (good}. Surface silt loam layer is 7 in. thick. From 7 to 70 in. is loam. Well suited to irrigated crops. Slight limitation due #a ~ mod. slow permeability, Tillage not limited. Irrigation me#hod not limited except furrow irrigation not recommended on sloped }~ portion, Suited for all crops including tree fruit, pasture, and row crops. 90°Jo is 90[3 {Barron coarse sandy Ioam, 0-7°lo slope}. Glass 2. Very deep, somewhat excessively drained, mad. rapid permeability. Avail water capacity = 6 inch {mod. poor}. Sail is sandy loam from the surface to 60 in. depth {coarse sandy Ioam in the upper S in.}. Well suited to irrigated crops. Tillage and crop choice are not limited. Irrigation me#hod is not limited. Rapid permeability and sandy Ioam texture lead to limited water holding capacity, thus frequent irriga#ion is required to avoid summer drought stress to the crop. 90°lo is 29A {Camas sandy Ioam, 0-3°fo slaps}, Class 4. Very deep, excessively drained. Permeability is mod. rapid in upper90 ft. and very rapid in lower 50 in. Avail water capacity = 3 inch (poor}. Soil is sandy loam from the surface to 90 in. depth, very gravelly loamy sand from 90-99 in., and extremely gravelly coarse sand from 99 in, to 60 in. depth. Sus#ed to irrigated crops. T'sl[age is not limited. Crop choice and irrigation method is not limited. Soil is limited by poor water holding capacity and rapid permeability, requiring frequent [rrigation to avoid severe summer drought stress. careful nutrient management must be practiced if this soil is intensively farmed #a avoid groundwater pollution by mobile nutrients, such as nitrogen, This soil Type often indicates a good sand and gravel resource. 90°lo is 68 {Agate-Winta Complex, 0,.6°lo slope}. Agate is class 4 and Winlo is class 6. This complex is about 55°lo Agate soil and 35°lo Winlo soil. Agate is mod. deep, well drained, mad. slow permeability, Avail water capacity = 4 inch {poor}, Soil is loam from the surface to 6 ft. depth, clay loam from 6-25 in., cemented hard pan from 26-30 in., and extremely gravelly coarse sandy loam from 30-62 in. dep#h. Winla is shallow to hardpan, somewhat poorly drained, slow permeability, Ava'sl. water capacity = ~l inch {very poor}. So[l is very gravelly clay loam from surface to 4 in. depth, very gravelly clay from 4-9 in., cemented hard pan from ~• , 94 in,, and ex#rem+ely gravelly coarse sandy loam from 94-80 in. depth. The water table in these soils is commonly from 0.5 ft above #0 0.5 ft. below the soil surtace from ©ecember-April. Not lusted to irrigated craps. Tillage is severely limited by gravelly surface and shallow hardpan ft Wftla soil, and somewhat limited by clay content near the surface in both soils. Rooting depth and permeability is limited by the hardpan in both soils, especially Winlo. Ripping with deep, heavy duty tillage can improve rooting depth and permeability. irrigation method is limited by rol€ing and swill/swaie nature of these areas, making furrow and handline use difficult. Wheel lines and big guns are suitable irrigation methods. Crop choice is limited by depth to hardpan and saturated conditions due fo severe high water table {including standing water at the sur€ace for extended periods of time}. Perennial pasture with wet soil-tolerant grasses is one of the few realistic cropping choices without signil•#cant and expensive modification of the physical properties of These soils. Appears fo be leapfrog development that would put unacceptable pressure on the farmland between Central Point and the area. Not a good idea for the city to have a growth area so far from Central Point. is not necessary. considering all the available land to CITIZEN INVUI_VEMENT the north of Central Point. It could be the site of a future independen# cammunify, but beyond the 50-year tune frame. If COMMITTEE {pCIC} eventually developed, construction should be held back from 1-5 to preserve the scenic entrance to the valley. Suggest the portion on the southern side of l-5 be deleted, and the portion on The northern side coo€d be expanded to include areas of appropriate zoning and pour soils. This area should be part of a solo#ion fo provide connec#ivity between €-6 and Hwy fit. The area is a€most completely devoid of resource land, it is on a major transportation route {l_fi}, has a large amount o€ industrial land, is proximal #o an undeveloped interchange, and is mostly comprised of buildable slopes. Erickson Air Crane is already CITY STAFF supplied with water from the City of Central Point, and the 7 Oaks interchange has long been looked at by Central Point as a future part of its city. Gentral Point feels that the area designated by the R~RG would eventually be rendered unusable commercially by being almost wholly contained with the future grow#h areas. Oregon Department of Agriculture: Portion located west of canal is impacted by parcelization and development. Canal would be good edge. Development east of canal would represent a protrusion in#o resource lands. STATE AGENCIES Oregon Department of Transportation: ODOT does not support this area for developmen#. CP-~ would place the Seven Oaks interchange, and segments of i_g and Hwy 99 at risk of being driven #o above capacity. There is a high probabi€ity of the area, which wouid probably not be unconnected with significant commerc€al and employment centers, being developed for low density, auto dependent uses. C. #~ ~~ ~+~~~ Total Acreage - 728 Lr Lt}GATIQN: Northern Central Point area. GrQy~,th _ 52~ Resource Base -.244 RESOURCE C.ANDS REVIEW COMMITTEE {BERG} l~ ~;,_~ __._. Capability: The area is dramatically divided into two disfinct pieces. The northern two-thirds {Upton Rd east to Table Rock, from Gibbon Rd. south to the Central Point UGB} is class 4 soils. Topography is flat, with some flood plain and vernal pools. The southern third is class 1,2, and 3 soils, and the topography is flat. Suitability: In the northern two-thirds, approximately one-half of the zoning is rural residential, with most of the EFU land in flood plain or uernal pools. The southern third has limited exposure to urban encroachment, and abuts a 160 acre orchard to the northwest. ©eterrnina#ion: The southern third is part of the base {unanimous decision}. t'~etailed Soils Analysts {Commercial Resource Base onlyZ Estimated 40°f° class 1, 10°lo class 2, 50°l° class 3. Soils & Capability: 50°!° is 100A {Kubli loam, 0-3°!° slope}. Class 3, Very deep, somewhat poorly drained, moderate permeability to 31 inch depth and very slaw below #hat. Avail. water capacity = 10 inch {very goad}. Soil is loam to 31 in. depth, clay from 31 in. to 47 in., and clay loam from 47 in. to 60 in. depth. Suited to irrigated crops. Tillage is not limited by soil texture. Slight cropping limitation due to very slow permeability of subsoil and soil wetness in winter. Winter sail wetness somewhat limits crop choices, but tiling improves drainage and crop choice. perennial crops requiring year-round aerobic root zones {e.g. alfalfa, cherries} are not recommended. Well suited to most annual row crops. perennial crops that tolerate wet winter soil conditions are suitable {e.g. pears, ryegrass, grass pasture}. 30°l° is 12?A {Medford silty clay loam, 0-3% slope}. Class.1. Very deep, mod. well drained, mod. slow permeability. Avail. water capacity =10 inch {very good}. Surface silty clay loam layer is 12 inches thick. From 12 in. to 53 in. deep it is silty clay, silty clay loam, and clay loam. From 53 in. to 71 in. is sandy clay loam. Welt suited to irrigated crops. Slight limitation due to mod. slow permeability. Tillage is slightly limited due to clay content {during wet and dry soil conditions}. Well suited for all crops including tree frui#, pasture, and row crops. 10°I° is 97A {Kerby loam, 0-3°t° slope}, Class 1. Very deep, well drained mod. slow permeability. Avail. water capacity M 10 inch (very good}. Soil is foam from surface to 54 inch depth, and very gravelly sandy loam from 54 in. to 60 in. depth. Very well suited to irrigated crops. Tillage is not limited by soil texture. Crop choice is not limited by wa#er holding capacity, and only slightly Limited by perrrteability. Many types of irrigation are suitable. This soil type is among the very best for intensive, irrigated agriculture in the entire state, and occurs only on a very limited acreage. 10°l° is 76A {Gregory silty clay loam, 0-3°l° slope}. Class 2. Deep, poorly drained, slow permeability. Avail. water capacity = 9 inch {very good}. Soli is silty clay loam from surface to 7 inch dep#h, clay loam tram 7-18 in., clay from 18-4 in., and sandy clay Loam from 44-50 inch depth. Wa#er table can be within 1 ft of surface from December until May. Suited to irrigated annual summer crops. Suited to winter annual craps or perennial crops that can tolerate high water table and wet soil during winter and spring. Without drainage, recommended crop chaises are permanent grass pasture, pears, or ryegrass. With drainage, annual crops like small grains and com can be grown. Tillage is somewhat Limited due to clay content {during wet and dry soil conditions), making intensive row cropping somewhat difficult. Avery small portion of area is 6B {Agate-Winlo Complex, 0-5°l° slope}. Class 4 & 6. Too small to warrant detailed description. CIT€ZEN €NVOLVEMENT Central Point should first and foremost concentrate on higher densities and redevelopment within its existing boundaries. CflMMiTTEE {pGIG} Supports the RLRC recommendation of the area between the Boes subdivision and Gebhard Rd. as part of the base -Central point should consider this farmland as an amenity, rather than an impediment. As for the remainder of the growth area, the flood plain and vernal pool complex may prevent a fair amount of the area front development, although these same conditions offer Cl'tY STAFF STATE AGSfi1CtES ~~ ~~ areas Beebe ftd. - Rural I roblems of access~v da across l-5 would bring ~ Gentral Point to fact that rowth would cause to the with ace opportunities. although this further g of to urbanize. art of the base dwithin, even en sp of the city, if it were n this area as p 8?CCetleilt urt)ar- ~~ alt (3f the base: Of declaring Subject the agricultU pwth ~~ d athletic ical extensionended as ~ the wisdom would also firustra e orth is a log recortim robably urban ~ as a land lab an Growth to then being Gents! point Questions and would ~ unavailable to used „~,.~.~- ~^('lZe c`l, rE3c'3; ~Ort~t. thCeB StGI~S, ~~~it1s~ this e'Zr~r~ whiGl'1 is nOw ,~,,,,....-,- city continuity • urban stress. uneven would surround it °n resent school prope on the signiticantty the Expio significant levels of urb ~~ the p stream Central Point a~ andards, h School to the north new bufif~ring this area contain agricultural soils. the plan to locate a future I~ig acl scent to fields. o~ of and l d employment ant of Agriculture: arcels located n to comn`tercial an (?ret3or''~epartm bRG "two larger p nod boundary acted. s of R rovide g connect this area nificantly imp Support finding arcets would fa that would effectively e is not sig ' ~ ~ e of these p~'ransportatian: tans Gentral'Point interchang creage northern edg meat of to define p that the Tofal '~ ~ 5 pregon depart d details are nodes, and to assure Growf~ More dialogue an Base - 0 through focal street netw .Resource ~ p.ES ~ ~Ntt`i"""f tNVQ'~VE'~E~T GI ~t~~~t'~"'l`~'~ ~PG'IC1 STATE AG"'~:NG1~5 along ~. Pine st. and onus agricu o raphY Ls flat. there are no contig Small area ~ soils. 'top g machined ~ ~ ~,gainst+ ~,pCA'tlQ~~ olio for farm ~,;~ favor= half ofi which i Sol emblem location E 1ece, approximately access p et adverse A 15-acre p history of vandalism, acted with its extrem ~ ear Greek Gapalaility: .here is a tong small, crann to the 8 alt is relat-vety se due to reasons ark end adjunct Suitab' ~ ~ the site of the ba a as a p parcels, Neat part reason of cswnership~• of its use should b petercnlnattan• one for rarity titans, but alt or a maj with Z absten the city, corning into tt has carts this area Rupp o. sad appear and Exp merit and parcelixation- G,reenway the city. deveto Some of the issues discus intensive est.. valley is subject to a togioat addition to of surrounded by m the p This is of Agr-culture: been used for orchard ~ a ricultural land in the in Ct'-`l~ this tract is n ~epa~ment oved' and has nod deaf of the g Clregr'n tract rem soils, irrigation, ued that a g. many others. employment oml resource land tible than to commercial and Central P unlike the hi h value farm It coulde anyr9 suscep ,,. and 31 protect the excellent, g µ ct does n lams. more be management p of appear to b t will ~} ef#ectively connea~ ~ ~'~in Streets , more to This tra ,fransporkatca'o: laps the 62 are not used vandalis ~eparttrent of needed to define p ~ and HwY Oregon details are assure that Ir dialogue and orksi ~~ nificant impact. tJlore h local street pees from g areas throe earby inteCChang and other n ~'+~~~ Area of primarily rural residential a# the southwest corner of Central Paint LOCATION; TotalAcreage -1d(T (Beak Ln. and Grant Rd.}. Growth - 125 Resource Base -15 Capab€lity: The single parce€ of 1=FU, which is surrounded on three sides lay rural residentia( (and, is class 2 and 3 sails . Topography is flat, and it is irrigated. Su€tab€I€ty: The parcel is actively farmed, and is not subject to signiticant urban pressure at present. Determinat€on: The parcel of EFU land comained within this area is part of the base {5 in favor, 3 €n disagreement '€ , abstention}. This area was subsequently reconsidered, and was once ago€n determined to be part of the base. Detailed So€Is Analysis (Commerc€aI Resource Base on Imo -- - „ , Estimated 50°f° class 2, 6fl°f° class 3. Soils & Capability: RESOURCE LANDS REVCEW 50°lo is 1C~8 {Barran coarse sandy lawn, 0-7°l° s€ape}. Class 2. Very deep, somewhat excessively drained, mad. rapid COMMITTEE {RLRC} permeability. Avail water capacity = 6 inch {mad. poor}. Sail (s sandy loam Tram the sur€ace to 6D in. depth {coarse sandy loam in the upper 6 in.}. Well suited #o irrigated craps, Tillage and crap choice are not limited. Irrigation method is not limited. Rapid permeability and sandy loam texture lead to limited water balding capacity, thus frequent irrigation is required to avoid summer ~ draught stress to the crap. ' ~ 50°lo is 10QA (Kubli loam, U-3°lo slope). Class S. Very deep, somewhat paar[y drained, moderate permeability #a 31 inch depth and ve slaw below that. Avail. wa#er ca acit 1(} inch ve rY' p y = { ry goad}. Soil is loam to 31 in. depth, clay from 31 in. to 47 in., and clay loam from 47 in. to 60 in. depth. Suited #a irrigated crops..Tiliage is not limited by sail texture. Slight cropping limitation due #a ~ very slow permeability of subsoil and snit wetness in winter. Winter sail wetness somewhat limits crap choices, but tiling '~ improves drainage and crap choice. Perennial crops requiring year-round aerobic roof zones {e.g. alfalfa, cherries} are na# recommended. Welt suited to most annual raw craps. Perennial craps that tolerate wet winter sail conditions are suitable {e.g. pears, ryegrass, grass pasture}. ©oes not support the RLRC recommendation, but cannot see why the city would wan# this area -will not add growth capacity to CITIZEN INV4~VEMENT the city in any real way. [f developed intensely, would pressure adjacent farmland. A pC1C member living in this area disputes COMMITTEE {pCIC} the severity of the water problem. pCIC recommends that if water does became a serious problem in the future, then the area " " should become an area of spec€at concern and a candidate far receiving water without becoming part of the city. Central Paint is only considering this area because of the water problems same of the residents have reported. It sees the RLRC CITY STAFF recammenda#ian as inconsistent with earlier decisions, due to the fact that the single parcel being indica#ed cau[d eventually be surrounded by non-agricultural uses. Oregon Department of Agriculture. This area is mare characteristic of the "developed" area located to the south than the resource lands located to the north. The STATE AGENCIES tract removed by the RLRC appears to be irrevocably cammi#ted to nanresaurce use by the development and parcelizatian occurring an all sides. The #ract is not large enough, under the specific site circumstances, to stand alone as a resource parce[. Oregon Department of Transportation: No comments. . i.. ~-. ...-.y. °r . i ~n~ ~a. ,_. ,_--...=__..sra`:=.;:rfat~`,t°.~9a:'~nn?:. "~anc_~_r. ;~' __ 'F^*,~ ~7 ~'.:'.J P " a<-. . , ~. _ > ..v ~,,. _,~,r., F ~ ~ ... - __ i - - x __ ~~ - - ~ t ~ ?KY4.- - w . ~ _ ~_~~_~F - .. ~.acE ` ~ _ ~ _ _ rye _ J - __.. n. _ _ -_ ._ ___ - - __ _ ___ = xna~ ~ ~ ~ JV ,. ... +' - ____ _ - __ -_ __ ~ ~ - - _ - ~ - ~-- - - C _ ~ _ - _ ,. __ _ -- ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ --- ""° '°~_. _ - - _ fi ' ~, ., ~ FY ~ _ _ -x q--ee . - __ _ . „sue wee - _ ~ - ~ nip s _. - _ :rata, i~:~. .~ - - --- = _ _° -- `- I - - ,-= ~ ` -- _ ` - _ _ _ .~` J $ ~ ~ ~ ea. .. v Fen :J€{.'Y^ • .j, Z rtu _. _ E _ ___r-__ _____ [;P,~~~ Q-'~ RESOURCE LANDS REVIEW Ct~M,MITTEE (RLRC} E.arge area bordered by Denman reserve to the north, Hwy E?2 to the east, Tofal Acreage - 9,256 L4CATI©N. the Central Point and Medford northernmost growth areas to the south, and Growth - 1,256 Gibbons Acres to the wes#. Resource Base - D Capability: Approximately 4t)°lo of the area is in EFU, with predominantly class 4 soils. Topography is flat, with some areas of ves-nal poo3s and flood plain. Suitability: The majority of parcels that are agriculturally active are used far grazing, much of i# seasonal. De#ermination: Not part of the commercial resource Sand base {unanimous decision}. Considers this a crucial future growth area, which is why pGIC agreed to the buffer area being replaced by it. If developed as CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT residential and employment, would provide an important ra#ianal for an eas#lwest connector wi#h I.5 due to the regional benefits i# COMMITTEE CIC ~P } 'Would provide. Extremely important fo the fu#ure of the valley that this area is cooperatively mas#er planned, and tha# Gibbons Acres is redeveloped. High potential for open space, especially trails. Decisions about this area should be made quickly sa tha# , present planning an Hwy 62 can take i# into account. May be one of the mos# important outcomes of Phis planning process. This area was not originally proposed by either Medford or Centro! Pain#, buf rather was suggested through staff and the CITY STAFF Technical Committee due to its large size, relatively law density, proximity to employment centers, and lack of productive resource land. Medford and Central Paint have not yet made a recommendation concerning the area. An area tha# will meri# some additional study is Gibbons Acres, which is fairly densely settled and in need of a significant level a# redevelopment. Oregon Department of Agriculture; i.arger parcels located in the eastern half of this area have goad to excellent ra#ings for forage production. Oregon Department of Transportation: STATE AGENCIES More dialog and de#ails are needed #a define plans and programs that will effec#ively connec# #hese areas to commercial and employment areas over local arterials and street networks. Certainty needs to be established, #hrough these plans and programs , to assure tha# traffic generated from this site will not use Hwy. fit and l-5 (via the Central Point interchange} as a "Main Street" . Mixed uses in this, and nearby areas would help decrease reliance on automobiles. ~- __ _ _ffi~~~-_-o_~a_ .®~_...___ -- ~ -- :f __ _ a E: ~ ~1 Cif _®' C} C° C3CI~~ ~~3~1iC3 ~;; ~,~~,t?, -~ - ?:iY;ell3f t.}i ST.i'[h lv'~3S ~ ~ ~ ~ _, w ~~ A_ ' ~.r ~.~ , .:` izfti'~i: U x' 1` ~ :~°i i~ia` L~-t . i fZ(a e~ ~~ a i E~, ~ ~ p~~ b~~~~~~~ is'~°C'.u ~- _ L... .. _3 ~ ~:F-?e. ~tv tt l.: ~ ~ -- ~,-~ t ,.. ,:; r,: ~ ....__. ~ ~r`{{.~~~ fa~i% ,_ :~ ac _. v ! ~__ ~ tit?°t~\ f'1 iL€ , .. C'1_.? ; Z - ,>:s t-use: ~r: r .:. a'~~ti>e . f~ ----a. ~ c •.: tts ~ - p P~ -~ -,Fke&S&'feCy:;iy'hf?;I CdIX'e.~Cf':rC: ~[dde G~: r: FSCi J3[r riv C~ ?b_?:)ff 5`: '4}.S~dl.tew~i'f 2JCYiYe;a,_gt;z~t.'{h_d.'CZS ;:.t: _CJ::;=€ - -- - -- --- - -- - - - -v~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3nCK5 dTY -... ~ 4f ~ ~ fi'n'd °- a~~;'r~tac~F~~ Fro ~ ~ - ~ ~ ` r f € a^ 1 x ~. ~_ ~ N,dS~U€TO AN7E~OPE r~~ ~-' ~„ ~ _ ~ ? ~.! FORD pp ~~'1~t~ C~It - _° y --- t ~ ~ f ~C GfZAP~EER.~~ Rsntan 7 Fi ' ~. n~ _ _ _ - ~{L C,K7If3£ F'vtll -~ ,~ w ~,~ ar.e ~'an, ~€tk~C3Rs: F;U : ~-. - - - -ec4Cr:.;Ce - t E - Ems ~ kA'd~ty RCl . - - - ,'.e~E~ ~ {!' Cin ..... `~' ~ _ c `_ Fn :ez:z RFG~7RY" r~:e ' ~ ~ y ~ n :!d t,', ~ i? w ~SIliF R 2 >ass ' S3F2R (3K :r~,> 2 - ~ ~sss ,..ass w - -.: a°:: ' c ,,.wF . ~.~:;~ ~ .. -. ate.-_ ~~ S'~ 'vlf c_~t~tV fZt) !- ~ r~ C; at3~t~'= ~ ~ ~ ~_ - ~~ ~ - :~ M1 _ ~ ~TEAN 4.1R > ' ~ - _ ~ ~ -a -=- VEF.lCSi ~ - - ~ 4 - - ~ - - ~`€= t ) ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ C~~. 'a , t C {CZ', ~ '~i5 `e;.~. F.:S .~aSe.; 3^. a ,'. y'.i~, ,:2~c«b§^ ,: ~: ; °_ (4 E (,i § i7 sa:Ch^vfa': r4ti:^„~r ,.3'.-.a ruf-K:1 i.' SJ.:'.:.', YVVfLA5RI7 EVtLAgl3I? 3 i t~~r.sa^=Lat.r,:n:::::sazce_;.tres:~est:::,'~ ~ E11`iLAS RL; ~ - .. _..as, :^:'.ss.vx~s ~,'; ~:~~;: - F - -- __ _- '~ # ~ - i^CiC .::e ::C }e~:'d :irv5 ?<„i c'x>~.. J` .. :=~ -~ F'SCtlSe tEC}`C!C Ya'tth C9a'p`CtS C?e:CC Qi~.~C 7}dFC; RG E3ale {itsQ r~.$ Lil`J7; dit I~3V3;tt,~~t~Cy _6CGa'!~''fC€~IX:_QS4°k'S13 d(C:35_.^:^.7S i{J d,>:i tlrbrxn .Reserve Plrxnnin~ rn the .R~gue irafley l;T'f:at's ~vittg ()"tr Urban Growth Boundaries {L1GBs} cover a 211 year punning period and are created by cities under state law to set aside areas from which. property may be annexed and then developed for new houses, businesses, parks, schools and open space. Central Point established its UGB approximately 2(t years ago and. isegetting closer to filling it in. The; City has made some pro- active decisions to master plan various areas in the UGB during the past two years so we can prolong our need to expand the UGB. We are also participating in a region-wide land use planning process to deterrr~ine where, over the course of the next 54 years, the City should direct new growth. The regional process is being facilitated by the Rogue Palley Council of Governments {RVCGG} and involves every jurisdiction in the valley south of Eagle Point. The process is being referred to as Urban Reserve Planning and has been endorsed by the Department of Land Conservation and Development {DECD} through their Regional Problem Solving {RPS} program. Program goals include 1) coordinating land use planning with other jurisdictions; 2} preserving valuable farm Land; and 3) creating and. maintaining individual community identity. , There are a number of areas in the county around Central Point's UGB that have already been subdivided and developed. As time passes, wells and septic tanks in these areas fail and residents turn to the City for assistance. The City can provide services to these areas if they are added to the UGB and/or annexed. Unfortunately, these areas can also become a financial burden ifthe City has to rett~afit utilities and other infrastructure {water, sewer, streets and sidewalks}. It is often easier and more desirable to bring in larger tax lots which can be rnaster- planned and developed more comprehensively. Wfiat J7v Ynu 7'fiirrk A lot of mapping and technical work has been done over the past year and citizens in each of the affected cities and the county are now being asked for their input before we go any further. There are four or five areas outside of Central Point's UGB that are being considered for inclusion in a future urban reserve boundary and into which the IJGB would be expanded in the future. if you live in these areas or have an opinion about the City's urban farm {shape}, size or the direction you think it should grow, we would like to hear From you. How Yvu Cats .Respattd You can respond by filling out and returning the attached survey or by attending an open house scheduled fc~r the following times and places. August 28th from 6:00 to 7:30 p.rn. a~ Central Point City HaIl Council Chambers, September 11th front 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. a~ Central Paint City Hall Council Chambers .~-~ ~6 City- ~Yide S`ur~ve,~ 'The City Council would like your opinion regarding Urban I~.eserve Pla~u~ing in the vicinity of Central Point and appreciates your response to the following survey. Tl~e fact sheet on the reverse side will acquaint yoxt with the issues you are being asked to comzx~ent on. Please return this survey to City Hall with your water bill. It is important that we receive your response x~a later than Septeuxber 20t~. Thank you for taking the time to fill this out. 1. If and when Central Point amends its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) it should take in more land to the please check all answers that apply}: East Vest North South 2. Existing subdivisions Outside the City (such as Gibbon Acres to the northeast and Grant Acres to the southwest} should be considered for inclusion in the Urban Reserve Area before other larger tax lots. ____ Strongly agree agree undecided disagree ~ Strongly disagree 3. The land around Erickson Air Crane and the Seven. Oaks Interchange should be developed in similar business-related land uses in the future {this does not mean that the land in between these areas and the existing City limits would have to be developed). Strongly agree agree undecided disagree .~ Strongly disagree 4. If not in similar business-related land uses, the land around Erickson Air Crane and Seven Oaks Interchange should be developed in (check all those that apply}: 1Zesidential uses Agricultural uses __._ Open Space 5. The 3ackson County Fair Grounds and surrounding properties should be included in the City's future Urban I~.eserve Area and UGB. Strongly agree ~ agree undecided disagree ~ Strongly disagree b. 'The City should do all that it can to strengthen i#s ties between development occurring on the east and west sides of Interstate-5. _____ Strongly agree __w.... agree undecideddisagree ____ Strongly disagree ~. Dir~cf~on of Growth so.oo sooo~ ao.ao~ ~.~~ a.aox [hrectioct ~~nd Art~u#~#d ~rsckson Air Crape ~irrtitar:3usiness-Related 17~nd Use in f#7e Futrue? ~.~~ 44.OQy, aooox b A 24.0054 'F4.00X 4.00X s4.ar 44.00! 24.60% 0.40% Land Around I~rickson Air Grave if not a similar Business-Related Land Use in the Future Ji ~~ Fc~1C GCt7liClds ~Cld SUCCOUCtditit~ ~.c'iCid Should if b~ in f1~e Urban Reserve and Urk~an Growfh Soundry? ao.oo~ m ~, ~ zo.oox Eo.cro~ a.aov a.~m n.oox ~~~ A S4.~QY. OAG% j v (+pP ~Stiould Ehe City Strersghfen Developement Ties on the East and West Sides of f-5? t~t~., County ~ C~t~.zens "' league ~~ ~t~~1- c~n~~t, ~~~ 429 Medford, Uregor~ 975111 5411776-U443 TCI; Central Paint City Council Central Paint Planning Commission FRC}M. Jackson County Citizens league 12E: Regional Problem Salving I~ATF; i i l3a/C}i ~ra:1 s~a~~~~s~~~ ~~ ~~ A nompcntic tax-sxtmpt tk+Tgbn c:orp+aration s~fi~ted with 104Q Prieade oFOregon If you saw our must recent newsletter you knew that Jackson County Citizens League t,lCCL} is very supportive of the concept of regipnal planning for the entire valley. 1Ne have studied the maps shown in ~Grea ter Bear Creek Valley Regiana/ Problem Solving, Phase one Status Report (RPS} and have driven out to look at most of the properties suggested. There is na cluestian that. future population will require expanding urban growth boundaries. There are many questions to be answered about the best places far expansion to take place and the problem of land specu#ation by builders in the areas proposed far future inclusion which will drive land costs beyond the reach of most farmers. JCCl's mission and reason for being is to protect farm and forest sands. Ta this end we are very anxious tai } prevent sprawl, 2} plan around and promote development of public transportation in order not to increase car dependency, and 3} take advantage of existing public services and infrastructure in the most efficient way possible. Planning which promotes dependence an automobiles inevitably deminishes quality of life values. We are also guided by State land Use Planning Goal i 4 including the Factors to be considered fc~r establishment or expansion of Urban Growth Boundaries. Factors 1 and ~ deal with population and availability of land. The l...ocatipnal Factors which must be considered are: Factor 3. Orderly and ecanam~ic provision for public facilities and services; ~~ ~IC3V-3~ t~2 X7:46 FRLh3:HEAi~IRfATER~ 5~-4~~-7~8~ TC1:1591664~3~i4 PA~a~: p3 JCC~ letter page 2 Factor 4ti Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban ar+~a; Tract©r 5, Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; Factor ~, Retention of agricultural land...; Factor 7. Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities. Informati©n from the Department of Agriculture tells us that the value of Qregon's agriculture in 2t}4C~ was over $3.5 billion, up slightly from 1999. Lower returns for several commodities was offset by a 27 percent increase !fl t,:'t![.CFC il11[1 1;3311 M+CLCt(J/.~. iii tli~ iisi:, ~i tl~c 4V}.r Irv t;ui~7itiv~,aiiica iti~ c~'..VViJ, 2nd was cattle and calves, 4th was hay, and 1 flth was pears. Grapes are now number 1 ~' but it is interesting that this is a relatively new entry in Jackson County and we know of at least one big California wine producer who is looking for land in the valley. The poorer soils are often suitable for wine grapes. Agriculture is viable in the Rogue Valley if we don't cover the land with hawses. Finally, we cannot overstate the importance of utilizing the significant amount of land available inside the present IJG9s for infill and Brownfield conversion before attempting to enlarge any present boundaries. We will comment on each of the maps as shown in the RP5, in the order in which they appear in the maps. Mary-Kay Michelson, President ~~ ~~ ,~,~v-~~ u.t ~r r : ~~ rn~i~i. r~~~tuwr~ ~ ~~~ 5€3-482-7282 70;15416646384 pA~~: ~~ .ICCL Comments page 1 CENTRAL PC31NTlMEDF'QRC} CP/MD -1. We think the benman State Game Management Reserve should be buffered to the south and east placing the west boundary directly north of North Runway Rd and to the west by placing the north boundary along Gregory Rd. The staff comments about future value for housing near employment are sound but dependent on a very broad range of cooperative decisions and transportation changes« We believe Central Point UGB should be west of Table Rock Rd while Medford UGt3 should be on the east side. CENTRAL. PC3lNT {CP) CP -~ = This proposal is especially disturbing anti we strongly oppose it. To include it represents a leapfr©gging of development, which wilt ensure the eventual toss of significant class i and 2 soils between CP ~ and the present UGB. Long term preservation of prime and high value agricultural land should be a priority« We believe the area should became a containment area preserved as a nucleus for a possible new community extending north and alrarf intn tFin r+nn irrinatcxri cnilc ctzt't"€a tirY1A Itt tFtc. tiiet~r€t ~! if r IYFs - .. ,,,, . €€ 4€!C 4.U€!E!i€FI. t~C K°, f3 UGI.~GI ti lt!lGLl 4. tJ Fi lt^.INt.14~ 4~ i1 iiti s,,. i%,.%xfiriiaiie ski i,:ir.wi Ali kn~~. ii ~ ; fnEln~ut~_ T~-;nv~rn :c fir; a1L farm ~nr~i ~ ~nrr~ms~rri~E nrxrec~r'~~ nn~fh ~.k~t~:~ twM...`.sa t+r«~ axrM«k..-Fr. f--s.+tir r[M ir.a Arts«~~tt.Nex P'1 h..hitFh rhT M!"f Cx Rti'~LZdSArc+lr l1f.JGt u/.tll ittt €!t t".€t RfYf] _•~ r t7€l!j/ L.IIQ l44iEARE rti'ri.ilSiCllt.l.MrY rrrW~fctLt~C~F tlU{14h~~CFi~. a.LI ii~f~ IIT+4S~IV~CI~ fCS1~4t rYL Tw`4.~~.Yi...i :-Xr;t~,rlr: rhe- fr,rrt~ end fnre~st lands which rne#tc urn the larcxcr t~csrtion of this iVW4i'T~iir ~~-ar4sus: ~~ /""~ "~„ Y~.asr« ..'«v.ww hw.woi,Kik...w ~x~~~* ~ ~~m rvEAY'~f~ /~ ~}~.~~ ~.... t errs ee. .err t...+..:=roc-.«=s .. .r tt li 'l~Ht ~., EIMM!E { Ytfl iii it ~`~« .A iii l~~ii~ \i ElR F! i/1! i Et .t t[Ill r, T1lfE~ niltC"L it/f nifl if irfi t.t arifn. ncrwever, ~~is area wi~ici~ we wvuMU Cxr;ruu~ ~Grv~a da ~r uurr~r ctr ~.rr~ irrinat-ark farrr~ 1a~~r~ to t~ha cn~~t~t .~_.__,~ f;Cr ... 7y TI~,~ n~r,°r~h twrcra~r ~rcYy vzf CD '7 ~~ rrtisv~i~rre~irs-„.aia.ly ~~rrr~ I:sE !!~ ~ryf1 ~•rsse# die:~ a. rti ..•.« ` ri... ,-. ..+ sE.«.. a 1«. w«. ..n.«i.«.w: .. a: •i...«. ,.. r..ra t+-K .wwn.n r~a.i~ywrst i..ft.rYY!!!i!«~ KVau.V Ra <rrYT. VY~C~I,. tJa..SttYk.YG.r,e ~.r 4Yfti L~Y«„~~v,,.• r-~..•S. CP - 3r Thls s+-rrall tr~e~'JG~ of pfirrr~ rarrrr isrre~ 'MYC7UlS.~ kr~ ~sNNreaN~i;arr.~ tc;, iatis~y i;-€tV ttr;,a rit'i, ~nr nnan cnar='a nr r-tiark larxcl cin~ra it is itt the frPprluuau and is ,.. i........ ,... r -- - - «, ~urrour,dod by Central Roint'c city !'srnit~= ~~ ~~~-~a r~~ ~~. ~~ F~~r~: N~~~wa~~s ~©~-~~~-~~~~ -~a: a.s~z~~~~~~~ ~~a~~; cis JCCL comments page ~ CP -~, We have no objec~cian to this small inclusion, and believe that much at the already committed land in this general area to the west would be much mare su~fiable for fufiure develc~prnenx than some of the ~E'U lands being proposed. The cammixted area to the south and to the southwest up to tJld [[~~..... ....,. l..... t_t 1... ..! ...1..,,.1 L. .,,, r. r.~ i-L.n 1nn1.~ n.~ .-ir„+.vr rse-tin ::sn yar c,~sr^srti1~E T`h~ J€.CtR~G .7€€V!!i4€ €JG /I€4ttA~t,.+1trV uVt+p~.s•. vs i.Ri4 •wti..r. v. vv~RRV.,ew.v 1"'t"J' area further west of Dld Stage Road may require inclusion in Cenxral Poinx t sa'+ri t__ r..k... "t't. r. .....i€...« '«. /^'1'1 /t rn Ct.wwrr.,n f"'hwrnn +~'nrn w+~at # .nnrrt €„)1„~t7 ttJt LttC'i ~Cittt~G €~GP~i.7[€. € €€t°.. ,>~.+t1."7 ~€€ 4€ "F 1aEy s,+ct~svt: +rvu~w~.. vvr~sF.tJv a...v+urea class ~, CtJ Inches deep, and l~ubli ~.oarn class 3, 25-35 inches deep, which are suitable far annual crops. Nowevert commercial agriculxural w©uld be difficult due to parcelizatitin and roads. ~ ~` November 28, 2401 City Council Members City Hall Central Paint, 4regan Subject: Regional Prablesn Solving Report Creating a 54 Year Urban Reserve Dear Council Member, I am responding to the request from the RLRC recommendation to classify the area between 13oes subdivision and Cxebhard Road as part ofthe agriculture base. My property is in the mix located at 5333 Gebhard Road: on the corner of Wilson and Gebhard. I understand, based on soil type only, the RLRC, has made their decision to keep my property in the state agricultural base. If someone would have taken the tune to analysis my soil, they would have quickly recagnixed the only two acres ofte 18 is close to a class 4 soil, with the remaining being in sticky clay composition. The typographical map is incorrect. This parcel should never have been considered part of the states agricultural base. In 1994, the land Conservation and Development Commission determined who qualified for EP`I]. The rule states a farm dwellings needed to generate at least $80,444 in the last two years ar three of the last five. The $80,400 is gross income. If land is not able to meat these criteria, it is not subject to EJtU. In 22 years, I have never been close to making that amount. I farmed my property. Each year I showed a lass an the property. After the fourth year, the 1RS denied rtte, the privilege of Sling a farm return. Regardless of my efforts to make a profit, the Internal Revenue Service labeled my property a Hobby Harm. I have never cantri6uted to the local economy, state economy or national economy. Ivly land is not a parcel size big enough to be efficient far commercial production. The minimum parcel far commercial farmizxg is 80 acres. Sustainable agriculture farming practices is to meet the world demand for food. Let me assure you, my property could not produce enough food to feed the family that lived on the property through the harvesting season, 1"arming is a three-stool approach. One weak leg in the steal is unhealthy and economically inefficient approach to farming. The questions RLRC needs to ask its self 1} Is the property environmentally sound for farming? 2) Is the property economically viable to sustain human life? 3} Is the property socially responsive to fa~rning practice`? The answer to the above questions is a resounding Nt7l The land located at 5333 Gebhard is environmentally unsound to farm. The sail is the wrong, type, production is expensive and yields are very law. Law production and yields supports my argument that the property is not economic viable to sustain human life. 2~ Furthermore, with residential building going up all around my Land, trying to farm this land is a socially unsuitable to the graving eornmunity- All the requirements for farraaing are absent franc nay property. There are numerous studies in C}regan that supports the expansion of city UGB into secondary lands. Secondary lands are lands that are not goad for farming, ranching or forest lands. The critenia for determinin secondx land is: 1} A parcel has an existing; house 2} There is residential development nearby 3} Land is very small and is not good for farming or timber production. The property iacated at 5333 Gebhart meets each one of the above criteria The RLRC is suggesting the city adapt a "lealr from sarafvl"process when mapping out their LTGB. This is a costly approach to expansion. They are asking the citizensltaxpayer to absorb high cost of expansion to appease their own self-interest in lining their pockets. By overlooking the land between Boer subdivision and Gebhard Road, the committee members are tryrng to farce the city to develop a strategy used with Grant Road and Gibbon Acres. Perfect models for costly "leap frv~ sprmvl", to expansion. When a city is forced to determine their growth boundaries using rc "leap frog sprawl ~ashiort'; we the taxpayers end up absorbing the cast of creating new infrastructure to accommodate the new growth. The committee members need to be accountable far their suggestions. Let them absorb the cost of "leap frog snrawl'~ expansion- lr assure you, they would gingerly agree that there has been an error in the analysis ofhow the city should expand its Urban Growth Boundaries. The Center afUrban Studies has concluded the subdivisions built adjacent to existing facilities cast 2~°!0 less to serve with in restructure than vne bui'It in a IE ro s revel ashion. In addition to windfall cast saving to bath the City and the tax payers, responsible growth creates more affordable pausing with a cast saving of $l~,tlf?fl to ~i5,Q00 to the taxpayer. Responsible management of growth always promotes affordable housing- IIere is what ex erts in the industr have to sa aboat res onsibie rowth. "Oregon's growth-building legislation has successfully fostered affordable housing,... UGBs are an effective tool. UGBs create a decision system, making it clear to government offrcials, real estate developers, financial institutions, property owners and residents where development may occur. The concept has enabled communities to realistically plan expansion in services and infrastructure to support future housing needs while limiting urban sprawl and keeping housing costs down." L,artd use regulation earn in £act be a powerful force to reduce housing costs and red tape. Ira Oregon, it has done just that." In view a£the studies done on UGBs, it is important to pay attention to history and statistic versus "self-interest" on behalfaf a few RLRC corraxraittee members that would disrupt a proven process only to line their pockets. The city needs to be able to provide for its citizens adequate numbers ofhausing units at price rages and rent levels which are con--mensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households." The city should not be forced to participate in snob planning that provides direct economic interest for a few coxnnnittee members and prohibits affordable housing to the citizens. Annemarie Picallo September 7, 2001 Duane Madams 2855 Heritage Road Central Point, UR 97502 (541} 6G4-415 1Vlr. Bill Walton, Mayor City Hall 155 South 2~'a Street Central Paint, C?R 97502 Dear Mr. Mayar, This letter is in response to the request by the city of Central Point for comments on the Regional Problem Solving -Urban Reserve Planning far Central Paint. I am a life-long X55 years} resident ofthe Bear Creek 'Valley. For the past 27 years I have lived within the proposed growth area identified as Central Paint 4 {CP 4}. Because of dais, most of my comments will be directed to CP 4. I participated in the Regional Problem Solving process as a member of the Project Citizen Involvement Committee {pCIC}. For years now Central Point and Jackson County planners and government administrators have recognized that zt was a rarstake to allo~xr urban dcvelopnaen4 aza. floe valleys prince agricultural lands. Recent rhetoric from these same government officials has been that Central Point would na longer expand onto the agricultural lands to the west oftown. Yet CP 4 is an attempt to do just that. Look at the sails map for CP 4 and it is obvious that the vast majority of the area is irrigated class II and III soils highly suitable for agriculture. During the Regional Problem Salving process, the Resource Lands Review Committee {BERG) recognized its value when they designated the l5 acres parcel ofEFL1 land adjacent to Beall Lane as park of the resource base. This committee did not want CP 4 to become yet another "urban intrusion into resource lands." .Across Beall Lane from dais parcel of EFU land is a cammerciai cherry orchard and vegetable garden. To the north and northeast of the EFU parcel are several contiguous parcels of land ranging in size from 2.5 - 5 acres. Though not zoned EFU, they are ofthe same high value soil classes. Mother nature is not rapidly creating prime agriculture lands such as these overnight and once they are used for intensive residential development their use for agriculture is forever closed. Is dais how we want to utilize prime agricultural land? I think not. I am of the opinion that with the destruction and loss of agricultural lands worldwide, we are going to need land such as this. It may not be in the next 50 years, but it will happen. ~Vhy foreclose this option by additional residential development within CP 4 when other lands less suitable for agriculture and mare suitable for housing are available to the east and northeast of Central Point? During pCIC discussions about open space and EFU lands we heard a lot about the lack of adequate buffers between agricultural land and residential development. The lack ofbuffers has led to pressure to convert agricultural lands to subdivisions. Those knowledgeable about the topic recommended that buffers ranging frozz~ 1 SO -~ 20g feet within tl~e perimeters of subdivisions might be adequate to protect farming operations from neighbor's complaints. If one were to buffer all the EFU land adjacent to property on Blue Jay Lane, flak Pine Way, Heritage Road, and Green Acres Drive 6y extending a "no Build" Buffer 1 SO -- 200 feet into these areas, a substantial area within CP 4 would no longer be available for intensive residential development. Buffer the 15 acre parcel of EFU land identified by the RLRC as part of the resource base and you lose another substantial area within CP 4. Combine this with the existing residential development along Green Acres Drive, Palomino Drive, Freeland Road, Blue Jay Lane, Robin Lane, Heritage Road, and most of New Ray Road and flak Pine Way and tlxere is little area left in which to place new residential development. Certainly only a small drop in the bucket as far as what Central Point will need in the next 50 years and hardly worth the cost of retrofitting tl~e older development within CP 4. At the August 28, 2001 Public Meeting on urban reserve planxaing for Central Point, documents were presented that stated "Central Point is only considering this area [CP 4] because ofthe water problems it is experiencing." All lots within CP 4 get potable water from wells. To see what kind of well problems CP ~t is experiencin,l contacted the .Jackson County Water Masters office and they suggested I look at the Well Log Reports compiled by the state and available over the Internet. I searched the records for all tax lots within CP d from 1980 to the present. I felt this would provide a good indication of how many wells were drilled within the area through the numerous drought years during this period. The results: 1 well was reconditioned, 5 existing wells were deepened, and new wells were drilled on ] 1 separate tax lots_ Hardly a signifrcant eater problem over a 21'l-year period consider ing there ors a total of 127 tax lots in CP 4. Claiming that CP 4 has water problems and using this as a justification for intensive residential development is not a valid argument. It sounds to me as if a few people complained to the city over an extended period of time about having to drill new wells and the city concluded there were water problems in the area. Not so. Because ofthe prime agricultural soils within CP 4, the small amours: of developable land available within CP 4, the cost of retrofitting an old subdivision, the lack of major water problems in the area, and the availability of larger blocks of land more suitable for residential development to the east and northeast of Central Point, I believe Central Point should drop CP 4 from further residential development consideration. Sincerely, cc: Central Point City Council cc: Dr. Dave Gilmour, Central Point City Council cc: Tom Humphries, Central Paint Planning and Zoning Department cc: Jackson County Commissioners cc: Michael Cavallaro, RVCflG 44l l San Marino Drive Davis, CA 9561b Sept. s, zIX}l Planning Dept, City of Centxal Point ass south 2nd st. Central Point, C7R 97{}2-2~c1~ To Whom It May Concern: RE; 4.88 acre parcel located on Gebhard Road. Map 3?2WU2, Tax T of 400 l own a 4,88 acre parcel on Gabbard Road hand originally owned by my father, ~.~. Gabbard } which is adjacent to laud owned by the Jackson County Fairgrounds, This ~5 acre parcel is currently zoned. as Exclusive Agriculture which has left it (and me} in a catch-22 situation, Because of the agricultural classification, N4a H{~~(JSE can be built on it and it can only have agricultural usage. 'Wherein lies the problezrz. Because of its small size and because it is surrounded by housing developments, it is nearly impassible to find anyone willing to farm it, And, if it is not farmed, the tax basis is changed -- resulting in much higher tax base with, of course, no income, In fact, when l have found someone willing to faun. it, it is on a completely free (to them} basis so there is NEVER any income from this land. W bile f am generally in favor of preserving farm land, since this land car~nat be viably farmed, this situation seems counter-productive to everyane? Ta further complicate this situation„ land just across Gabbard Road to the east is currently being developed, resulting in a Ieap-frcigging situation rather than a prel"erable in-f 11 situation, It would certainly seem wise to include this piece of currently unusable land in the Urban Growth Baundary. Thank you for your consideration of this situation. Sincerely, ~ ~~~,~,~ l4"lxs, Meryllene ~Gebhard} Smith 3G Central Point Planzling Rcpt. ~ 1 _ ~ 9_0I Central Point, Oregon Attn: Tom Humphries Re: Future Urban Growth Boundary Please consider including the area between Gcbhard Rd. and Upton Rd., anal south of Wilson Rd. in the new Urban Growth boundary which is under consideration at this tine. i. This area is the closest to existing city limits 2. It has parcels of lazxd available that are more conducive for development, as they are large enough to support development in a practical and methodical way, Some properties bordering Upton and Gebhard are already lot size parcels. 3. Landis of marginal agriculture valise, as the soil is "heavy" Also it is practically impossible to farm these small acreages and make a living offof them agriculturally. 4. Domestic wells are drying up from surrounding developments, and city water is needed anyway. 5. Removing this area from the Irrigation District would free more water to agriculture producers in other areas that make a living agriculturally. G. Surrounding this area with city would reduce our property values as rural "country°° property. 7. Upton Rd. to Wilsozz Rd to Table Rock Rd is a natural and practical extention of the Urban Growth Boundary . Far the above reasons: closest, easiest; and most practical, ~ would like to see this area included into the future Urban Growth boundary now under consideration. 1 am submitting this in writing as I will be unable to attend your meeting 1.1-20-01. X was at the meeting held on 09-11-O1 and tried to convey my opinion at that time also. I would appreciate advanced written notice of any further discussion of this topic, so that I may attend and be kept current of the situation at hand. Respectfully Yours, Michael J. Collins 1001 Wilson Rd. Central Point, QR 97501 ~i: 2450 hSW Anthony Ct. McMinnviile, UR 97128-5449 November 20, 2000 Mr. fiozxr Humphrey, .Director City afCentral Poirn Punning Depar#nent i 55 South 2~ Street Centrai Paint, t?R 97502 Dear Mr. Humphrey: l am writing concerning the following properties: Tax iot 2100 owned by Caster Living Trust, Velma Caster, trustee Tax lot 2101 awned by Jahn and Todd Caster It is the owners' desire to have these properties, presently zoned exclusive farm use, included in the urban growth boundary afCentral. Point. There are several compellixrg reasons for not preservixrg this land as farm use oniy. Ta be v%abie as farm land, a property must have suitable soil types, location near markets, profitabie crops adapted fo the area, available c-peratars to farm the laud, absence of deterrents to farming sudr as proximity to pafen#ial complaints and road danger, and be of a size to be economically viable. l will address these paints one at a time, i. Soil types -- fifths mentioned qualifications, this is the only one that makes this land formable. My g rarzdmatlxer purd:;ased the far~u as an operating dairy. My €ather fanned here but was unable to create a profit and had to seek other employment. The land can grow pasture, gain, and hay craps but because of fhe heavy texture is not suitable to mast high vaiue crops, 2. Location near markets -- As the farming industry irr the Rogue Valley has deciined, so have the options for marketing crops. lion example, farm operators who have rented the land in the past have reified heavily on wheat as a crop. The wheat market is in Portland. Tire price cuxtentiy is well below cost of production and Rogue Valley farmers must pay transportation costs fo Portland. The rrumbe~r of craps available is severely limited by lack of markets in the valley. 3. Profitable crops available - My career for the last 2S years has been in working wiftr farm families in record keeping and business analysis. We have developed cost of production models for most major apiculture enterprises in Ckegon. Few have maintained a profit ever any length of time simply because agriculture is suffering from overproduction ofmosf craps. Most of the prafrtabie crops are grown under contrarx ar quota fexms and are simply not available fa Rogue Valley producers. As a footnote here, l would have gladly stayed on fhe home farm fo make ruy living had if been practical. Tire only reason T sought employment elsewhere was that I could find no way fo make a living on the fhrrn in quesfiion, 4. Available opera#ors - It has been. a struggle aver the years fo find c~a€aiipied farm. operators to rexrt t2cis land As farmers retire, their drildren, just like tne, see the necessity of going elsewhere for cnrployment. With few people iu the farming business, it is difficult fo find someone willing to travel to our farm, pay rent, and raise an unprofitable crap. Far the crap years of 1997 and i99$, the operator we thought we had finally looted was not able to produce and market a trap. We made a change in 1399 and have a very well qualified operator who has incurred a large expense in attempting to eleazt up the gourd and produce a crop but has been there two seasons now without one parrry of income to hittr or to us. When he retires or decides to give up the ground, we see no more passible operators in the area. t 5. Absence of detexrents to fa~rrreirtg ---There is a subdivision less Shan a mile to doe west of our land, school property directly across t#ie road, and several small acreage "habl~y Earns"nearby. This increases the passibility of nuisance complaints regarding spraying, noise, and dust from farming. Upton road is now a high traffic road eortreeci.ing +C~xttral Paint to high-dc~sity areas on Wilson and Table Rode Roads. This makes transporting farm equipnrtent dangerous, which. is a prime concern since any farm operator must travel to and fircxn the farm with all necass<~ty equipment, 6. Economical size -Even when profitable crops are available} the economics of fru~rning dictate that lager and larger acreages be farmed by one operator to sustain profit. t~tar acreage is small and not considered an economic unit by any standard. The small size also makes it difftcul# to farad an operator willing to incur flee exp~rase of traveling #a and from the acreage to faxrtt it, Anal crop spraying, far example, is impossible with small acreages every witexa ihey are not in close proximity to housing deveioprnents. Ta further emphasize the paints i have made shave, l have attached copies of my parents' federal schedule F from their tax returns for the years 1994 tltraugh 1996, tine last time a crap was produced, They show the fallowing "profit" fraw farming: 1994 ~-798.01 1992 ~ ~-81.00 1992 ~-878.00 1993 5-36'7.{}4 1994 ~-925.44 1995 ~-534.04 1996 ~-763.00 As 1 stated shave, farm operators far the years 1997 through 2444, farming on a crag share basis, have not lead a profit and there bas been no schedule F filed, My father, who had been managing the property far the faatxily, passed away in 1996 and ownership afhis par#ian has passed to my brother and myself 1 should mention that my father was a college graduate in agriculture and worked as a county agent prior to becoming a fall time faster, and was fully capable and had the desire to make the farm profitable. The shave figures shave what tine farm has produced under very competent management. Further lltiatdrartces to profitable farming which are sure to increase ~ rite nature are: increasing urban pressure on 3 sides of our property, increased regulation such. as DEQ standards for water duality placing a further ecxanamic burden upon farmers, continued averprodudiort afmost adapted craps in Ckegan resultixtg in further depressed prices, and dex;reasing arson-existent young pcx~tle staying in the farming business in the Rogue Malley. There are others. 1 realize first the public wishes to preserve farm land and fanning for many reasaats. 1 hope I have made it clear that this involves much mace Than just didatartg what individuals can and cannot da whit their own land. At present, my family is incurring considerable expense and sacrificing private property rights just to provide a nice view for those who have akeady cartverted land to other, mare ecactamical acrd practical uses. This sacrifice we are making has not iat any way preserved farming in the valley. It continues to be our expense far others' benefit. Tc€, summary, i# is na# xealis#ic #o think tlia# preserving farm Land is,~ust a matter afxaning. None ofthe other fac#ors needed are present, Res#rictin~, our abitity to manage our property is asp e~€trenzety unfair az~€d expensive burden. I would hope #ha# all concerned individuals and coz€zmittees €nave rapidly #o correct this inequity. Sin ely, 3 n E. Caster Repxesen#ing Todd, 3ahn, and Velma Casta- 1'hone 503-47.E-695 laax 42S-9S~-8103 Email: johncast@gte.ne# ~~ CAC Caxnrnents Received franx Navembcr 20'" Area CP-1 It would be better to maintain a rxrral j~rst impression in the vicinity of Seven Oaks lntercl~ange and Ericson Air Crane. This area is viable far urbanization due to the lack of goad farm ground {its just rock}. The location of the highway and railroad also limit its usefulness for agriculture. Some believed it should be earmarked far residential and commercial development while others thought it would be a better location for limited industrial uses to add to Central Point's inventory. It is the only Rogue Valley off=ramp on I-S that is not developed and should be in order to connect 1-5 with Crater Lake 1-lighway. Area CPw2 Consistency is the best policy and east side properties that are too small to farm should be included in the Urban Reserve Boundary. hifteen acres is not economically viable. isolating small areas inside of the City {surrounded by the City} will have an adverse effect an both farms and urban {mostly residential} development. The majority of audience was from this area and believe that sail maps are questionable and that their local knowledge suggests that Class 1 & 11 sails may not be. All preferred to be in the candidate growth area. Be careful to avoid a `hop-scotch' development pattern. ~t~e should keep development `tight' and cohesive in order to take advantage of utilities and infrastructure and minimize impacts to agriculture {comment also applied to outlying areas CP-1 and CP/Ml~-1}. Statistics were cited and the statement was made that it is less costly to cities to keep urbanized areas tight. Area CP-3 The RPS group should consider using a more natural boundary instead of a property line, Area CP-~ The small area shown in red shouldn't be excluded from. this area because it doesn't make sense given the tax fats and houses that have been built around it. Regional Pz•oblenx Sc~ivitag Upon I~orzse Connmezrts At~gEist 28`x` axed September 11''' Area CP•-1 has depicted on RF5 maps} The 1-lidden Valley Ranch (owned by the Morris Bxothers) is 880 acres and should be a candidate for development as its value for fanning is questionable. Exercise caution when expanding the urban reserve so as not to merger with Gold Hill. Don't create strip commercial uses. Maintain Central Point's own identity. This area has potential as a regional shopping and employment center. Infrastructure in this area appears to be in place. Expanding into this area would be politically unacceptable and be considered `urban sprawl'. The Feasibility of farming is becoming an economic question. Oregon Administrative Rules {flARs} call for more parks, open space and school sites. The puzpose ofour state resource land use laves is to protect farm and forest land as resources for people in the LONG TERM, The current economic problems with farming in this country should not be an excuse to pave it . Future ,generations may need the land for food supply some day. Developing Seven-Oaks commercially would kill Downtown Central Point for sure and would inevitably lead to sprawl from Central Point to Gold Hill. it would be much better to infill and redevelop along Front Street and. Highway 99. Area CP-2 The red area south of Wilson Road should be left in the urban. reserve area. Smaller tax lots and hobble farms are not economically viable. The poorer soil areas here would be the most logical for development in order to keep Central Point as centrally developed (i.e. not sprawled out} as possible. Vernal Pool areas could be maintained as park. The area between the freeway and the airport would be most sensible for commercial and industrial development. City of Central Point Special N~eeting of the Central Point Citizen's Advisory Committee Minutes Tuesday, N©vem~er 20, 2001. I. 1Vleeting Called to C.}rder II. Roll Call: Herb Farber, Chairman; Rick Perry; and prospective men~zbers; Peg Wiedman; Damian ldiart; Sam Inkley. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; Ken Greschler, Community Planner; Matt Samitore, Community Planner and Dave Arkens, Planning Technician. III. Review of Carnmittee Purpose and Operation, CPMC 2.17.05Q Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, explained briefly the purpose, scope, and operation of the Citizens Advisory Committee making a point to explain who can be members of the Committee and that the Committee typically meets four times per year. There was discussion about members of the Committee stating a conflict of interest before discussing issues. Herb Farber, Chairman, and Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, agreed that any conflict of interest should be stated by Committee members before the discussion. of issues. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, stated that a Comprehensive Plan would be available to each member at the next CAC meeting. IV. P~xblic Appearances There were no public appearances. V. Business A. Review and Consideration of the Regional Problem Solving Report Creating a 50 Year Urban Reserve and Evaluation of Prospective Growth Areas Around Central Point. Tom Humphrey briefly explained the history ofthe Regional Problem Solving process and the establishment ofurban reserve areas in the Rogue Valley. Mr. Humphrey also gave an overview of comments made from two previous RPS Qpen House meetings from August 28'x' and September l lt~' along with a suz~zmery of a Gity-wide survey. The CAC began its discussion by looking at each proposed growth area separately. Area CP-1 ~~ 2 It would be better to maintain a rural f rst itn~r~ssiatz in the vicinity of seven Oaks Interchange and laricson Air Crazze. This area is viable for urbazzization due to the lack of good farm ground {its just rock}. The location of tlYe highway and railroad also limit its usefulness far agriculture. Same believed it should be earmarked for residential and commercial development while others thought it would be a better location for lizr~ited industrial uses to add to Central Point's inventory. It is the only Rogue galley off ramp on 1-S that is not developed and should be in order to connect I-5 with Crater Lake Highway. Area CP-2 Consistency is the best policy and .east side properties that are too small to farm should be included in the Urban Reserve Boundary. liifleen acres is not economically viable. Isolating small areas inside of the City {surrounded. by the City} will have an adverse effect on both farms and urban {mostly residential} development, The majority of the audience was froze this area and believe that soil maps are questionable and that their local knowledge suggests that Class I & II soils may not be. All preferred to be in the candidate growth area. Be careful to avoid a `hop-scotch' development pattern. We should keep development `tight' and cohesive in order to take advantage of utilities and infrastructure and minimize impacts to agriculture (comment also applied to outlying areas CP-1 and CP/MD-1 }. statistics were cited and the statement was made that it is less costly to cities to keep urbanized areas tight. ,Area GP-3 The R.P~ group should consider using a more natural boundary instead of a property line. Area CP-4 The small area shown in red shouldn't be excluded from this area because it doesn't make sense given the tax lots and houses that have been built around it. After discussing each proposed area, the CAC arrived at several conclusions: Area CP-1 The Committee questions its inclusion in Central Paints l..Trbarz Reserve due to its distance from the City of Central Point. The Committee believes that it may have more regional than local significance although it may be a good location for additional industrial land which the City needs more of: It should not be as high a priority to the City as other candidate growth areas. Area CP-2 The consensus ofthe Committee is that tl~e farm-land identified by the RLRC {i~~ red} is not as valuable or economically viable as believed. `I'he red areas should not be excluded from the candidate area outlined in brown but buffers between urban cases and fanning operations should be considered. Area CP~3 The Committee believes that this area is a natural extension to the UGB and should be added. Area CP-4 The Committee believes that this area should be brought into the [1GB as an inbll site but with some funding mechanism to upgrade the infrastructure. The 15-acre parcel identified in red should not be excluded from the candidate area and could be considered as a prospective park site. New Area The Committee believes that the City's UGB should be redefined north of Taylor Road so that it follows Grant Road all the way to Scenic Road. There are multiple small parcels between the existing UGB and Grant Road north of the first 90 degree turn that are not economically viable as farm. sites. CP1MD-1 The Committee did not have a specific opinion about this area but agreed that it was too far removed from Central Point's core. B, Identify and Schedule Candidate Planning Projects for Committee Consideration, l.. Conceptual Development Plan for Scenic Middle School Neighborhood, 2, Conceptual Development Plan for Srookdale Gardens Neighborhood. 3. Jackson County EXPO Amphitheater Concept Plan, These items were discussed very briefly by Tom Humphrey, but due to the time they will be discussed in more detail at the next CAC meeting. VI. Miscellaneous The names of prospective CAC members will be presented to the City Council for Consideration. VII, Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 9:(}(} PM. ~.xr~.~i~~~tt ~.~,. ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~CV~ PAGE ~1/~1 3~AR ~~~~~ ~/AGLEY Al~~~ARY A.UTHtJ1~~TY 38tLC ~OUTti PACIFEC HWY. ~ I~rS1[CNOMI~F ORCtiOFS 97S4i1-fl09A ~ (tF41) Calf-!l49~ . ~#41J 779»8144 1~AX tlW1} a~6-l127lt y vrww.6cv~~.ptig I~ccer}~.bet~ 3, 2041 ~,en Gerschler Cit~r ofCen#~'aJ: Point Planr~.ing Depax~xraent I SS South ecaz~d Street Ce~.tral Point, 4regoz~ 975{}2 :~2.e: ~4ginbotha~,a ~'s~xtation, 3'~2WUI.I3~ -- 300 Sear Ken, Sewer service to the existizxg house is provided by a sczvice line which cc~z~nects to ti7.e maitx line in I~Iew ~Iavexz ~{oad to the Southwest of the subject ~rraperty. Tbis line bisects the Proposed Parcel 1. The final plat should include ~ easez-nent dedicated to Paxccl 2 fox this service line if it is to remain in service. Sewer service to Parcel I may be provided by ~xtendiz~g a service Tine to the amain lines in I~Iew haven ~t.oad ax Hawthorne Way, to the Northwest, ax by extending ~e main line froze Nt;~v Maven Way to Haxz~ricl£ 12.aad and then to the s~zbject property. The e~cisting service lane catuxot be used to serve barb parcels. fox the extension of service lixaes the applicant will need to obtain an easement from a neighbor and aper~~it frozz~ BCVSA. Por ~e ~rnain line extension the applicant will need to retain an engineer to design the e~-tcn.sion. There will be development fees due for ar~y new connectzo~. Please have the applicant ct~zatact ECV`SA, far mare inforzx~ation regarding sewer service requirements. Sincexe~~> Carl. 'T'appert, P.E. District Engineer Ce: Scott & Teri 1-Tiginbothaxn 4}57 Hamrick Raad Ce~.tral Point, Uh. 97502 I:IDATA~AGE~1~`ClES1CENTPTIP~...ANNG1~'ARZ`ITI4NIHICrIN~{7TPIA~I PA~.TI'~'1C3N.IJ(.~C