Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeb 6, 2018 PC packetA CENTRAL CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA February 6, 2018 - 6:00 p.m. I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members, Mike Oliver (chair), Tom Van Voorhees, Craig Nelson Sr., Kay Harrison, Amy Moore, Jim Mock, John Whiting. IV. CORRESPONDENCE V. MINUTES Review and approval of the January 2, 2018 meeting minutes. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to discuss a Conceptual Land Use and transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Areas CP -5 and CP -6 and to make a recommendation to the City Council. Applicant: City of Central Point. VIII. DISCUSSION IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS XI. ADJOURNMENT I City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes January 2, 2018 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:04 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners, Mike Oliver, Amy Moore, Tom Van Voorhees, Jim Mock and John Whiting were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Don Burt, Planning Manager, Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES John Whiting made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 5, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. Jim Mock seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; John Whiting, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES Larry Martin, Taylor Road Mr. Martin said he had reviewed the Regional Plan and noted the performance indicators for CP -Sand CP -6. He said there had been a lot of concern regarding the buffer strip depicted on the map at the December 5, 2017 meeting. He said the buffer strip would not come into the scope of the performance indicators and therefore should not be included in any concept plan. Tom Humphrey explained the purpose of the Conceptual Plan. He said the material provided to the Commissioners in December included input from citizens and staff. He added in February the Commissioners would have more information and would be able to make an informed decision with regard to the Concept Plan. They would either recommend it to the City Council as presented or they could recommend it to the Council with amendments. He said the Council would decide what was in the best interest of the City and would adopt the Plan with a resolution. (Planning Commission Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 2 VI. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing, Land Use Element (working draft), City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan. Applicant: City of Central Point Mike Oliver read the rules governing quasi-judicial procedures. There was no conflict of interest, ex parte contact or bias on the part of the Commissioners. Don Burt said the last Land Use Element was done in 1983. He described it as a ledger of land in the City which tracks land use activity. It consists of two parts, the text and the map. He explained the text addresses the purpose and scope of each land use classification and sets forth the City's goals and policies for the management of its land use system. He stated the Land Use Element was closely tied to the Population Element and he explained its relationship to the other Comprehensive Plan Elements. He said it covers a period of 20 years, from 2018 to 2038. Mr. Burt stated the purpose of the Plan Map is to assign a specific land use to each property within the City's urban area (City limits plus Urban Growth Boundary). He reviewed the percentages of the different land use classifications within the city and said the City was committed to maintaining an average density of 6.9 dwelling units per acre. He explained the Land Use Goals and Policies and the changes being made. He said they included Changes needed to reflect prior land use activity; Changes necessitated by recent policy; and Changes that are recommended to provide more flexibility in the land use process. He said the changes would simplify the City's zoning and remove any redundancy. Mr. Burt explained how the Land Use Element was tied to the Regional Plan and the other Elements. He reviewed the performance indicators in the Regional Plan that governed the Land Use Element. These included a committed residential density; a requirement for mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas; a conceptual transportation plan, and a conceptual land use plan. He said preserving a small town feel was important. Mr. Burt said the residential acerage needs and the density requirements were set by the Housing Element. He reviewed the densities and said the residential goals were to ensure livability and environmental quality, to support a variety of densities for all residents of the community, to preserve the value and character of older neighborhoods and to encourage innovative residential planning to increase land use efficiency. He reviewed the changes to the current commercial zoning and said the goal was to create a strong commercial sector that is attractive and easily accessible and which meets (Planning Commission Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 3 the needs of the local area. He said in 1999 a study was done of the Downtown and East Pine Street but was never adopted. Tom Humphrey said although the plan had not been formally adopted, the City had used the study as a guide when making some significant decisions over the years. Mr. Burt stressed the importance of maintaining good traffic and pedestrian circulation in the downtown area. Mr. Burt said for the most part the Map is little changed from the existing Map, but there are some changes which need to be noted which include Changes addressing mapping errors. Changes proposed by others. Changes needing to be addressed due to changing conditions Changes to the Commercial District. He reviewed the areas on the map that would be impacted. He reviewed the Commercial, Industrial and Civic policies and goals. He summarized how the parks and recreation/open space designations interfaced with the other elements. He said they should be located near centers of activity with higher densities surrounding them. He reviewed the overlay districts which included an airport approach area, the TOD overlay, flood overlay, and the Central Business District overlay. The Commissioners said the references in the Land Use Element to specific sections of the Regional Plan were confusing. They thought the document should stand alone. Mr. Burt agreed to change the language to make it more clear. Public hearing opened Tom Humphrey read a letter from The Fair Housing Council of Oregon commending the the Land Use Element and urging the Planning Commission to recommend it to the City Council. He added that the City and Mr. Burt would be formally recognized in February for their efforts to improve housing affordability. Larry Martin, Taylor Road Mr. Martin said he was representing four property owners on Taylor Road. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Burt's work and recommended forwarding a favorable recommendation of the Land Use Element to the City Council. He added that Mr. Burt mentioned that PSU's growth projections for Central Point were 1.1 percent average annual growth rate which was significantly below the past projections. He said bringing in developable property from CP -5 and CP -6 would help increase the growth average. (Planning Commission Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 4 Public Hearing was closed Jim Mock made a motion to approve the Land Use Element per the discussion and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Amy Moore seconded the motion. Tom VanVoorhees said the growth percentage was actually targeted at 32% over 20 years. He added that breaking that down to a yearly percentage did not portray a complete picture because the target was the long range growth. He said at this time the City was preparing the infrastructure for that targeted growth over a period of 20 years. Mr. Burt said that growth could only happen when the Urban Growth Boundary was increased to take in more developable land. He added that strategic development was an important factor in the growth of the City. Mr. Oliver stated for the Commissioners that a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council would include the language changes previously discussed. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; John Whiting, yes. Motion passed. VII. DISCUSSION A. Mr. Humphrey gave an update on current City projects. He said the Citizen's Advisory Committee would be discussing traffic control at the intersection of Beebe and Hamrick at their next meeting. They would be evaluating a traffic signal vs. a roundabout. He added that they would also talk about the Parks and Recreation Element Mr. Humphrey showed drawings of the Brodiart project on Front Street and said the excavation was in progress and the plans had been submitted. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to adjourn. John Whiting seconded the motion. All members said "aye". Meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: File No. CP -17001 CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT February 6, 2018 Planning Department Tom Humphrey,AICP, Community Development Director Public Hearing to discuss a Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Areas CP -5 and CP -6 and to make a recommendation to the City Council; 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 (UGB) into an urban reserve area (URA) it is necessary to adopt conceptual land use and transportation plans for the affected urban reserve. The City received a request to add parts of URA, CP -6 to the City's UGB in order to create additional housing. The City Council responded to this request by passing a Resolution of Intent to initiate a UGB Amendment. Since that time city staff has prepared a combined conceptual plan for URAs CP -5 and CP -6 and we have also updated the Central Point Housing Element and the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. City staff conducted two public meetings at the Citizen's Advisory Committee in order to receive land owner input about future land uses and to finalize a concept plan that satisfies the requirements of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan.httas-./liacksoncountygr.ore(DesktopModulesfBriWamind/DMXIAPI/Entrie&,Downigad?C9mmand=Core Download &Entryld=37695&fang! jM=en-US&brrtalld=l 6&Tabld=1460 When the City adopted a Regional Plan Element to its Comprehensive Plan in 2012 it agreed to a residential/ employment/park land split in the Regional Plan (76%, 4% and 18% respectively). The City also agreed to an average residential zoning density of'6.9 units per gross acre of land. The City is bounded on the north and the west by important farm land and therefore Central Point was expected to plan wisely and efficiently when creating concept plans. Once the Concept Plan is accepted and approved by the City Council it will be used in applications for UGB Amendments with Jackson County and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). ISSUES: Public Comment on the CP -5/6 Conceptual Plan was received during the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings on October 10`s and again on November 10. A number of county residents interacted with City staff and some residents sketched their own ideas for conceptual land use plans. These plans were introduced to the Planning Commission at their December meeting. The original staff concept and various citizen alternatives resulted in a final planning staff alternative which was intended to reflect CAC and citizen consensus. That alternative is described as follows and is illustrated below: Concept Plan Land Use Map (CAC) This rendering was revised from the staff's original proposal and shows land use areas in larger masses with less specific relationships to tax lots. The circulation plan is changed with new collector streets limited to the north with intentional connections to the Twin Creeks development. Park areas are generalized using circles until the new Parks Master Plan can be revised and the tax lots in CP -5/6 identified for better park placement. An open space buffer is shown in the southern most park circle to reflect the wishes of county residents and CAC consensus. High density residential land uses (apartments, mixed uses, etc.) are introduced along Grant and Taylor Roads. Medium density residential land uses in the southeast corner of this URA were changed to low density land uses to better represent the low density county zoning. Agricultural buffers are shown and would be implemented on the borders and the farm interfaces of this URA. Page 1 of 7 There is a strong sentiment by the majority but not all of those who reside or have property south of the old County Race Track that they would prefer to be left out of the UGB and not have new residents around them driving through their neral neighborhood. It's likely that the completion of the new Twin Creeks Railroad Crossing later this year will improve vehicle circulation now and in the future but this will be the subject of traffic analysis at the time of UGB Amendment. At the direction of the Planning Commission staff obtained comments from affected agencies including Jackson County, Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVSS), the City of Central Point Public Works and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Comments were received in writing and orally during conferences with some agencies. Comments received resulted in changes now reflected in the Concept Plan (Attachment A) which has been redistributed to Jackson County and the RVMPO for follow-up review. The maps shown below illustrate land use changes dictated by a closer review of the performance indicators that the City is subject to in the Regional Plan. These performance indicators, staff's findings and conclusions can be found in Attachment A starting at Page 15 of 22. Perhaps the most critical of the performance indicators is the City's Target Residential Density of 6.9 units per gross acre (Pages 16-18 of 22). Planning staff analyzed committed residential densities using a variation of the CAC concept shown below and came up with only a 6.2 unit per acre total. Consequently some land use densities were increased along Taylor Road and south of the old County Race Track to bring the total to 6.9 units per gross acre. Planning staff also created a separate Transportation Concept Plan (below) to illustrate and explain new road extensions/connections. Changes to the Concept Plan were made with the understanding that some people would be unhappy with the outcome and that it would seem that public input is being ignored. I will remind the Commission that; 1) the City is obligated to honor its commitment to the Regional Plan, 2) the Concept Plan is a general guide, and 3) the designations the City places on property in this plan do not change the County zoning or force county residents to come into the UGB. Staff has also received additional written input from County residents, conducted meetings and answered questions at the counter and over the phone. Agency and resident comments can be found in Attachment B. Staff has identified an area of concern below the old County Race Track. Residents living within the southern portion of CP -6A have expressed concern about the impacts of potential future development immediately north of the Area of Concern boundary. Specific concerns include noise, lighting, view obstruction and nuisance conditions arising from new urban development. Staff has developed some policies in Attachment A (Page 5 of 22) for the Commission to consider in their recommendation. Management agreements with Jackson County are typically used to address issues in the urban -rural interface. CONCLUSION: This item is returning to the Planning Commission after having received additional input from public agencies and private citizens and after staff conducted more analysis of the plan's compliance with regionally accepted performance measures. In order to comply with the Regional Plan, the City must assign an urban land use designation to all of the land in the URA and do so using the categories and percentages to which the City and County agreed (Attachment A). The average residential density (6.9 units/acre) to which the City committed is met in the land use concept map. The Performance Indicators serve as findings that support the concept plan. City land use designations only become effective at the time of a UGB Amendment and only then when they are initiated at the request of property owners. Once the new Parks Master Plan is revised, the City will have a better idea about the number, size and characteristic of the parks that are needed and these can also be worked out at the time of a UGB Amendment. Page 2 of 7 CENTRAL �^ T POINT N A Concept Plan Land Use Map (CAC) Legend ••^•-^• Staff Transportation Alternative 3 C3Parks Target Areas (Per Master Plan) - Agricultural Buffer Page 3 of 7 CIVIC Low Density - Commercial Medium Density - High Density - Open Space (Citizen Preferred) CP -5A and CP -6A Concept Plan CP -6A CP -6A -- cityllmits LIGB - Streams 2 AIN •• �.�Y as ��r� al r. (Notes are expanded for reading on following page) Page 4 of 7 9 land Vii Conew CP -M and CI -GA CaioW Plan r 10 d C tD N �a N W I� N CL ' u l0 � � m I tC 4 u m o a s— . o L � d 00 r4 01 U c Q .o 0 ro -- — Q v CL � 00 � E � a ; o 103 __ a o ' m �I c M at j C a � ri v L N "�. C � A 0. v� a L w m u C 0 U ro C u s mLl 0 co i� O N N 00 tttTTTf � c p a i m 'y T t m� v N 2 m u � u c c 0 � ,� io � 'tA � • 4`� v � M C OAC cl �+ d In C , i C 3 C � m •� o � .� °' v� m Cl M m� II s ..� v u U 0-6 0 r+ ri �epu®p�say 'so 1wwSo�mw� 10 � �m Ea V> � +d+ O d1.� Q = X a ami ro'cn $ o vw °'LSM cm o�•rn� E o� v c v$ �ao0 1��`tl 3 C V°"co QO Om °� c�N �cO Ea�o-0 c E:S=00Na: ° CLE N N U) N N c E E °cc°1co w :5CZ ��a°8 E- ioa�i zz or -)"g aFm E c U , > d r o LL —Mcu O c vco t a�N�N N O y X N > > � v, 3 c� c Q tV.0oc$mm C �a IR I� N CL ' u � � m 4 u � �m Ea V> � +d+ O d1.� Q = X a ami ro'cn $ o vw °'LSM cm o�•rn� E o� v c v$ �ao0 1��`tl 3 C V°"co QO Om °� c�N �cO Ea�o-0 c E:S=00Na: ° CLE N N U) N N c E E °cc°1co w :5CZ ��a°8 E- ioa�i zz or -)"g aFm E c U , > d r o LL —Mcu O c vco t a�N�N N O y X N > > � v, 3 c� c Q tV.0oc$mm 'W�cfiif� ........ r�- (See `Attachment A' Page 18 of 22 for Detail) Page 5of7 m N Mild thn Concept M&A wd CP-" Conwpt Plan CENTRAL POINT Transportation Conmpt CP -&A and CP4A Concert Plan (Notes are expanded for reading on following page) Page 6of7 12 n..P—o— r rrroru er.&Varrrr F. -MA -ft 0— r`."•,ir�.rr�r.rr..���.�.��,..�.. —ar. . r.�...rr. �e..w+..r�..rr.�. W...�..r.�.r.r —lei ...-.M.1 —W./may ••- Y.rrt.�r.WY/....Y�.NrWWrr.Nrr.�.r�ru.. � �/r•FMi�ir UrO�r.�Orl � S•r.rr.^�rrr+�M.r.K�rrw..�� rrYyr�r�.rrrr� � Yr.i^fir+rte (Notes are expanded for reading on following page) Page 6of7 12 C _cuZT tT a)U o" ...c rdEcc�i _ . CD c W o N p E �Fo C] o o -ao _ , V �L«-c.Q U oo �� ai.s O N N O O Q t" -O CC �~ UCL O w C4 o ^ ra O V C v3 U L v, c co _ �° a a ar C7 N C C C U] C7} U a � D t D 01 � pUj � ,C U O '^ S C C C p o ca N a� c� - L � �- .r0 o m U3 1 U3 o c cx�;a L.L Up c Q ._ N t � Z o $ cv ui cn us UL) V �z� �c ccn��-a o au)x oo m,ccoi � � rncs� Urn cvc .a��'3-a M M U cancaro tn" �vasZaxa w Hca a�rn� ��ac�a LO °-0"- E 5, E E_ � Q N c' cs a Q C 7 :_. rd p [7 D d d U o C a (D m Q Cc, o o o�Q�m oC°�0 EM o . a Qca- `- - oa Mad7v,0 U rd CD r6 r6 U) C N M a a a' ai ro N Q a v c� v �� U y CL ns a.w� c� i� arnt7caa0) Mc 3 awU �°'r°'n-a:E- a 0 a0 a> o w o o � -0 co _ c M F rnC7 -a)o v NDc Q } [� rna A M (D t 7 c ry C 3 3 a � (D Lr9 a - 0-0 LD 0 Q G O ], C a Qom} a] N C a CD U C C -0 CO U D U X 7 3 Q 7� p5 U) ❑ o c NU -vU m -0-0 a L] 0 p N m N 4s •'p C 0- D C a U p (] C d] MQ LUtil N Ute} C D E cn d7 E C0.2 Q) C 0 Z r D Q H C\1 h� Q M H N V- U CL NO b 13 EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A — Grant Road Area Concept Plan draft for CP -5/6" Attachment `B — Agency/Citizen Input" Attachment "C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 851" ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and discuss the draft Conceptual Plan and 1) support it as presented; or 2) support it with revisions. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 851 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the CP -5/6 Concept Plan. Page 7 of 7 14 ATTACHMIE T Friday January 26, 2018 Draft GRANT ROAD AREA CONCEPT PLAN A CONCEPTUAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR CP -5/6 AN URBAN RESERVE AREA OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT City of Central Point Adopted by City Council Resolution No. , March, 2018 Page 1 of 22 15 PART 1. INTRODUCTION As part of the Regional Plan Element' it is required that the City prepare and adopt for each of its eight (8) Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) a Conceptual Land Use Plan' 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 as the CP -5/6 Concept Plan ('Concept Plan'). Figure 1 illustrates CP - 5/6's relationship to the City and the other URAs. Ak CENTRAL POINT Legend ® UGB Figure 1. central Part Urban Raaerve%Ar" As used in this report the term 'concept plan' refers to a document setting forth a written and an illustrated set of general actions designed to achieve a desired goal that will be further refined over time as the planning process moves from the general (concept plan) to the specific (Urban Growth Boundary Amendment, annexation and then site development). In the case of CP -5/6 the goal is to satisfy the Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan land use distributions, the target residential densities the City agreed to and the applicable performance indicators that are part of the monitoring and implementation process. The Concept Plan also provides the basis for collaborating with the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, applicable irrigation districts, Jackson County and other affected agencies. The areas of CP -5 and CP -6 are combined in this document given their proximity to one another and because of CP -5's small size. ' City of Central Point Ordinance 1964 Z City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1 Performance Indicators, subsection 4.1.7 3 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1 Performance Indicators, subsection 4.1.8 Page 2 of 22 16 The concept plan is a general land use guide prepared in accordance with the City's Regional Plan Element. It does not address compliance with the Oregon Statewide Land Use Planning Goals or the applicability of land use planning law. These items will be appropriately addressed as all or part of the URA is proposed for inclusion in the City's Urban Growth Boundary. Annexation, zoning, site plan approval, and ultimately development are intended to be guided with the Concept Plan in mind. The Concept Plan illustrates the City's basic development program for CP -5/6; 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 City's Regional Plan Element and Jackson County's Regional Plan including all applicable performance indicators set forth in these documents. The development concept for CP -5/6 compliments and supports local and regional objectives relative to land use distribution, target residential densities and needed transportation corridors identified in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. PART 2. THE CONCEPT PLAN The long-term plan for CP -5/6 is to satisfy Central Point's future growth needs and to serve as an urban -rural interface between town and country, maintaining the City's unique identity. The area is currently occupied by small farms and home sites which are generally west of the current city limits on Grant Road. The Concept Plan is comprised of two elements: a. Conceptual Land Use Plan (`Land Use Plan') The purpose of the Land Use Plan is to demonstrate how target residential densities will be met in the future and how the conceptual land uses will be consistent with general land use distribution in the Regional Plan. The City's Regional Plan Element identifies land use types in general as residential, employment, parks and open space, with a percentage distribution for each. The percentages agreed to in CP -5/6 are residential (76%), employment (4%) and open space/park (20%). Employment land can include two categories in this case: commercial and civic. The Concept Plan for CP -5/6 refines these allocations by aligning them with the appropriate Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning designations in the City's Page 3 of 22 17 Comprehensive Plan. Those designations are illustrated in Figure 2a, and tabulated in Table 1 as follows: Residential. The Comprehensive Plan's residential designation is intended to 'provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the diverse needs of the City's current and projected households'. Land Use is broken down into three categories. • Low Residential; • Medium Residential; and • High Residential If. Employment. The Comprehensive Plan's commercial designation is intended to actively promote a strong, diversified and sustainable local economy that reinforces Central Point's 'small town feel', family orientation and enhanced quality of life. Civic uses and convenience centers meet immediate needs in neighborhoods and reduce out of arga.vehicle trips. Ili. Parks and Open Space. This Comprehensive Plan designation is consistent with agricultural buffering in the Regional Plan Element and allows for the continued use and improvement of irrigation systems and natural drainage. It also provides opportunities for passive recreational/open space use. g1.5 (1895) Fa.rkJ45 Park/Open Spam Prlvalie/Pualic 503.5 [10096) J:J� b. Conceptual Transportation Plan ('Transportation Plan') The regionally significant transportation documents affecting CP -5/6 are the Central Point Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Concept Plan acknowledges these plans (Figure 2b, CP -5/6 Concept Plan) and includes policies that encourage the thoughtful development of the URA and surrounding properties. Page 4 of 22 18 c. Implementation Guidelines The following guidelines are intended to serve as future action items: Policy CP -5/6.1 Land 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 -5/6 Concept Plan, Figure 2a. Policy CP -5/6.2 Transportation: At time of inclusion in the City's urban growth boundary the local street network plan, road alignments and transportation improvements and jurisdictional transfers identified in the Conceptual Transportation Plan and in other state and local plans and agreements will be implemented. Policy CP -5/6.3 Urban Reserve Management Agreement (URMA) and Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA): The City will periodically revisit mutual agreements with Jackson County in order to address the proliferation of'cannabis grows' in:proximity to urban residential land uses and the impact of new urban development upon existing/established 'county' neighborhoods. The City and County will continue to coordinate land use activity within planning boundaries. Policy CP -5/6.4: Committed Residential Density: Upon UGB Expansion into CP -5/6 the county zoned residential land (e.g. RR and UR -1) will remain valid in 'less dense' subdivisions. Once annexed, land will be changed to City zoning and redevelopment will be encouraged to support the residential land use densities agreed to in the Regional Plan. Policy CP -5/6.5 Parks and Open Space: Areas highlighted in the CP -5/6 Concept Plan, Figure 2a represent general location, type and size of future parks recommended by the Central Point Parks Master Plan and will be designed and approved by the City at time of development. The use of Irrigation easements will be pursued as bike and pedestrian paths where feasible. Policy CP -5/6.6 Forest/Gibbon Acres Unincorporated Containment Boundary: The City and Jackson County have adopted an Area of Mutual Planning Concern for the management of Forest/ Gibbon Acres. Policy CP -5/6.7 Agricultural Mitigation/Buffering: At time of UGB Expansion into CP -5/6, 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 5 of 22 19 U" U" cmcw IMT CP -6A and CP-MC"mW Plan :Wa Wrd•y - iar rr� fir! "d Page 6 of 22 20 r' Tmrmporwm Cwww cP-QA and CRM comm Pon Uwmd ir+.�dr �rrrrOwy 21 WMr...r w..... �...r.rr+.....r-r..r.r.�. ..wry....... r.�� .:�.. W.�::.:.."" Page 7 of 22 Nt r Sm . _• 1. ' ;i� 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 -5/6 in its current condition. Natural Landscape: CP -5/6 is traversed by various creeks and waterways east and west of grant road which bisects the two URAs. Various ponds and wetlands have formed along the creeks and some are independent from them. Topographically, the land in CP -5/6 is flat but gently scoping "to the north/northeast. In spite of the numerous creeks, ponds and wetlands present in the URA, there are relatively few tax lots that are subject to the flood hazards as shown in Figure 4. The 31 acres that make up CP -5 are most affected by flood hazards which reduce the total buildable area to roughly 19 acres. Those areas that are subject to flood zones will be required to perform mitigation. Cultural Landscape: CP -5/6 is oriented to the west of the current city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary which is Grant Road. The preponderance of land in the URAs is Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and is irrigated by the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District (RRVID). Active farming is done west of Grant Road consisting of grazing, truck crops and now cannabis. Other land (approximately 150 acres) in the URA has been subdivided into rural residential lots (Figure 5) some of which are served by the Rogue Valley Sewer Service (Figure 6). No city water has been extended into these URAs. b. Current Land Use Designations & Zoning Jackson County zoning acknowledges the unique geographic features of CP -5/6 by designating land for both agricultural and residential uses. The area's proximity to the Central - Point UGB and the city limits make it plausible and convenient to extend city infrastructure and services in this direction. The existing county land uses and zoning are shown in Figure 5. Page 9 of 22 23 Ak CENTRAL POINT a� :AFP /fUp Y.d�� f7q� Legend V1 Floodway _1 CP -5A 1 CP -6A '- AE A _ tf 24 Figure 4. Flood Hazard Urban Reserve Area CP-6A/6A Concept Plan Page 10 of 22 CENTRAL POINT r- r CP. i Lwmd ZONE I IC RR- 0 UR -1 AR ' LI - RR -2.5 UR -10 ARS LU - RR -5 - UR -30 EFU NC RR -50) UR -8 ;FR CSR RRS WR OC RL RB a RR -00 SVRS Figure 5. Zoning MUGS Urban Reserve Area CP-5A/6A Concept Plan 4o' IVo— If. N11111164ISV„A- h II A44004AIB COMIOIANICRIBCWMIIi-q Page 11 of 22 25 c. Existing Infrastructure Water Currently, public water service is not available to CP -5/6, and will have to be extended from the Twin Creeks Development, Taylor and Grant Roads. Sanitary Sewer CP -5/6 is in the RVSS service area and some sewer lines have been extended into the Residential areas south of Taylor Road (Figure 6). More lines will have to be extended to the area. Storm Drainage CP -5/6 does not have an improved storm drainage system and relies upon natural drainage and drainage from road improvements to channel water to various creeks. Street System CP -5/6 is accessed via Scenic Road, Taylor Road and Beall Lane from the east and the west. Grant Road runs north and south and forms one boundary of the two URAs. These roads are primary collectors and others roads are envisioned to be built in order to promote better internal circulation (see Figure 2) and to relieve demand on existing roads that may ultimately have capacity limitations. Irrigation District CP -5/6 is located within the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District (RRVID). Irrigation water is transferred via canals, laterals and some natural means. Most of the land in these URAs is irrigated (see Figure 7). Page 12 of 22 26 Ak CENTRAL POINT Legend Waterline Mains Rogue Valley Sewer Services 27 Figure 6. Utilities Urban Reserve Area CP-5A/6A Concept Plan Page 13 of 22 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 2 identifies the primary Performance Indicators applicable to the CP -16 Concept Plan. Table 2 Performance Indicators Specific to Conceptual Plans Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement Minimum Residential Density Standards X Conceptual Transportation Plan X� Conceptual Land Use Plan X Land Use Distribution X Mixed Use/ Pedestrian Friendly Areas X CP -1B, IAMP Requirement X CP -4D, Roadways Restriction Central Point URA, Gibbon/Forest Acres X Regional Land Preservation Strategies X Urban Growth Boundary Amendment X Land Division Restrictions X Cluster Development X Land Divisions & Transportation Plan X Rural Residential Rule X Greater Coordination with RVMPO X ' City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1 Performance Indicators Page 15 of 22 29 Preparation of ConceptuWlrangkortgion Plan ® Protection of Planned Transportation X Infrastructure R = rtd�ir Supplemental Transportation Funding X Expo X Park land X e. Applicable Performance Indicators The following addresses each applicable performance indicator per Table 2. It should be noted that the numerical assignments to performance indicators differ from those in Jackson County's Regional Plan however the performance indicator wording is the same. References to the County's Plan will be cited in the following findings and conclusions. 4.1.5. Committed Residential Density (JC ref 2.5). The City has designated land within this URA to a regionally agreed to Dwelling unit Per Gross Acre minimum of 6.9. Offsets for increasing residential densities within the city limit (in order to reduce URA densities below 6.9) have already been exercised. Finding: The City has followed through with its commitment to the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (GBCVRP) by assigning residential land use designations in this conceptual plan that achieve 6.9 units per gross acre. Conclusion 4.1.5: Complies. 4.1.6. Mixed Use/Pedestrian Friendly Areas (JC ref 2.6). For land within a URA (or within a UGB outside the city limits), each city shall achieve the 2020 Benchmark targets for the number of dwelling units (Alternative Measure No. 5) and employment (Alternative Measure No. 6) in mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas as established in the most recently adopted RTP. Finding: The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) lists a 49% mixed-use dwelling unit target and a 44% mixed-use employment target for new development by 2020.The land use categories in the CP -5/6 Conceptual Plan can be developed to create walkable/ mixed use neighborhoods that are anchored by activity centers. There are two conceptual activity centers proposed (see Figure 2a). These are characterized by medium and high density residential land use and employment centers (i.e. School and Mixed-Use/Commercial). Conclusion 4.1.6: Complies. 30 Page 16 of 22 4.1.7. Conceptual Transportation Plans (JC ref 2.7). Conceptual Transportation Plans shall be prepared early enough in the planning and development cycle that 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 (JC ref 2.7.1). 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). Finding: The regionally significant transportation corridors within CP -5/6 are County roads consisting of Beall Lane, Grant, Taylor and Scenic Roads. The transportation concept proposes Grant Road partial relocation to minimize flood hazard and facilitate road widening. The final alignment will be determined based on a traffic study and public participation at the time of UGB expansion as necessary. Two city collector streets, Twin Creeks Crossing and North Haskell Street, are expected to be extended into the URA and connect with the new Grant Road alignment in the future. The City will collaborate with the local irrigation district in an effort to create interconnected bike and pedestrian paths where irrigation canals and laterals are undergrounded. Conclusion 4.1.7.1: Complies. 4.1.8. Conceptual Land Use Plans (JC ref 2.8). 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 (JC ref 2.8.1). The Conceptual Land Use Plan shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate how the residential densities of Section 4.1.5 (JC ref 2.5) will be met at full build -out of the area added through the UGB Amendment. Finding: As illustrated in Table 3, the committed residential density in the CP - 5/6 Concept Plan is consistent with that presented in the Regional Plan Element. Page 17 of 22 31 Table - Land Use Designation Gross Acreage Minimum Minimum Densi DU Yield Proposed Density Low Density Residential 126.5 4 505.9 1.3 Medium Density Residential 222.9 7.5 1671.6 4.2 High Density Residential 44.7 12 536.5 1.4 Residential Totals: 394.1 1 2714.0 6.9 Commercial 5.2 0 0 Civic 12.7 0 Employment Totals: 18.0 Parks and Open Space Totals: 1 91.61 1 0 TOTALS: 1 503.6 5428.08 6.9 Conclusion 4.1.8.1: Complies. 4.1.8.2. Land Use Distribution (JC ref 2.8.2). . 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, which applies to the following URAs: CP -113, CP -1C, CP -4D, CP -6A, CP -213, MD -4, MD -6, MD-7mid, MD -7n, PH -2, TA -2, TA -4. Finding: As illustrated in Table 4, the proposed land use distributions in the CP - 5/6 Concept Plan are consistent with those presented in the Regional Plan Element. Conclusion 4.1.8.2: Complies. 4.1.8.3. Transportation Infrastructure(JC ref 2.8.3). 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 -5/6 Concept Plan (see Finding 4.1.7). Page 18 of 22 32 Conclusion 4.1.8.3: Complies. 4.1.8.4. Mixed Use/Pedestrian Friendly Areas (JC ref 2.8.4). The Conceptual Land Use Plan shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate how the commitments of Section 4.1.6 above will be met at full build -out of the area added through the UGB Amendment. Finding: The required mixed-use/pedestrian friendly areas per 4.1.6 are included in the CP -5/6 Concept Plan (see Finding 4.1.6). Conclusion 4.1.8.4: Complies. 4.1.9. Conditions (JC ref 2.9). 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 -5/6A. Conclusion 4.1.9.5: Complies 4.1.10. Agricultural Buffering (JC ref 2.10). 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 of the 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 -5/6 abuts EFU zoned lands along two sides of its borders (see Figure 5). There are some instances where buffering will be facilitated by natural stream channels and public rights-of-way. Some buffering has been shown in the Concept Plan (see Figure 2a). In all cases, during the design/development phase, the City will implement its adopted Agricultural Buffering Ordinance to mitigate potential land use conflicts. Conclusion 4.1.10: Complies. 4.1.11. Regional Land Preservation Strategies (JC ref 2.11) Participating jurisdictions have the option of implementing the Community Buffer preservation strategies listed in Volume 2, Appendix V of the Regional Plan or other land preservation strategies as they develop. Page 19 of 22 33 Finding: County residents in CP -6 have identified an 'area of concern' south of an old racetrack where there could be an urban -rural interface between property developed to City residential densities and property already developed to county residential densities. There are no Critical Open Space Areas (COSAs) as listed in Volume 2, Appendix V of the Regional Plan but the City will be sensitive to ways to create land use transitions once property is brought into the UGB and then proposed for development. Community buffering was actually intended to make distinctions between Cities by 1) preserving regionally significant open space and 2) emphasizing individual community identity. Conclusion 4.1.11: Complies. 4.1.12. Housing Strategies (JC ref 2.12). Participating jurisdictions shall create regional housing strategies that strongly encourage a range of housing types throughout the region within 5 years of acknowledgement of the RPS Plan. Finding: Central Point is currently participating with other Rogue Valley jurisdictions in developing a regional housing strategy and is meeting separately with the consultant to fine tune the City's policies and affordable housing development tools. In the meantime the City updated its Housing Element to reflect the proactive measures already taken to supply a range of housing types in Central Point. The Housing Element has been acknowledged by DLCD and has also been praised by Housing Advocates. The City's commitment to higher densities and more efficient land use is reflected in this Concept Plan. Conclusion 4.1.12: Complies. 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 City has prepared this Conceptual Plan anticipating the receipt of proposals for UGB Amendment. Approval of the plan will make the City compliant with the Regional Plan and the priority system of the ORS and OAR. Conclusion 4.1.13: Complies. 4.1.16. Population Allocation (JC ref 2.16). The County's Population Element shall be updated per statute to be consistent with the gradual implementation of the adopted plan. If changes occur during an update of the County's Population Element that result in substantially different population allocations for the participating jurisdictions of this Regional Plan, then the Plan shall be amended. Page 20 of 22 34 Finding: The City updated its Population Element in 2016 following the Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County, 2015-2035 prepared by the Population Research Center. The PSU forecast replaced the requirement for population forecasts to be based on a coordinated county forecast (HB 2253). The Conceptual Plan has been prepared using the new state forecasts. Conclusion 4.1.16: Complies, 4.1.17. Greater Coordination with the RVMPO (JC ref 2.19). The participating jurisdictions shall collaborate with the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Organization (RVMPO) to: 4.1.17.1.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 ir>.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. Finding: The RVMPO Technical Advisory and Policy Committees determined that Conceptual Plan CP -5/6 complies with the Regional Plan Part 3- Goals, Policies and Potential Actions, The MPO voted to endorse CP -5/6 and to support its implementation. Conclusion 4.1.17: Complies. 4.1.18. Future Coordination with the RVCOG (JC ref 2.20). 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 -5/6 Concept Plan was prepared in collaboration with the RVCOG. Conclusion 4.1.18: Complies. 4.1.21. Park Land (JC ref 2.17). For purposes of UGB amendments, the amount and type of park land included shall be consistent with the requirements of OAR 660-024-0040 or the park land need shown in the acknowledged plans. Page 21 of 22 35 Finding: The City is updating its Parks and Recreation Element and has incorporated the recommendations of a parks consultant to identify Community and Neighborhood parks in the Conceptual Plan. The park land is factored into the land use distributions referenced in Section 4.1.8.2 Conclusion 4.1.20: Complies. 4.1.22. Buildable Lands Definition (JC ref 2.18). Future urban growth boundary amendments will be required to utilize the definition of buildable land as those lands with a slope of less than 25 percent, or as consistent with OAR 660-008-0025(2) and other local and state requirements. Finding: The City is updating its Land Use Element and has used the definition of buildable lands consistent with OAR 660-008-0025(2) in the preparation of this Conceptual Plan. Conclusion 4.1.22: Complies. Page 22 of 22 36 ACH 0ZmNT 99-0-9p Planning Department STAFF REPORT CENTRAL Tom Humphrey, AICP, POINTCommunity Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2018 To: Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Director From: Justin Gindlesperger; CFM, AICP; Community Planner II Subject: Central Point Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) CP -5A and CP -6A As noted in the Concept Plan for CP -5/6, a portion of the URAs are affected by the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Jackson Creek flows along the eastern boundary of CP -6A and bisects CP -5A, with the majority of flood hazard affecting CP -5A. The SFHA is identified by FEMA and shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the City of Central Point. Areas of inundation include Zone AE, which are areas of the 1 -percent annual chance flood, and the regulatory floodway. Chapter 8.24 of the Central Point Municipal Code establishes the standards for any development proposed in the SFHA within City limits. The URAs are not within City jurisdiction, nor is development proposed at this time. Future development, including mitigation efforts to remove portions of CP -5/6 from the floodway or floodplain, are required to comply with the standards of Chapter 8.24 at the time these areas are within the jurisdiction of the City. Additional permitting may be required from State or Federal agencies. Page 1 of 1 37 AX Parks & Public Works Department CENTRAL - POINT STAFF REPORT January 8, 2018 AGENDA ITEM (File No. CPA -17001): Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan ("Concept Plan") for CP 5A/6A. Applicant: City of Central Point Traffic: Matt Samitore, Director The proposed Concept Plan shows the extension of existing Arterials and Collectors. Additional analysis of the conceptual relocation of Grant Road's will be needed to determine if the proposed density warrants an arterial or collector. Depending on the results, the Transportation System Plan (TSP) may need to be updated. Existing Infrastructure: Water: There are existing water mains adjacent to the CP -5A and CP -6A urban reserve areas (URAs) that will need to be extended into the area with annexation, see Attachment A. Streets: Ciiiientiy Grant, Beall and Scenic are all designated as collectors within the City's TSP. Stormwater: Prior to annexation, the Stormwater Master Plan will need to be conducted to master plan storm sewer within the developable areas. No City storm drains exist near the subject areas. Issues: 1. Public Utilities — Prior to annexation, the Water Master Plan and Stormwater Master Plans shall be updated to determine the location and size of needed facilities. 2. Open Space Buffer — Parks is not in favor of the open space buffer as currently shown on the Conceptual Land Use Map. In order to be included within the City's Park and Open a detailed trail and active park system would need to be planned so that a cohesive safety and maintenance plan are included. This needs to be done as part of an application for master plan, land division and/or site plan and architectural review in accordance with the Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Parks Master Plan and zoning regulations relative to parks and open space sizing, location and design. 3. Transportation System Plan — The Transportation System Plan may need to be updated to incorporate the extension of existing arterials and collectors. Additional analysis should be done as part of the conceptual plan to determine the size and needs of the revised Grant Road and if any additional roads will need to be upsized to handle the traffic from development of the area. This will be required as part of the UGB amendment. 4. Public Utility Easement (PUE) — Prior to Annexation private utilities should be included to detail how to extend services into the areas and move them from existing rights of ways. 140 South 3'd Street • Central Point, OR 97502 •541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 38 �i JACKSON COUNTY Roads December 20, 2017 Attention: Stephanie Holtey City of Central Point Planning 140 south Third Street Central Point, OR 97502 Roads Engineering Kevin Christiansen Construction Manager 200 Antelope Road White Olty, OR 97503 Phone: (541) 774-6255 Fax: (541) 774.6295 christke@jacksoncounty org www jecksoncounty org RE: Conceptual Land use and transportation plan for Central Point Urban Reserve Areas CP -5 and CP -6A. Planning File: C135 and CP -6A Dear Stephanie: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Conceptual Land use and transportation plan for Central Point Urban Reserve Areas. Jackson County Roads has the following comment: 1. Jackson County Roads supports the Land use and transportation plan for Central Point Urban Reserve Areas. If you have any questions or need further information feel free to call me at 774-6255. Sincerely, Gd �+/�rr.F"lire Kevin Christiansen Construction Manager I:\Engineering\Development\CITIES\CNTRLPT\CP-5 & CP-6A.docx 39 June 19, 2017 ROGUE VALLEY SEWER SERVICES Location: 138 West Was Road, Central Point, OR - Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3130, Central Point, OR 7502-0005 Tel. (541) 664-6300, Fax (541) 664-7171 www.RVSS.us Stephanie Holtey City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: CPA -17001: CP -5A / 6A Concept Plan Dear Stephanie, The existing sanitary sewer system is accurately shown on Figure 5 of the Concept Plan. Sewer service for future development will require the extension of sewer mains. There is adequate capacity to serve the proposed density. Most of the area is outside of the stormwater MS4 boundary, however it will be brought into the boundary when it is annexed into the City. Future development will be required to meet the stormwater quality standards outlined in the regional Stormwater Quality Design Manual. Feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely Carl Tappert, PE Manager K:\DATA\AGENCIES\CENTPT\PLANNG\COMP PLAN AMENDMENT\2017\CPA- 17001.DOC 40 c A r�� ...... .... ANTOME J. PEDERSEN 4269 GRANT RD CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502-0309 164 4-M 41 ( '14 i r A r�� ...... .... ANTOME J. PEDERSEN 4269 GRANT RD CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502-0309 164 4-M 41 Stephanie Holtey From: LINDA SHIPLEY <LindaShipleyl@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:33 PM To: Stephanie Holtey Subject: Public Hearing - Draft Concept Plan for CP-5A/6A Good morning Stephanie, We wanted to check with you to see if another meeting has been scheduled with the Planning Commission to discuss the Land Use Element and the Conceptual Plan for CP5 and CP6. We have heard that the Conceptual Plan was going to be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of February 6th. We had asked that we be notified when a meeting or hearing was scheduled but as of today, January 30, we have not received any notification. We again want to submit our objections to the proposed extension of North Haskell Street through our property at 2653 Scenic Avenue to connect with Scenic Avenue as we believe it will have an adverse affect and lessen the value and use of our property. We ask that any proposed road be located to the far west end of the urban growth boundary so as to minimize the negative effect on us as well as other current residents. Please consider this communication as our written comments regarding the subject plan and we request they be submitted as our response and opposition to the proposals. Thank you, Ray and Linda Shipley From: LINDA SHIPLEY Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 7:32 PM To: Stephanie Holtey Subject: Public Hearing December 5, 2017 - Draft Concept Plan for CP-5A/6A We are Linda and O.R. (Ray) Shipley and our property is located at 2653 Scenic Avenue, Central Point which is located within the proposed Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Areas CP -5 and CP -6. Please consider this communication as our written comments regarding the subject plan and we request they be submitted as our response and opposition to the proposals. We have reviewed the Conceptual Plan. We do not want to be included within the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary and we have no desire to be brought into the Central Point city limits. 42 We are specifically opposed to the proposed extension of North Haskell Street through our property to connect with Scenic Avenue as it would have an adverse affect and lessen the value and use of our property. We also are requesting to be notified of any further meetings or hearings and any decision made by the Planning Commission and City Council. Thank you for your consideration. O. R. (Ray) Shipley Linda R. Shipley Property Address: 2653 Scenic Avenue, Central Point, Or 97502 MAILING ADDRESS: 8205 S. W. MARINERS DRIVE, WILSONVILLE, OREGON 97070 E-mail Address: Lindashipleyl@msn.com Phone: (541) 944-3214 or (503) 694-8537 43 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dan and Louise Sakraida 2785 Scenic Ave Central Point, Or dan@catholiclector.com DATE: 1-29-18 SUBJECT: Input regarding the urban growth boundary 1. We recently learned that input regarding the extension of the urban growth boundary had been under discussion for multiple years at the county level. According to the county the decision regarding urban growth boundary has already been finalized. We were never informed which prevented us from sharing our input and concerns. We are deeply concerned with this apparent lack of transparency regarding decisions made that have profound effect on our property. We have owned the property for over 30 years. We are aware of the importance of responding to county notices as Louise was deeply involved in preventing the rezoning to rural residential over 20 years ago. 2. We would again remind you this is PRIME FARMLAND of the highest quality that will be forever lost to future generations. We again ask you to focus on land that is not suitable for farm use. 3. Regarding the tentative road through our property. This road would have a major impact on our way of life. If we cannot prevent this process we ask that you relocate the road to the far west end of the urban growth boundary so as to minimize the negative effect on current residents (see map attached). You might consider a roundabout where our proposed road would meet the Scenic and Seven Oaks junction. 4. We are also opposed to the park at the north end of the proposed plan. 5. We request this letter be included as part of the public record. Respectfully, Dan an' Louise 5 Ma 44 J r 21 L" �'�"'� �.�. ■,,,,,,..., ..,.r -- 4!jLurg 2. CwqW Pla t hopes" `rte CP -5A and CP40 w wlpsom Cw w "PRO m aw■w Concept Plan rr 0 M fir'" WW Ar*nal • • •. • p+MW CWMM1M V"5 WOOM ON Oft ��`� ftler /AM I.. N.Ar I f • • f • • i ■ R • r ■ ■ • •pig J r 21 L" �'�"'� �.�. ■,,,,,,..., ..,.r -- 4!jLurg 2. CwqW Pla t hopes" `rte CP -5A and CP40 w wlpsom Cw w "PRO m aw■w Concept Plan rr 0 M fir'" WW Ar*nal • • •. • p+MW CWMM1M V"5 WOOM ON Oft ��`� ftler /AM I.. N.Ar Central Point Planning Commission Central Point City Hall 140 South 3`d Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Dear Commissioners, We, the owners of the Brock, Higinbotham, Martin, and Wiedman properties that are members of the Taylor Road West group, want to express our support for the Concept Planning process for CP -6A in which you are involved. Completing the concept plan is an important step towards our properties being considered as an addition to Central Point's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The conceptual transportation planning that is included in this concept plan is its most valuable part. It is important that the City identify regionally significant transportation corridors so that they can be protected until the time that they need to be turned into roads. Another important part of the conceptual transportation plan is to assure connectivity throughout the urban reserve area, even in the areas that are not expected to develop for several decades. Another important part of the conceptual planning process is to meet the Performance Indicators of the Regional Plan related to target residential density, land use distribution, and mixed use/pedestrian X riendly areas. It is worth noting that nowhere in the performance indicators does it mention that the concept plan should include specific siting of parks or open space. This would happen at a later stage of the UGB Amendment process. It is understandable why some of our southerly neighbors would like to see a 200' buffer strip designated on our land, but that would clearly be outside of the scope of what should be in a concept plan. Also, that buffer strip would be a major obstacle to transportation connectivity. Additionally, any acreage taken up by a buffer strip would make it more challenging to meet the density requirements and also would take acres away from parks that are more centrally located and universally accessible and attractive to residents of the city. We do want the residents that live south of us to know that we support their desire to remain in the county and understand that they will only be brought into the UGB at the time of their choosing. We are also submitting into the record a concept plan for Taylor Road West that we authorized and funded in 2009. It gives you a good idea what we envision for the next addition to the City's UGB. Please keep in mind while reviewing this old concept plan that we will be working with City staff to make revisions that will meet the City's current requirements regarding densities, parks, and agricultural buffers that are specified in the Regional Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your service to the citizens of Central Point. Sincerely, Elizabeth Wiedman, Wiedman Family LLC, 3817 Grant Rd., Central Point, 97502 Date 46 Central Point Planning Commission Central Point City Hall 140 South 3'd Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Dear Commissioners, We, the owners of the Brock, Higinbotham, Martin, and Wiedman properties that are members of the Taylor Road West group, want to express our support for the Concept Planning process for CP -6A in which you are involved. Completing the concept plan is an important step towards our properties being considered as an addition to Central Point's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The conceptual transportation planning that is included in this concept plan is its most valuable part. It is important that the City identify regionally significant transportation corridors so that they can be protected until the time that they need to be turned into roads. Another important part of the conceptual transportation plan is to assure connectivity throughout the urban reserve area, even in the areas that are not expected to develop for several decades. Another important part of the conceptual planning process is to meet the Performance Indicators of the Regional Plan related to target residential density, land use distribution, and mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas. It is worth noting that nowhere in the performance indicators does it mention that the concept plan should include specific siting of parks or open space. This would happen at a later stage of the UGB Amendment process. It is understandable why some of our southerly neighbors would like to see a 200' buffer strip designated on our land, but that would clearly be outside of the scope of what should be in a concept plan. Also, that buffer strip would be a major obstacle to transportation connectivity. Additionally, any acreage taken up by a buffer strip would make it more challenging to meet the density requirements and also would take acres away from parks that are more centrally located and universally accessible and attractive to residents of the city. We do want the residents that live south of us to know that we support their desire to remain in the county and understand that they will only be brought into the UGB at the time of their choosing. We are also submitting into the record a concept plan for Taylor Road West that we authorized and funded in 2009. It gives you a good idea what we envision for the next addition to the City's UGB. Please keep in mind while reviewing this old concept plan that we will be working with City staff to make revisions that will meet the City's current requirements regarding densities, parks, and agricultural buffers that are specified in the Regional Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your service to the citizens of Central Point. since ely, Tim Higinbotham Nancy Higinbotham Date 270 la -110 r 9J, Ceiifr-a i pvi n f , OR 47 Central Point Planning Commission Central Point City Hall 140 South P Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Dear Commissioners, We, the owners of the Brock, Higinbotham, Martin, and Wiedman properties that are members of the Taylor Road West group, want to express our support for the Concept Planning process for CP -6A in which you are involved. Completing the concept plan is an important step towards our properties being considered as an addition to Central Point's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The conceptual transportation planning that is included in this concept plan is its most valuable part. It is important that the City identify regionally significant transportation corridors so that they can be protected until the time that they need to be turned into roads. Another important part of the conceptual transportation plan is to assure connectivity throughout the urban reserve area, even in the areas that are not expected to develop for several decades. Another important part of the conceptual planning process is to meet the Performance Indicators of the Regional Plan related to target residential density, land use distribution, and mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas, it is worth noting that nowhere in the performance indicators does it mention that the concept plan should include specific siting of parks or open space. This would happen at a later stage of the UGB Amendment process. It is understandable why some of our southerly neighbors would like to see a 200' buffer strip designated on our land, but that would clearly be outside of the scope of what should be in a concept plan. Also, that buffer strip would be a major obstacle to transportation connectivity. Additionally, any acreage taken up by a buffer strip would make it more challenging to meet the density requirements and also would take acres away from parks that are more centrally located and universally accessible and attractive to residents of the city. We do want the residents that live south of us to know that we support their desire to remain in the county and understand that they will only be brought into the UGB at the time of their choosing. We are also submitting into the record a concept plan for Taylor Road West that we authorized and funded in 2009. It gives you a good idea what we envision for the next addition to the City's UGB. Please keep in mind while reviewing this old concept plan that we will be working with City staff to make revisions that will meet the City's current requirements regarding densities, parks, and agricultural buffers that are specified in the Regional Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Thank you for your service to the citizens of Central Point. Sincerely, %7 James Wiedman, Wiedman Family LLC, 3817 Grant Rd., Central Point, 97502 Date 48 Central Point Planning Commission Central Point City Hall 140 South 3rd Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Dear Commissioners, We, the owners of the Brock, Higinbotham, Martin, and Wiedman properties that are members of the Taylor Road West group, want to express our support for the Concept Planning process for CP -6A in which you are involved. Completing the concept plan is an important step towards our properties being considered as an addition to Central Point's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The conceptual transportation planning that is included in this concept plan is its most valuable part. It is important that the City identify regionally significant transportation corridors so that they can be protected until the time that they need to be turned into roads. Another important part of the conceptual transportation plan is to assure connectivity throughout the urban reserve area, even in the areas that are not expected to develop for several decades. Another important part of the conceptual planning process is to meet the Performance Indicators of the Regional Plan related to target residential density, land use distribution, and mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas. It is worth noting that nowhere in the performance indicators does it mention that the concept plan should include specific siting of parks or open space. This would happen at a later stage of the UGB Amendment process. It is understandable why some of our southerly neighbors would like to see a 200' buffer strip designated on our land, but that would clearly be outside of the scope of what should be in a concept plan. Also, that buffer strip would be a major obstacle to transportation connectivity. Additionally, any acreage taken up by a buffer strip would make it more challenging to meet the density requirements and also would take acres away from parks that are more centrally located and universally accessible and attractive to residents of the city. We do want the residents that live south of us to know that we support their desire to remain in the county and understand that they will only be brought into the UGB at the time of their choosing. We are also submitting into the record a concept plan for Taylor Road West that we authorized and funded in 2009. It gives you a good idea what we envision for the next addition to the City's UGB. Please keep in mind while reviewing this old concept plan that we will be working with City staff to make revisions that will meet the City's current requirements regarding densities, parks, and agricultural buffers that are specified in the Regional Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your service to the citizens of Central Point, Sincergly, - -� �IC� GGA � C -.t �LC�L` � ` . 'L�LL�`'�Jr'���� ���G � �' • l 'C' ' I Robin Weiss, Wiedman Family LLC, 3817 Grant Rd., Central Point, 97502 Date 49 Central Point Planning Commission Central Point City Hall 140 South 3`d Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Dear Commissioners, We, the owners of the Brock, Higinbotham, Martin, and Wiedman properties that are members of the Taylor Road West group, want to express our support for the Concept Planning process for CP -6A in which you are involved. Completing the concept plan is an important step towards our properties being considered as an addition to Central Point's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The conceptual transportation planning that is included in this concept plan is its most valuable part. It is important that the City identify regionally significant transportation corridors so that they can be protected until the time that they need to be turned into roads. Another important part of the conceptual transportation plan is to assure connectivity throughout the urban reserve area, even in the areas that are not expected to develop for several decades. Another important part of the conceptual planning process is to meet the Performance Indicators of the Regional Plan related to target residential density, land use distribution, and mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas. It is worth noting that nowhere in the performance indicators does it mention that the concept plan should include specific siting of perks or open space. This would happen at a later stage of the UGB Amendment process. It is understandable why some of our southerly neighbors would like to see a 200' buffer strip designated on our land, but that would clearly be outside of the scope of what should be in a concept plan. Also, that buffer strip would be a major obstacle to transportation connectivity. Additionally, any acreage taken up by a buffer strip would make it more challenging to meet the density requirements and also would take acres away from parks that are more centrally located and universally accessible and attractive to residents of the city. We do want the residents that live south of us to know that we support their desire to remain in the county and understand that they will only be brought into the UGB at the time of their choosing. We are also submitting into the record a concept plan for Taylor Road West that we authorized and funded in 2009. It gives you a good idea what we envision for the next addition to the City's UGB. Please keep in mind while reviewing this old concept plan that we will be working with City staff to make revisions that will meet the City's current requirements regarding densities, parks, and agricultural buffers that are specified in the Regional Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your service t the citizens of Central Point. Sin�eref�, 1-17-11 t)%ra McGrath, Wiedman Family LLC, 3817 Grant Rd., Central Point, 97502 Date 50 Central Point Planning Commission Central Point City Hall 140 South 3rd Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Dear Commissioners, We, the owners of the Brock, Higinbotham, Martin, and Wiedman properties that are members of the Taylor Road West group, want to express our support for the Concept Planning process for CP -6A in which you are involved. Completing the concept plan is an important step towards our properties being considered as an addition to Central Point's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The conceptual transportation planning that is included in this concept plan is its most valuable part. It is important that the City identify regionally significant transportation corridors so that they can be protected until the time that they need to be turned into roads. Another important part of the conceptual transportation plan is to assure connectivity throughout the urban reserve area, even in the areas that are not expected to develop for several decades. Another important part of the conceptual planning process is to meet the Performance Indicators of the Regional Plan related to target residential density, land use distribution, and mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas. It is worth noting that nowhere in the performance indicators does it mention that the concept plan should include specific siting of parks or open space. This would happen at a later stage of the UGB Amendment process. It is understandable why some of our southerly neighbors would like to see a 200' buffer strip designated on our land, but that would clearly be outside of the scope of what should be in a concept plan. Also, that buffer strip would be a major obstacle to transportation connectivity. Additionally, any acreage taken up by a buffer strip would make it more challenging to meet the density requirements and also would take acres away from parks that are more centrally located and universally accessible and attractive to residents of the city. We do want the residents that live south of us to know that we support their desire to remain in the county and understand that they will only be brought into the UGB at the time of their choosing. We are also submitting into the record a concept plan for Taylor Road West that we authorized and funded in 2009. It gives you a good idea what we envision for the next addition to the City's UGB. Please keep in mind while reviewing this old concept plan that we will be working with City staff to make revisions that will meet the City's current requirements regarding densities, parks, and agricultural buffers that are specified in the Regional Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your service to the citizens of Central Point. Sincerely, Clyde 4nd June BrW, 2815 Taylor Rd., Central Point, 97502 51 Date Central Point Planning Commission Central Point City Hall 140 South 3`d Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Dear Commissioners, We, the owners of the Brock, Higinbotham, Martin, and Wiedman properties that are members of the Taylor Road West group, want to express our support for the Concept Planning process for CP -6A in which you are involved. Completing the concept plan is an important step towards our properties being considered as an addition to Central Point's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The conceptual transportation planning that is included in this concept plan is its most valuable part. It is important that the City identify regionally significant transportation corridors so that they can be protected until the time that they need to be turned into roads. Another important part of the conceptual transportation plan is to assure connectivity throughout the urban reserve area, even in the areas that are not expected to develop for several decades. Another important part of the conceptual planning process is to meet the Performance Indicators of the Regional Plan related to target residential density, land use distribution, and mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas. It is worth noting that nowhere in the performance indicators does it mention that the concept plan should include specific siting of parks or open space. This would happen at a later stage of the UGB Amendment process. It is understandable why some of our southerly neighbors would like to see a 200' buffer strip designated on our land, but that would clearly be outside of the scope of what should be in a concept plan. Also, that buffer strip would be a major obstacle to transportation connectivity. Additionally, any acreage taken up by a buffer strip would make it more challenging to meet the density requirements and also would take acres away from parks that are more centrally located and universally accessible and attractive to residents of the city. We do want the residents that live south of us to know that we support their desire to remain in the county and understand that they will only be brought into the UGB at the time of their choosing. We are also submitting into the record a concept plan for Taylor Road West that we authorized and funded in 2009. It gives you a good idea what we envision for the next addition to the City's UGB. Please keep in mind while reviewing this old concept plan that we will be working with City staff to make revisions that will meet the City's current requirements regarding densities, parks, and agricultural buffers that are specified in the Regional Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your service to the citizens of Central Point. Sincer ly, r Larry and Sophia Martin, 2673 Taylor Central Point, 97502 Date 52 Taylor Roar} West A Master Plan Development Concept Can4i4ate Urban Reserve Area — CP 6A City of Central Point, Oregon July 31, 2009 53 TAYLOR ROAD WEST FACT SHEET Subject: Conceptual Master Development Plan Background: The subject properties have been identified in the draft Regional Problem Solving process as part of Central Point's candidate Urban Reserve Area identified as CP 6A. The Taylor Road West Master Plan Concept conforms with the City of Central Point's goals as identified in Section 3.5 of its Transportation System Plan — Transit Oriented Development. In keeping with the regional intent to have future urban residential inventory available in a timely manner and consistent with the urban goals of RPS, the owners offer the Taylor Road West conceptual project for consideration by the City of Central Point. Key Data (all acreage/square footage numbers are approximate) Gross acreage: 136 acres Roads / Bio-swales: 39 acres Net urban acres: 90 acres Urban Park acres: 7 acres Concept Residential Dwelling Units (by type) Single Family Detached 230 46.5 acres Zero Lot line Homes 72 9.5 acres Town Homes 72 5.0 acres Duplex 125 13.0 acres Cluster Cottages 71 12.0 acres 570 86.0 acres Concept Commercial Office / Neighborhood (sq. ft.) 39.5K 4.0 acres Density: Residential 6.63 per DU / Net Urban Acre (excluding park land) Key Locational Factors: (See attached concept site plans and maps.) Transportation: The project would be served by Taylor Rd., Grant Rd., Old Stage Rd., Beall Ln., W. Pine St., and Highway 99. According to the Transportation System Plan adopted in 2008, current conditions meet Central Point LOS standards. Independent analysis will be necessary to determine any mitigation necessary to support the project's development (see attached Transportation System Plan 2008), Water: Medford Water Commission supplies water to this general area as part of its water delivery agreement with the City of Central Point. Independent analysis will be necessary to determine any mitigation necessary to support the project's development. Sanitary: Rogue Valley Sewer Services provides sanitary services through its regional system located within Central Point's existing urban boundary. Independent analysis will be necessary to determine any mitigation necessary to support the project's development. 54 Storm Facility: The project can be served via on-site bio-swales and detention facility yet to be designed. Recent storm water system analysis has been performed. Urban Inventory Availability: Currently in rural low density use, the subject property is in the ownership of 4 entities that have jointly commissioned the underlying conceptual master plan. These project characteristics suggest that the subject master plan may be realized more expeditiously than other potential alternate future urban opportunities identified. 55 Legend Existing UGB Subject Lots Tax Lots 100 -Year FP Taylor Road West 37 -2W -09A 200, 300 & 400; M 37-2W.04 300; F 37 -2W -09A 100 s 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet 56 Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project — Planning Report 5-21 CP -GA: I Res. Comm. Ind. Institutional Up pss� Ce Resource rear Existing 31% 59% Zoning Proposed 76% 4% 20% Uses This area consists of 457 acres. The City and its residents have supported including this area because it helps the City's goal of developing in a centric pattern. The City envisions larger master planned communities in the areas where several large lots can be assembled for higher density residential development, some open space preserved and agricultural buffers created. Managed growth to the west will promote efficient local resident access to the Downtown core. The properties in this urban reserve are adjacent to the city limits, and could easily be served by services from the Twin Creeks development or from existing collector roads, such as Beall Lane, Taylor Road, and Scenic Avenue. The circulation Draft 57 Exhlblt 1146 Urban Reserve CP -GA 7j f s ti� I ■ err. Total Acre: W RLFtC Co.. nim Ag Baas Anna: M Appmved by Etats for Urdutbdfaarx 292_ 5-22 Proposed Urban Reserves plan for this area is a natural extension of the Twin Creeks Development, and of historic east -west roads such as Taylor and Beale. The City believes that there are more natural linkages from the areas west of Grant Road to the Downtown and other neighborhoods. Water, natural gas and sewer maps indicate that other infrastructure can be readily, efficiently, and economically extended to CP -6A from the east and the south. Storm drainage can be developed, treated, and effectively drained into existing systems. The Twin Creeks Development is using passive water treatment, which the City will impose on new development in this area. Approximately 2/3 of the land in this urban reserve is zoned as Exclusive Farm Use, and has been recommended by the RLRC as part of the Commercial Agricultural Base. The remaining 1/3 is exception lands zoned for rural residential use. Soils in this area are class 3 with limited amounts of Class 2. Local long-term members of the farming community have maintained that the land is not productive, and that for years it has been used extensively for grazing, or has been allowed to remain fallow. Commercial A icultural Resource Base Status: 292 acres of CP -6A were recommended as part of the commercial agricultural base by the RLRC. However, the decision made at the second state agency review in December, 2007 was that the case for eventual urbanization of CP -6A was more compelling than the one for maintaining it in agricultural use. Draft M z I 1 5 FFF- I N, -_ O l f Fj Vs or , f - llj II U Ia'rJ11Lr 3�Y w.l /O, iy1if 1 f �I 1? t -� • soerr.• _M .m rblamA CeN1114 �TNN75, uhG OSWC-4.o. cR IFJ 11 S-L 190 NIONT�O � rYf-dGA1�1 r.L.c- MEr71^DreO� oR 3µ,-7�4-077 CIP.E/ATI i�+fEa.orMeaFt" [onISU�TArµr 59 v Let R 77, HL tLltd- ALL MASTER PEZN"' CONCEPT ro 77-7 -11771 LgMjt')tirEa 7Z•Udr[5 ..� i� 12 V'-Wto", 1,00-fVr-161 5A -A&, TAY LC;Z, VOAt7l WEST [Agopa, Ste hanie Holtey From: Stephanie Holtey Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 4:26 PM To: -k m' Cc: Tom Humphrey Subject: RE: meeting with you to discuss buffers Attachments: 12052017 CP -5A -6A Concept Plan.pdf Hi Katy, I would be happy to meet with you and Duane next week. I can meet Wednesday or Thursday. Would you mind waiting to schedule until Tom returns on Monday? He may want to join us and I'd like to make sure that we can accommodate him since he is the project lead. I will keep these two days open to accommodate our meeting. In the meantime, I have attached my PowerPoint presentation from last night's meeting. In addition, I have provided a link to the Regional Plan Element below. This document presents the Performance Indicators in Section 4.1, which starts on page 15 of 26. The primary focus of the performance indicators is on land use and transportation concepts is on land use distribution, committed residential density, provision of mixed-use/pedestrian friendly areas, and identifying regionally significant transportation corridors. At this stage of the planning process, we have evaluated the proposed plans for a general sense of where we are relative to land use distribution and committed density. It appears that we are right on target with providing the allocation of identified land uses (i.e. residential, employment, parks). Density can be addressed in one of two ways. One would be to adjust the density within CP -5/6 to meet the 6.9 target as part of the current process. In the alternative we can adjust densities within the city limits and/or the URAs to offset the lower density in the CP -5/6 URA. My sense is that we are taking a more global approach to provide maximum flexibility to accommodate citizen concerns and desires to accommodate expressed interest providing for lower densities within existing neighborhoods in rural areas. Regional Pian Element - htt1a://www.centralpointoregon.gov/sites/default/files fiieattachments/community developmentjpage/471L,� exhibit a regional plan element final 8-9-2012.pdf Thank you for all of your time and effort throughout this planning process. i very much look forward to meeting with you and Duane to discuss your questions/concerns about the buffer and to collectively brainstorm ideas to address your desire to avoid disruption to the neighborhood character you presently enjoy. Sincerely, Stephanie Holtey, CFM Principal Planner City of Central Point 140 South 3'd Street Central Point, OR 97502 Desk: (541) 664-3321, Ext. 244 Fax: (541) 664-6384 www.centralpointoregon.gov 61 jk CENTRAL POINT From: k m [mailto:k.mallamsl(Pamail.coml Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 9:15 AM To: Stephanie Holtey Subject: meeting with you to discuss buffers Hello Stephanie, Duane and I would like to meet with you to discuss the issue of buffers in CP -6A. Would you have time on Thursday 12/7, Monday 12/11, or Wednesday 12/13? We are flexible as to time of day so a time that would work for you should be fine for us. The powerpoint presentation you gave the Planning Commission last night about the planning process had some very good information so we wondered if we might get a copy of it? Also we wondered if you could tell us what the Performance Indicators are that the UGB Amendment must meet? You mentioned them several times in the meeting but did not specify what they are. Thanks very much in advance for being willing to take the time to meet with us. -- Katy Mallams 62 Alan & Terri Galedrige 4333 Grant Road Central Point, OR 97502 (541) 292-3499 December 1, 2017 City of Central Point Attn: Tom Humphrey, Director 140 S. Third Street Central Point, OR 97502 Re: City File # CPA -17001 To whom it may concern: We are in receipt of the cities Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Areas CP - 5 and CP -6. From what we can gather from the CAC map we received in the mail on November 30, 2017, our residence and personal property of 19+ years, our life style and retirement plans will dramatically be affected should this plan be voted in. We have major concerns that the land areas proposed as high density and commercial, borders our property. We chose to purchase land to raise our family, raise livestock and farm food out of our garden for our family. We were both raised in sub -divisions as children, and have no intention of living in one again. We currently live across the street from high density and commercial units, and we and our neighbors should not be forced to have our property taken from us to further someone else's agenda. This plan is obviously serving some other agenda that we as property owners are not aware of. It's bad enough that we have had to endure the illegal marijuana grows surrounding our property, and on our rural residential street. The foul odor of the plants, loud music and foul language of the "gypsy's" from out of state, that move in for the grow and leave after harvest. This plan certainly does not consider the livability of our property of 19 years. Respectfully, Alan Galedrige 63 peig I LVVJF DEC - 1 2017 Alan & Terri Galedrige 4333 Grant Road Central Point, OR 97502 (541) 292-3499 January 26, 2018 City of Central Point Attn: Tom Humphrey, Director 140 S. Third Street Central Point, OR 97502 Re: City File # CPA -17001 To whom it may concern: U V E JAN 3 0 2018 My wife and I attended the meeting on December 5, 2017, and learned that there has been a fair amount of time and energy spent trying to incorporate the area we live in into the urban growth boundary of Central Point. Prior the December 5, 2017 meeting, I wrote a letter voicing our opposition to being included in this zoning change. After receiving the most recent template of the map, I noticed that on the border of our property that we have spent the better part of 19 years grooming for our retirement years, the worst scenario of what a subdivision has to offer, i.e., high and medium density housing, commercial, road turn off and a round- about, all adjoining one side of our property line. We also learned of a 200 foot buffer zone between old and new construction at what is referred to as the "Race Track". This buffer zone is proposed to be for the City Parks and Recreation department to maintain. After the meeting, I spoke with Stephanie and asked about the border of our property, not only the buffer between old and new construction, but also about the agriculture buffer. I asked how wide the agriculture buffer is, and was told that it varies based on what is farmed on the land. The Twin Creeks subdivision has a fair sized buffer between Grant Road and the first row of houses and their fences. I then inquired about what happened to the commercial shops that were to be included in the Twin Creeks subdivision. It was our understanding that the Twin Creeks development received and was awarded as a Total Planned Development, largely because of the inclusion of the stores and shops. It appears that a lot has been lost between what was planned and what is being built. Therefore, I would like to propose a 50 foot buffer zone between the old and new construction, and that 50 foot buffer zone be maintained by the property owner(s) of the old construction. As to the high density and commercial zones, those belong in the Twin Creeks subdivision, instead of on the small border of my property. Page 1 of 2 64 The latest proposal also shows a road entering Grant Road at the corner of our property, this leads to a round -about that serves two (2) other roads. If a round -about is required, it should serve four (4) roads, not three (3). Therefore, it should be located on Grant Road where the Twin Creeks Bridge connects to Grant Road. This would eliminate the need for the road at my property line. The added benefit to that location would be slower traffic, fewer vehicles running the stop sign exiting from the Twin Creeks Bridge onto Grant Road, and possibly eliminating large truck traffic. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Alan Galedrige Page 2 of 2 65 r tti � r J 114 1 r 1 ? '� �i N Concept Plan Land Use M" ECAC) CP -SA and CP -6A Lw+Md Concept Plan LJ� fr:+a;,,,.y.y, �er.•w•. 1 c w i:r+-.�r�rV :.p sA Q6,vAA I br9m ♦t"" ^'t MM' 2 Xn, qq' ;,'�A`�`I J� Wl!-,111 Wvv �r l�tn�� 7F/ti• i4� � ti� Owaf� � ,_ v it _� �P, ��.� ?�a t�'�i — — W n 66 -�^� ,�-iI 1 ACnIM'ZNT sr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 851 A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN AND CONCEPTUAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE URBAN RESERVE AREAS DESIGNATED AS CP -5 AND CP -6 WHEREAS, on August 9, 2012 by Ordinance No. 1964 the City Council adopted City of Central Point Regional Plan Element; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Regional Plan Sections 4.1.7 and 4.1.8 (Performance Indicators) prior to, or in conjunction with, the expansion of an urban growth boundary the City shall adopt both a Conceptual Transportation Plan and a Conceptual Land Use Plan for the Urban Reserve Area (URA); and WHEREAS, the City is preparing to expand its Urban Growth Boundary into CP -6 and has prepared the necessary Conceptual Transportation Plan and Conceptual Land Use Plan (the "Concept Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Concept Plan, as illustrated in Exhibit "A", has been determined to comply with all applicable performance indicators identified in Section 4.1 of the Regional Plan Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 851, does hereby accept, and forward to the City Council, a recommendation to approve the Concept Plan for CP -5/6 as per attached Exhibit "A". PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 6th day of February, 2018. ATTEST: 67 Approved by me this 6th day of February, 2018 Planning Commission Chair