HomeMy WebLinkAboutJan 2, 2018 PC PacketA
CENTRAL
POINT
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
January 2, 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, John Whiting, Jim Mock
IV. CORRESPONDENCE
V. MINUTES
Review and approval of December 5, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VII. BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARING, Land Use Element (working draft), City of Central
Point Comprehensive Plan. Applicant: City of Central Point
VIII. DISCUSSION
A.
IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
X. MISCELLANEOUS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
December 5, 2017
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M.
H. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Mike Oliver, Tom Van Voorhees, John Whiting, Amy Moore, Jim
Mock and Kay Harrison were present. Also in attendance were: Don Burt, Planning
Manager, Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner, Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner
and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE
III. CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Alan Galeridge
E-mail from Linda and Ray Shipley
Letter from Antone Pederson
Letter from Dan and Louise Sakraida
IV. MINUTES
Kay Harrison made a motion to approve the November 7, 2017 minutes. Amy Moore
Seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; John Whiting, yes; Amy Moore,
yes; Jim Mock, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
None
VI. BUSINESS
Mr. Oliver stated that the Planning Commission would hear item "B" first due to the
number of citizens who were in attendance in order to participate in the public hearing.
A. Public Hearing (continued) to consider amendments to Section 17.05.600(H)
General Procedural Provisions, City Council Review in the central Point
Municipal Code. Applicant: City of Central Point
B. Public Hearing to Consider a Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan
for Urban Reserve Areas CP -5 and CP -6. Applicant City of Central Point.
Planning Commission Allinutes
December 5, 2017
Page 2
Mr. Oliver read the rules for a quasi-judicial hearing. Amy Moore said she had a
conflict as she owned property in the area and recused herself. Tom Van Voorhees stated
that he had made a site visit. None of the commissioners stated any bias.
B. Public Hearing to Consider a Conceptual Land Use and Transportation PIan
for Urban Reserve Areas CP -5 and CP -6.
Stephanie Holtey said 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 been working on a conceptual plan for URAs
CP -5 and CP -6.
City staff held discussions with County residents and the Citizen's Advisory Committee in order
to finalize a concept plan that reflects local land use expectations and remedies for traffic
congestion the land uses may generate. The City agreed to a residendailemploymentlopen space
split in the Regional Plan (76%, 4% and 18% respectively).That means there are about 337 acres
that can be designated for residential uses and about 18 acres designated for employment uses.
The Committee was asked for their opinion about the uses they would Iike to see given the
constraints that exist in this area. Proposed land uses and existing environmental constraints are
reflected in the draft Conceptual Pian and maps.
Public Comments on the CP -516 Conceptual Plan were received during the Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAG) on October 10`h and again on November 14''. A number of County residents
interacted with City staff and some residents sketched their own ideas for conceptual land use
plans. She added that the Commissioners were provided with copies of the original staff concept,
various citizen alternatives and a final planning staff alternative which is intended to reflect CAC
and citizen consensus.
She indicated that at this time there was still some refinement to the concept plan
required. She said it was her intention to distribute the Concept Plan to several agencies
for their comments and then prepare a final draft for consideration.
Ms. Holtey stated that notices of this meeting were mailed to the residents of CP -5 and
CP -6, however some residents had just received their notices today and others had not yet
received theirs. She said that staff recommended that after the discussion the
Commission continue the matter.
She said that the State's Goal 14 establishes the City's requirements for Urbanization,
requiring the City to provide for efficient transition from rural to urban lands, it requires
the City to maintain a 20 year land supply within Urban Growth Boundaries. She
reviewed the Regional Problem Solving process and how the Urban Reserve Areas
(URA) were identified and explained that the City was required to do a concept plan
Planning Commission Minutes
December 5, 2017
Page 3
before expanding the UGB. She explained the planning process from the concept to
development.
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. The average residential density to which the City committed (6.9 units/acre) will
be worked out at the time of a UGB Amendment. 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.
She explained that a Concept Plan is a general guide for land use and transportation in an
Urban Reserve Area. It is not part of the City's Land Use Element until a property is
brought into the City. She said that the Concept Plan does not mandate any property be
brought into the UGB.
Ms. Holtey explained that at the time of UGB amendment a property owner could apply
to come into the UGB. At that time the land use designations would come into alignment
with the City's land use designations shown on the concept plan. She stressed that
County zoning would remain until a property was brought into the City limits. Once a
property is inside the city limits, the landowner is eligible to submit an application for a
partition, conditional use, site plan and architectural review or master plan
Mr. Oliver asked if the plan could exclude portions of the URA. Ms. Holtey replied that
the Concept Plan could not exclude any portion of it. She added that no one would be
forced to annex into the City if they did not want to. She expressed that the City
recognized the concerns over developing farmable land, however the Regional Problem
Solving Process identified this area as one that could be developed.
John Whiting stated that it was his understanding that bringing CP -5 & 6 into the UGB
only gave the residents the option of annexing into the City and in no way compelled
annexation. Ms. Holtey confirmed that was correct. She clarified that in order to be
annexed into the City a property needed to be contiguous to the city limits. She
Reviewed the existing County roads. There was some discussion regarding how much of
the land was currently being farmed. Ms. Holtey stated she would find out.
She mentioned the flood impact to this area was minimal and mostly located in CP -5.
She also discussed available existing City services.
Ms. Holtey Reviewed the land uses depicted in the proposed plan. She identified an open
space buffer which had been proposed by residents to separate the lower portion of CP -6
from areas where people might want to develop their properties.
Planning Commission Minutes
December S, 2017
Page 4
Ms. Holtey said that the allocation of parks and open space was actually identified in the
master plan step of development which came after UGB amendment and after
annexation.
She said the proposed streets were an illustration only. Alignment shown on the Concept
Plan is just an idea and does need to be refined based on a traffic study.
She said that tonight staff was looking for authorization to distribute the Concept Pian to
affected agencies for their comments and present a final draft to the Planning
Commission at their January meeting.
They discussed continuing the public hearing vs. closing it and noticing the January
meeting as a new public hearing.
The Commissioners asked how the process for this UGB expansion had been initiated.
Ms. Holtey explained that the City Council received a letter from a group of property
owners who live in CP -5 who had interest in coming into the UGB and annexing into the
City for the purpose of developing their property. The City Council drafted a resolution
of intent to initiate the UGB amendment.
Public Hearing was opened
Dan Sakraida, Scenic Ave.
Mr. Sakraida said that Ray and Linda Shipley own the property next to them. They live
in Wilsonville and rent out their property. Mr. Sakriada read a letter from the Shipleys
stating they had reviewed the conceptual plan and they had no desire to be in the UGB or
within the city limits_ They were specifically opposed to the extension of N. Haskell
Street through their property to connect with Scenic Ave.
Louise Sakraida, Scenic Avenue
Ms. Sakraida expressed her concern for the loss of farmland. She read an article from the
US Department of Agriculture regarding the importance of good farm land and stated that
once the land was developed it was gone forever and would never be able to be passed on
to another generation. She also expressed concerns regarding traffic and pollution. She
said it was her understanding that if sewer and water services were installed near their
property they would be required to pay for it. Also the road going past their property was
not to their liking.
Ms. Holtey stated that the installation of city services would come during the
development part of the process. She stated that it was her understanding that it was
optional for residents to connect to sewer or water. She said she would confirm this. She
would also confirm that should the property owner decide not to connect to the services,
Planning Commission Minutes
December S, 2017
Page S
they would not have to pay for the installation of such services. She added that she was
not familiar with the procedures of Rogue Valley Sewer Services.
Don Burt, Planning Manager clarified that this was a concept plan and if a property
owner did not want to come into the UGB they were not compelled to do so.
Additionally he stated a concept plan was required to illustrate a transportation concept.
He added that during the future planning processes a traffic study would be done to plan
where roads would actually be located. He said the concept plan simply showed what
the property could be used for should it be annexed into the City.
Larry Martin, Taylor Road
Mr. Martin stated he owned property that was included in the Council Resolution. He
said that the current Concept Plan was different from the original one. He noted that he
and four other property owners who were in favor of the Concept Plan would be
submitting their plan which had been created earlier in the Regional Problem Solving
process.
Mr. Martin said that generally they were in favor of the Concept Plan, however they
objected to the strip of buffr area that was being proposed_ He and the other property
owners were in favor of the large park area depicted in the original plan which they felt
would serve the majority of the area residents more effectively.
Katy Mallams, Heritage Road
Ms. Mallams expressed her concern that if a property near them did develop, it would
have a tremendous effect on the neighborhood. She said she would like to see a more
specific plan for CP -5 & 6. The plan she and her husband prepared showed the lower
area of CP -6 as very low density. She said that when more houses and more roads are
developed in an established neighborhood it is totally destroyed. Also the buffer was
depicted because the residents of the south part of CP -6 wanted to be separated from
future development. She added that they would like a buffer along New Ray Road as
well. She said there needs to be open green space between the existing older
neighborhood and any new development. She said they envisioned bike paths and
walking paths in the buffer corridors.
Russell Cox, Grant Road
Mr. Cox liked the Concept Plan and expressed his appreciation that it would help him
see what the options for his property could be in the future. He envisioned an area
somewhat like the Twin Creeks development.
June Brock, Taylor Road
Ms. Brock said she and her husband supported the City's original Concept Plan because
it allocated the parks and open space more effectively. She thought the strip of buffer
land on this plan was not as good.
Planning Commission Minutes
December S, 2017
Page 6
Alan Galeridge, Grant Road
Mr. Galeridge noted that he had submitted a letter which was distributed to the Planning
Commission this evening. He was not in favor of the Concept Plan. He was concerned
about an area of high density near his property and said that a roundabout in that location
was not a good idea. He did not want high density or commercial next to his property.
He also said that there was a property next to his which had been leased to people who
grew marijuana and was a problem. Mr. Oliver noted that that was not an issue on the
agenda.
Sarah McGrath, Grant Road
Ms. McGrath said she knew this was a long process involving many agencies. She said
she appreciated that the purpose was to strategically prepare for the City's growth. She
expressed her concern that the plan proposed tonight was different from the one
recommended by the Citizen's Advisory Committee as it included the buffer strip. She
wanted to confirm that this actually was a concept and not a rule of law and that it would
continue to evolve. She stated that Community Development Director Tom Humphrey
had specifically stated that the Concept Plan was not a rule of law. She did not approve
of the buffer area and she preferred the parks in the original concept. She thought the
parks department should be able to evaluate where to put the parks and open space.
Stephanie Holtey explained that the confusion seemed to stem from the fact that the Plan
at the Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting noted areas of preferred parks space and
the map tonight showed a buffer strip. She went on to explain that the buffer strip had
been discussed at the CAC meeting. She said that park areas would actually not be
identified until development occurred, however the goal of the plan was to be as flexible
as possible and that at this point it would be impossible to absolutely identify where the
park areas would be located.
Jeffrey McMann, New Ray Road
Mr. McMann said he understood that the people in the southern area of CP -6 wanted
protection from higher density areas. He said that he had knocked on doors and spoken
to a lot of people and the majority were not interested in coming into the City. His
concern is that there is a large parcel of land behind his house that could be developed.
He was concerned that if someone built on that property his view would be gone. He
added that most of the people who lived there wanted to be in the country and not the
City.
Jim Booth, New Ray Road
Mr. Booth said he agreed with Mr. McMann. He said he did not want development close
to his home. He thought that was wrong that there was an agricultural buffer zone
shown on the perimeter of the URA but none to protect their neighborhood from new
development. He stated he had relatives in California and had seen what happens when
Planning Commission Minutes
December S, 2017
Page 7
development takes off. He said this is a unique area to live in and the residents would like
to keep it that way.
Tim Higinbotham, Taylor Road
Mr. Higinbotham said he supported the Concept Plan and it gave property owners the
option to come into the UGB and into the City and develop their land if they wanted. He
expressed his opinion that the high density area depicted by Taylor and Grant might need
to be moved west a bit. He was concerned about the buffer area as it would be hard to
maintain. He said walking paths might attract an undesirable element and become
dangerous. Also it might become a fire hazard due to the difficulty of maintaining it. He
thought there would be other options that might accomplish the separation of the area and
provide open space and parks that would be more easily managed and serve the
community better.
Amy Moore, Grant Road
Ms. Moore asked if the Concept Plan met the 6.9 density the City was required to
maintain. Ms. Holtey said no, it was roughly around 6, but the 6.9 density was an
average of the whole City. Ms. Moore asked what the width of the proposed buffer was.
Ms. Holtey said it was shown as roughly 200 feet and represented approximately 40 acres
of land. She said it represented approximately 29% of the area proposed for parks and
open space. Ms. Moore said that it might make a difference to people who opposed it if it
was 30 feet instead of 200 feet and that in order for people to decide whether or not they
approved of it they would need a more specific measurement.
Heather Penner, Freeland Road
Ms. Penner asked if the buffer was located along current property lines. Ms. Holtey said
that it was but that it was a concept for further refinement. It could be discussed at the
next meeting.
Dean Finch, New Ray road
Mr. Pinch said he had submitted a version of a Concept Plan that included a buffer
separating the south area of CR -6 from areas that would potentially develop. He
explained the purpose of the buffer was to, minimize the impact to existing residents that
do not want to come into the City. He added that he would provide additional written
information to the Planning Department.
Ralph Kerr, Grant Road
Mr. Kerr expressed concern about the proposed road. He thought the City should go out
and walk the area. He said it was a creek. He said the land was mostly sand and not
appropriate for a road. Also he had concerns regarding increased traffic.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 5, 2017
Page 8
Russel Cox, Grant Road
Mr. Cox would like to see a stop sign where Twin Creeks crosses Grant Road as the
traffic on Grant is quite fast there.
Katy Mallams, Heritage Road
Ms. Mallams asked if the City was required to have concept plans completed for all
URAs before any UGB amendment could be done or if each area was done separately.
Don Burt answered that each area develops on its own.
Ms. Holtey said that staff would like the Planning Commission to direct them to obtain
comments from affected agencies. Additionally, because of the holidays, it would be a
good idea to continue the hearing to the February meeting to allow time for the agencies
to respond.
There was discussion among the conunissioners regarding the traffic concept and how it
would be affected when the Twin Creeks railroad crossing was completed.
John Whiting made a motion to continue the public hearing to the February 6, 2018
Planning Commission meeting in order to obtain comments from affected agencies to
incorporate into the Concept Plan. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tom
Van Voorhees, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; John Whiting, yes; Jim Mock, yes. Motion
passed.
8:20 p.m. Mike Oliver declared a short break.
8:30 p.m. meeting resumed.
A. Public Hearing (continued) to consider amendments to Section 17.05.600(H)
General Procedural Provisions, City Council Review in the Central Point
Municipal Code.
Community Planner Justin Gindlesperger said that upon the Council's consideration to
utilize Council Review procedures, it was determined there were insufficient provisions
in place with respect to timing of call-up procedures, vote requirements, hearing
procedures and overlapping appellate procedures. Council directed staff and the City
attorney to research similar processes in other cities and bring back recommended code
revisions that prescribe the council review process.
Mr. Gindlesperger stated these amendments are necessary to ensure the Council review
authority is well defined and the process set forth will avoid inconsistent application
and/or avoid appeals based upon failure to follow appropriate procedures.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 5, 2017
Page 9
He said that after discussion and consultation with the City attorney, it was decided that
remanding a matter back to the Planning Commission would not work because of the
State's 120 day rule.
Additionally he explained that the Council would follow appeal procedures and make
their decision to either uphold the Planning Commission decision or modify the Planning
Commission's decision based on the information contained in the record.
The Cormissioners asked for clarification and he explained that a decision could be
called up for review if it were an error of law or if it were a matter of public concern and
the Council felt it needed to be reviewed. The Commissioners thought the language
regarding "public eoncern7 made the procedure more vague. They said the original
language was more specific but they agreed that the Council were elected officials and
should have the ability to make final decisions if they feel a matter is in the best interest
of the Public.
Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to approve Resolution 849, amendments to Section
17.05.600(H) General Procedural Provisions, City Council Review in the Central Point
Municipal Code.
They discussed the appeal procedures and agreed the Council would be acting according
to those procedures in the case of a review.
Arany Moore seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Kay
Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, yes; Jinn Mock, yes. Motion passed.
VII. DISCUSSION
A. Working Draft of Land Use Element, File No. 17003
Don Burt Planning Manager said The Land Use Element consists of two parts, the text
and the map. The text addressed 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 syste n. He
briefly reviewed the goals and policies.
He said the purpose of the Map is to assign a specific land use to each property within the
City's urban area.
He explained the changes needed to reflect prior land use activity. He said they are
driven by prior actions that affected land use goals and policies. He reviewed the
changes necessitated by recent policy, which are primarily related to residential land use
Planning Commission Minutes
December S, 2017
Page 10
and the need to adjust the minimum density requirements from the Regional Plan
Element and the Housing Element. He reviewed other changes that were recommended
to provide more flexibility in the commercial areas allowing for more flexibility in
responding to structural changes in the commercial sector.
Mr. Burt reviewed the Concept Plans for the Urban Reserve Areas that had already been
developed and explained that a Concept Plant for CP5 and CP6 was currently being
developed.
The Commissioners asked if there were a residential Concept Pian which had been
completed. Stephanie Holtey said that this was the first residential Concept Plan that the
City had prepared.
The commissioners discussed how Twin Creeks had developed and thought that it would
be a good example of how a concept plan developed over time.
The Commissioners agreed to schedule a public hearing for the January 2, 2018 meeting
VII- ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Kay Harrison made a motion to adjourn. Amy Moore seconded the motion. All
commissioners said "aye"_ Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the, 2017 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the
Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of January 2018.
Planning Commission Clair
PUBLIC HEARING, LAND USE ELEMENT(working ❑raft)
STAFF REPORT
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
January 2, 2018 (CPA 17003)
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey,AICP,
Community Development Director/
Assistant City Administrator
AGENDA ITEM V-A
Public Hearing, Land Use Element (working draft), City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan (File No. CPA -
17003) (Applicant: City of Central Point)
STAFF SOURCE:
Don Burt, Planning Manager
BACKGROUND:
At the December 5, 2017 meeting staff introduced to the Planning Commission a working draft of the Land Use
Elernent. Alter discussion the Planning Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing to gather input on
the Working Draft of the Land Use Element.
Attached is a draft of the Land Use Element. The Land -Use Element consists of two parts; the text and the map.
The text addresses the purpose and scope of each land use classification, including issues and land use distribution
by acreage. The text also sets forth the City's goals and policies for the management of its land use system- The
actual use of land by classification is maintained in the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), which tracts land usage
over time. The BLI is an adjunct document to the Land Use Element. The BLI is maintained and updated with
each application for land development.
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 UGB). The land use designations are primarily based on current allocations, and the findings From
other Comprehensive Plan elements such as the Regional Plan, Housing, Economic, Parks and Recreation, etc.
A prior version of the working draft of the Land Use Element has been reviewed by the Citizen's Advisory
Committee (CAC), with a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission. Since the CAC meeting staff
has continued refming the working draft per the CAC discussion.
The text, goals, and policies of the Land Use Element have been modified/updated to reflect changes in policy
since the last Land Use Element was amended in 1983. Those changes fall into three categories:
40+ Changes needed to reflect prior land use activity. These changes are primarily driven by prior actions
that affected land use goals and policies that are not consistent with the current Land Use Element. Most
of these changes are policy related to the rezoning of lands along the west side of the railroad tracks
(Twin Creeks) from industrial to residential.
Page 1 of 4
•2• Changes necessitated by recent policy. These changes primarily relate to residential land uses and the
need to adjust the minimum density requirements of the Regional Plan Element and Housing Element.
•1: Changes that are recommended to provide more flexibility in the land use process. These changes
are related primarily to the commercial lands and are intended to provide a broader purpose base allowing
for more flexibility in responding to structural changes in the commercial sector of the economy.
For the most part the Map is little changed from the existing Map, but there are some changes that need to be
noted and discussed. The Map discussion will focus on four areas of change:
Changes addressing mapping errors.
o Previously approved changes to the land use map were either not mapped or were mapped
incorrectly. These inconsistencies have been corrected on the proposed land use map. Examples
include:
■ The McDowell property on Snowy Butte Road shown as R-1-6, but that was designated
R-3 by ordinance several years ago;
■ The McDonald's parking lot currently designated as High Density Residential that should
be Community Commercial to align with the use; and, the School District baseball fields
on Upton Road currently designated Very Low Density and should be Civic; and
■ The Central Point School District property off Upton Road currently designated Very
Low Density Residential and should be Civic.
Solution: Correct the oversights
❖ Changes proposed by others.
o Presently there are land use changes that are being considered by private landowners with specific
development interests, including the following:
= Craig Nelson (Freeman Road), - Wants to designate the high density residential along
Freeman and Bigham to Community Commercial.
■ Gutches (Vilas Road) -- Wants to designate Low Density Residential to High Density
Residential.
Solution: the proposed changes are not at issue pending completion of a transportation impact
analysis TIA) by the property owners. This must be accomplished prior to finalization of any
change in land use. The property owners have been nodfiied of the TIA requirement.
•: Changes needing to be addressed due to changing conditions
o TOD Overlay. The current land use map provides a designation for the TOD Corridor and TOD
District but does not identify the underlying land use categories, but instead rely on a master plan.
The proposed changes uses in the TOD as an overlay rather than a specific land use classification.
The proposed land use designations align with currently established zoning categories.
Solution: Apply TOD as an Overlay district:
Future Land Use Study Area. There is currently a Commercial Medical (C -2M) zone that
initially was intended as a hospital zone. A large part of the area is owned by Asante and they
have no interest in developing it for medical purposes. At this time staff does not have a solution
and recommends that this area be studied in the future to determine the appropriate land use
designation and corresponding zoning district.
Solution: Defer action and direct that staff study the area for land use alternatives. This
Page 2 of 4
recommendation should be reflected as a specific goal of the Land Use Element.
R-3 Lands and mobile home parks. A considerable percentage of the R-3 (HRes) lands have
been developed at densities averaging 6 units per gross acre. The R-3 zoning district has a
minimum density requirement of 14 units per net acre. At the time of development the R-3
district did not have a minimum required density. Mobile home parks were only allowed in the R-
3 district. The mobile home parks that were developed in the R3 district were developed at a
density of
Solution: Defer action and direct that staff study the area for land use alternatives. This
recommendation should be reflected as a specific goal of the Land Use Element..
Changes to the Commercial District. It is proposed that the C-4 title "Tourist and Office Professional"
be redefined eliminating the "Tourist" reference. The current reference to tourism as the primary purpose
of this land use classification unnecessarily restricts the flexibility in allowing a broader range of
commercial development projects.
ISSUES:
The primary issues to be discussed at the meeting will be map related as noted above, with specific attention
being given to changes due to "Changing Conditions".
1. Use of a TOD overlay vs. an actual land use should be of no consequence considering that the use of the
TOD overlay accomplishes the same design objectives unique to a TOD development, i.e, pedestrian
scale and walkability and transit service.
2. Future Land Use Study Area, specifically the C -2(M) district, is definitely a discussion item with no
immediate resolution, other than state as a goal.
3. R-3 Lands and mobile home parks issue, like the C -2(M) issue warrants f ether review before any action.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A!'— Working Draft of Land Use Element
ACTION:
Open public hearing, take testimony and:
1. Continue public hearing to the February 6, 2018 meeting;
Z. Close public hearing and direct staff to forward to the City Council a favorable recommendation
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff to make changes as discussed and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
Page 3 of 4
um Wry Lw Oenpty coR wury Co orciel m usm _ ftmwd cmo
TOO Ow" uw Den*v lmawyn t cummoruau QW W d cm hopowd peft Md Open spew
Mod Lan D*WV - c3aNnrH Cammerclod
Ho D@Wty
Page 4 of 4 DRAFT Proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan Changes
2017-2040
L-, up1.M Od No IM NN A,
OM Ne IY7, ":M,3
LAND USE ELEMENT
2018-2038
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
NN
Planning Commission -
January 2, 2017
Working Draft
Y
Page 1 of 33
6
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................4
1.1. Buildable Lands Inventory................................................................................................4
1.2. State Land Use Guidelines.................................................................................................5
1.3. Central Point Forward, A City Wide Strategic Plan........................................................5
1.3.1. City Mission Statement...............................................................................................5
1.3.2. City Statement of Values............................................................................................6
1.4. The Regional Plan Element...............................................................................................6
2. Direction of Growth...........................................................................................................7
3. Land Use and Urban Form................................................................................................7
3.1. Activity Centers..................................................................................................................8
3.2. Performance Indicators...................................................................................................10
3.2.1. Performance Indicator, Committed Residential Density(4.1.5) .............................10
3.2.2. Performance Indicator, Mixed-Use/Pedestrian Friendly Areas (4.1.6) ...................10
3.2.3. Performance Indicator, Conceptual Transportation Plan (4.1.7) ...........................10
3.2.4. Performance Indicator, Conceptual Lsmd Use Plan(4.1.8).....................................11
3.2.5. Target Residential Density(4L8.1)............i............................................................11
3.2.6. Land Use Distribution(4.1.8.2). .... ..........................................................................
11
3.2.7. Transportation Infrastructure(4.1.8.3)...................................................................11
3.2.8. Mixed-Use/Pedesttian Ftlendly Areas(4.1.8.4).......................................................11
4. Land Use Benchmarks.....................................................................................................11
5. Current (2017) Land Use Summary................................................................................12
6. Land Use Classifications..................................................................................................13
6.1. Residential Land Use.......................................................................................................14
6.2. Residential Land Use Classifications...............................................................................15
6.2.1. Very Low Density Residential (VLRes)...................................................................16
6.2.2. Low Density Residential (LRes)...............................................................................16
6.2.3. Medium Density Residential(MRes)........................................................................17
6.2.4. High Density Residential(HRes)..............................................................................17
6.3. Residential Land Use Plan Map......................................................................................19
6.4. Residential Infill and Redevelopment.............................................................................19
Page 2 of 33
7
6.5. Small Town, Neighborhood Preservation, Identification and Livability .......................19
6.6. Residential Zoning & Density..........................................................,...............................19
6.7. Minimum/Maximum Density Calculation......................................................................19
6.7.1. Public Parks and Open Space...................................................................................21
6.7.2. Civic Uses..................................................................................................................21
6.7.3. Environmental Lands....., ................................................... ............................. ....... 22
6.8. Residential Goals and Policies: ........................................................ ....... . . ................... 22
7. Employment Land Use....................................................................................................23
7.1. Commercial Land Use Summary....................................................................................23
7.2. Commercial Land Use Plan.............................................................................................24
7.2.1. Neighborhood Commercial(NC)..............................................................................24
7.2.2. Employment Commercial(EC)..............,................................................................24
7.2.3. General Commercial(GC)..............................................»........................................25
7.2.4. Commercial Development Goals and Policies..........................................................25
7.3. Industrial Land Use Plan.................................................................................................25
7.3.1. Industrial Goals and Policies--. ................ . ......................................................... 26
7.4. Civic Land Use ...................... .......................:.......,.......................,...........................27
7.4.1. Civic Land Use Goals and Policies...........................................................................27
7.5. Parks and Recreation Land Use......................................................................................28
7.6. Circulation/Transportation Land Use.............................................................................28
7.6.1. Circulation Land Use Goal.......................................................................................28
7.6.2. Existing Circulation Land Use Summary ..................... —...................................... 29
7.7. Overlay Districts..............................................................................................................29
7.7.1. Central Business District (CBD)...............................................................................29
7.7.2. Transit Oriented Development District(TOD)........................................................29
7.7.3. Environmental Overlay............................................................................................29
7.7.4, Airport Overlay.........................................................................................................30
8. Land Use Plan Map..........................................................................................................30
Page 3 of 33
8
1. Introduction
The purpose of the Land Use Element is to:
• Allocate land uses within the City's urban area; and
Track activity in the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) for compliance with associated goals
and policies identified in related Comprehensive Plan elements; i.e, the Housing Element,
Economic Element, Parks and Recreation Element, Transportation System Plan, etc.
The Land Use Element does not determine how much of a particular land use is needed only where
that land use will be sited and how it will be managed to achieve the City's comprehensive land use
goals and policies.
The Land Use Element introduces the concept of urban design as an objective of the Comprehensive
Plan. As used in the Land Use Element the term "urban design„ refers to the cimscivus consideration
of the physical relationship between land use classifications that promote the City's perceived
livability and "small town" atmosphere goals.
The Land Use Element is comprised of two parts; the text (Text), and the Land Use Plan Map (Map).
The Text component addresses the purpose and scope of each land use classification,
including issues and land use distribution by acreage. The Text also contains the City's
goals and policies for the management of its land use system.
The current, and actual, use of land is maintained in the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI),
which tracts land usage over time. The BLI is an adjunct document to the Land Use
Element. The BLI is maintained on a continual basis as applications for land development
are received.
The Map identifies the spatial distribution of all lands in the City's urban area and
designates each property with a specific land use classification. As previously noted the
amount of land within each land use category is determined by other Comprehensive Plan
elements.
In addition to ehe related Comprehensive Plan elements the Land Use Element is guided by four (4)
documents as follows:
1.1. Buildable Lands Inventory
The Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) is an adjunct document to the Land Use Element. The BLI
tracks all land use activity in the City's urban area as changes occur. Annually, the BLI produces the
following tables tracking land use changes:
• Land use percentage benchmarks by land use classification;
• Land use benchmark by 1,000 population
• Changes in the vacant land inventory;
Page 4 of 33
• Housing and employment in activity centers (mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas).
Monitoring of the BLI will determine the need and timing to add more land to the UGB per the needs
assessment of such Comprehensive Plan Elements as Housing, Economic, and the Parks and
Recreation, etc.
1.2. State Land Use Guidelines
The purpose of the State land use guidelines is "To establish a land use policy
framework and factual basis for all land use decisions and actions consistent with
related elements of the Comprehensive Plan. " The states land use program requfta that
all land use plans include identification of issues and problems, inventories and other
factual information for each applicable statewide planning goal, evaluation of alternative
courses of action and ultimate policy choices, taking into consideration social, economic,
energy and environmental needs.
City, county, state and federal agency and special disvict plans and actions rolkled to
land use shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties and
regional plans adopted under URS Chapter 258.The inquired information shall be
contained in the either the Land Use Element or in supporting documents.
The accomplishment of the above required idromation is delegated to the various
elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use EIement is responsible for
managing and trapping the land use needs of the City asprescribed in other
Comprehensive Platt elements. Changes in the Land Use Clement will generally be
predicated on changes in related elements of the Camprebensive Plan.
1.3.Central Point Forward, A City Wide Strategic Plan
The City maintains a strategic plan, the purpose of which is to envision a preferred future for the
City and to "... formulate a way to make this future happen through community teamwork and
actions. It is a dtocupwnt that records what people think — the blueprint for positive change that
defines the vision, goals. and outcomes that must occur to realize the future. "' The community's
mission, vision and values as set forth in the Strategic Plan serve as the foundation of the
Comprehensive Plan, including this Land Use Element. The guidance provided by the Vision
Platt that is carried forward in the Land Use Element is to maintain a "... small town
conimitrnent and feet that promotes community pride, safety, and friendliness" and the value of
planning for growth "... that will retain our small town atmosphere".
1.3.1. City Mission Statement
The City's mission statement reads as follows:
"It is the mission of the City of Central Point to build and maintain a highly livable
community by working in harmony and being a catalyst for partnership with all the
members of the community, public and private. "
1 City of Central Pont Strategic Plan, pp. 3, May 24, 2007, Resolution No, 1143,
Page 5 of 33
10
1.3.2. City Statement of Values
The Vision Plan contains a set of four values as follows:
■ Growth: We value planned growth that will retain our small town atmosphere.
o Managed Growth & Infrastructure, Goal 2 - Maintain City of Central
Point's small town feel and family orientation even as we grow,
Public Safety: We value a professional service oriented public safety policy that
promotes a sense of safety and security in our city.
Transportation: We value a system of transportation and Infrastructure that is
modern, efficient and sensitive to the environment.
Community: We value a clean and attractive city with parks, open space and
recreational opportunities.
■ Service_ We provide the highest level r f service possible in the most efctent
responsible manner.
It is important that these values be repeatedly acknowledged and applied as tine foundation for
crafting the goals and policies in all elements of dw Camprahgsive Plan.
1.4. The Regional Plan Element
As previously noted the City's Comprehensive Plan elem#hts rnust be consistent with any
applicable regional plan. In 2412 the City adopted a Regional Plan Element' establishing Urban
Reserve Areas (UR-&-) in accordance with the County's Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional
Plan. The purpose of the Regional Plan Element is to edtiress the City's long -terns land needs to
the year 2060. The City's Regional Phan Eletnent established eight (8) [!RAs, which when
combined total 1,721 acres for future use by the City. Within the URAs land uses were assigned
based on very broad categories, Residential, Aggregate, Resource, Open SpaccfParks, and
Employment. The Regional Plan F,letnent does not spatially allocated the land use types, but it
does require that Concept Plans be developed and adopted prior to inclusion of a URA, or any
part thereof, into the City's urban growth boundary (UGB)'. The Concept Plans are required to
identify regionally significant transportation corridors and identity how land uses will be
spatially distributed, with an emphasis on the encouragement of mixed uselpedestdan friendly
areas3. The Concept Plans, when approved, are a part of the Regional Plan Element. At such
time as lands within the URA are added to the UGB the concept plans are further refined
consistent with the level of Ian([ use descriptions set forth in the Land Use Element; and, upon
inclusion to Che UGB then become part of the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element does
not include lands within the URA-
2
RA
2 Regional Plan Element, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Ordinance No. 1964, 8/9/2012
3 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1 Performance Indicators
4 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1.8 Conceptual Land Use Plans,
5 Regional Plan Element, Performance Indicators, 4.1.6 Mixed-Use/Pedestrian Friendly Areas
Page 6 of 33
is
2. Direction of Growth
The long-term direction of growth for the City is best described in the Regional Plan Element and its
accompanying Concept Plans. The Regional Plan Element established eight (8) urban reserve areas
(Figure 2.1) into which the City will grow between now and 2060. These urban reserve areas (URAs)
have been pre -approved for inclusion in the City's urban growth boundary6, subject to demonstrated
need and availability of infrastructure.
Figure 2.1 UGB and URA9
u6a Ilw.rw N.r
As illustrated in Figure 2.1, the City's expansion
will be to the west and north. The City's easterly
and southerly UGB and URA boundaries abut the
City of Medford's assigned jurisdictiornal areas,
Iimiting the City's ability for easterly or southerly
expansion. As outlined in the Regional Plan
Element most of the residential development
(55%) will be directed to the west (CP -6A, CP -
613, and CP -5A), and to the north (CP -1C and
CP -2B).
For industrial employment lands the primary
direr#ion of Future growth will be to the far
northerly urban reserve (URA -IB). This area is
well served with multi -modal transportation
infrastructure, i.e. 1-5 and rail. Commercial
development will be distributed throughout the
URAs per the Regional Plan allocations and
concept plans.
The relationship between the Regional Plan Element and the Land Use Element is one of timing.
When the treed is properly demonstrated then land within the URAs can be brought into the UGB.
The timing of inclusion to the UGB will be a function of demonstrated need and the ability to develop
to urban standards, and annex to the City in a timely manner.
3. Land Use and Urban Form
The Regional Plan introduces two mandatory land use benchmarks; a minimum density requirement and
performance indicators. The density and performance indicators will affect the City's future urban form
as lands in the URAs are brought into the UGB and annexed to the City. With the increase in density and
the mandatory Performance Indicators it is both timely and appropriate to introduce the basic elements of
urban form/design, particularly as it applies to intensification of residential land uses, and the physical
relationship between differing land uses and transportation. As used in this Land Use Element the term
"urban form/design" refers the general pattern of use, building height and development intensity and the
structural elements that define the City physically, such as natural features, transportation corridors, open
space, public facilities, as well as activity centers and other community focal elements. The introduction
6 ORS
12
Page 7 of 33
of urban form/design is not intended as the answer to good urban form/design, but it is intended to
provide a basic awareness and a palette from which good urban form/design can evolve.
3.1. Activity Centers.
An important consideration related to urban form/design and the Regional Plan's performance
indicators is the concept of activity centers. As used in this Land Use Element the term "activity
center" is interchangeable with the term Transit-Oriented/Mixed-Use Pedestrian -Friendly areas. Both
terms represent the development of a place(s) that encourage higher density mixed-use environments
that are neighborhood oriented and designed to increase the convenience of walking, bicycling, and
transit. The concept of activity centers is a key component to the City's success in the retention and
creation of neighborhoods and community identity necessary to support the City's small town
atmosphere', and ultimately creates an environment that supports transit use.
As used in the Land Use Element there are two types of activity centers; the activity center that serves
a residential neighborhood; and activity center that serves the broader community's retail and service
needs. As used in the Land Use Element activity centers are described as:
• Areas ot'developrnent that contribute to achieving mixed-use, pedestrian friendly development,
that is vertically or horizontally supports mixed-use;
• Neighborhood cammerciallemployment center„
• Parks and schools; and
• Downtown areas/rentral business district.
Benefits of activity centers include:w '%J� .�
• Greater housing variety and density, more affordable housing (smaller units), including life -cycle
housing (starter homes to larger homes to senior housing)
• Reduced distances between housing, workplaces, retail businesses, and other amenities and
destinations;
• More compact development, land -use synergy (e.g. residents provide customers for retail which
provide amenities for residents);
• Stronger neighborhood character, sense of place; and
• Walkable, bikeable neighborhoods, increased accessibility via transit, both resulting in reduced
transportation costs
Currently, the City has 12 activity centers as represented in Figure 3.1. As the city grows into the
URA's additional activity centers will be needed to service both residential neighborhoods and the
retail and employment needs of the community.
1 Vision Plan
13
Page 8 of 33
Aik
CENTRAL
POINT
it'7�d Mia"g/Ipar1 P—.W.d..kw r"...dcJr'..YRs a 0-0—
b14carsww
Ch1e0�R+r1 Oa�,'r.�r -ipn'-a w�Lal nr'rY
.• � Ual 1`.ta NCwlYrr HA✓t] ���A -CRY Ioa ORw
rrRraaiwr�awr - rnr W.sirA1 w MWegrlY
rar r000ra � woriu
Figure 3.1. Activity Centers
lWU'.aaa C.L lmf, j"z 2018-2
ar.uld un its xi a
rftw •nowo rramacaarr r shm" wow it
gRRa UA lir ay Ar �RiMRe raar�lal al r• nR
'rrw.e mi o.+a rLrnRr u.y.pnvosr
art e+1+c.rrarK.�+a�s Uq A *�W" AeMdcaesrr 6—ar1w w rnM vW YM17
e..rM:a xirr
Page 9 of 33
14
3.2. Performance Indicators
The Regional Plan Element established performance indicators as a means to measure the compliance
with the objectives of the Regional Plan. There are eight (8) performance indicators that, via the Regional
Plan Element, apply to the Land Use Element:
3.2.1. Performance Indicator, Committed Residential Density
(4.1.5).
Land within a URA and land currently within an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) outside of the
existing City Limit shall be built, at a minimum, to the residential density of 6,9 dwelling units
per gross acre (2010-2035), and 7.9 dwelling units per gross acre (2036-2060). This requirement
can be offset by increasing the residential density in the city Limit.
Prior (4,1.5.1) to annexation each city shall establish (or, if they existlaheady, shall adjust)
nainimum densities in each of its residential zones such that if all p rens bdffd out to the minimum
allowed the committed density shall be met. This s t3 ' rtaaproval of a UGB
amendment.
3.2,2. Performance Indicator, Mixed-Use/Pedestrian Friendly Areas
(4.1.6).
For land within a URA and for land currently within a UGB but outside of the existing City
Limit, each city shall achieve the 2020 be nchmok targets for the number of dwelling units
(Alternative Measure No. SX39°/a) and employin t (Altmative Measure No. 6)(48%) in
mixed-uselpedestrian friendly areas as estabiis>ned in the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) or most recently adopted RTP. Beyond the year 2020, cities shall continue to achieve the
2020 benchmark targets„ .or if additiamtal benchmark years are established, cities shall achieve the
targets corresponding with the applicable benchmarks. Measurement and definition of qualified
development shall W im acc4rdsm with adopted RTP methodology. The requirement is
considered met if the city or the region overall is achieving the targets or minimum
qualifications; whichever is greater. This requirement can be offset by increasing the percentage
of dwelling waits andlor employment in the City Limit. This requirement is applicable to all
participating cities.
ferformance Indicator, Conceptual Transportation Plan
- y/
ConceXtial transportation plans shall be prepared early enough in the planning and development
cycle that the identified regionally significant transportation corridors within each of the URA's
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; and
Transportation Infrastructure (4.1.7.1). The conceptual transportation plan shall identify a
general network of regionally significant arterials under local jurisdiction, transit corridors, bike
Page 10 of 33
15
and pedestrian paths, and associated projects to provide mobility throughout the region
(including intercity and intercity, if applicable).
3.2.4. Performance Indicator, Conceptual Land Use Plan (4.1.8)
A proposal for UGB amendments into a designated URA shall include a Conceptual Land Use
Plan prepared by the city in collaboration with 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:
3.2.5. Target Residential Density 4.1.8.1
g t3' ( ).
The Conceptual Land Use PIan shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate how
the residential densities of section 4.1.5 above will be met at full b*ldoul9f the area
added to the UGB amendment.
3.2.6. Land Use Distribution (4.1.8.2).
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 designated land which was determined by the
Resource Lands Review committee to be eommercial agricultural land as part of a URA,
which applies the following URAs: CNIO, CPAC, CP -4D, CP -6A, and CP -2B.
w *A '
3.2.7.Transportation Infrastructure (4.1.8.3).
The Conceptaai Land Use Plan shall include the transportation infrastructure required in
section 4.1.7 above -
3.2.8. Mixed-Use/Pedestrian Friendly Areas (4.1.8.4).
The Conceptual Ladd Use Plan shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate how
the commitments: of section 4. 1.8 above will be met at full build -out of the area added to
the UGB amendment.
4. Land Use Benchmarks
As a result of policy changes and/or changes in the underlying economy a community's use of land
varies over time. Knowing the extent of these changes is an important land use tool for measuring policy
implementation and economic growth, There are four (4) basic methods of tracking land use that will be
used in this Land Use Element:
The percentage of a land use classification (developed and vacant) to the total of all land use
categories;
Page t 1 of 33
16
2. Gross acres per 1,000 population by land use category and total (developed and vacant) of all
land use categories;
3. Percentage of dwelling units located in an activity center; and
4. Percentage of employment located in an activity center,
The first two measures are typically used for tracking purposes only, unless specifically incorporated by
policy reference. As an example, in Table 4.1 the 1980 Industrial land use category targeted 13% for the
City's industrial needs by the year 2000. By 2017 the actual percentage of industrial acreage was 9%.
What does this mean? Since there were no policies targeting a minimum percentage for industrial lands,
the only explanation was that over time the City converted 4% of its industrial lands to other uses.
Table 4.1 also illustrates the changes in the two benchmarks for the planning period 1980 - 2000, 2017
(current), and the planning period 2018 - 2038. Since the 1980 Land Use Element was completed the City
has more intensely used its land. This intensification is illustrated in Table 4.1 when measured in acres
per 1,000 residents. In 1980 it was estimated that the City would need 171 total acres per 1,000 residents.
By 2017 the population benchmark (when measured against developed acreage) was 152 acres per 1,000
residents. By the end of the 2018 -2038 planning period that ratio is expected to be 145 acres per 1,000
population; a 15% increase in development intensity frv1n1980.
Benchmarks 3 and 4 track the amount of residential households, and employment in activity centers as
required by the Regional Plans Performance Indicator 4.1.6.
Table 4.1 land Use Benchmarks
Source: BuWbW Land. lay, .wy, 2017
S. Current (2017) Land Use Summary
The City of Central Point was incorporated in 1889, and had an estimated population of 500. Over the
years the City has grown concentrically around its original core area, with Hwy. 99 and Pine Street
serving as the north/south and east/west axis.
The City's previous Land Use Element was completed in 1983 covering an urban area of 2,736.83 acres,
and it was expected that the City's urban area was sufficient in size to accommodate a population of
16,000 by the year 2000. By the end of 2017 the City's urban area accounted for approximately 3,000
acres of which 2,679 acres were classified as developed.
Page 12 of 33
17
1480 - 2000
2017
2018 - 20M
Build-
Build -
Percentage
Out
Acres/1,000
Developed
Acres11,000
Out
Acres/1,000
Land Use Classification
of Total
Acres
Pop.
%
Acres
Pop.
%
Acres
Pop.
Residential
47%
1,281
so
51%
1,365
78
47%
1,604
69
Commercial
7%
200
12
6%
163
9
8%
262
ll
industrial
13%
356
22
8%
226
13
10%
351
15
Civic
7%
192
12
4%
109
6
3%
Its
5
Parks & Open Space
6%
164
10
7%
175
t0
8%
280
12
Public 13i ht-oC-Wav
1 20%
547
34
24%
641
361
23%
767
33
iUTAL
M%
2,740
171
100%
2,679
152
J IW1.
3.311
148
Source: BuWbW Land. lay, .wy, 2017
S. Current (2017) Land Use Summary
The City of Central Point was incorporated in 1889, and had an estimated population of 500. Over the
years the City has grown concentrically around its original core area, with Hwy. 99 and Pine Street
serving as the north/south and east/west axis.
The City's previous Land Use Element was completed in 1983 covering an urban area of 2,736.83 acres,
and it was expected that the City's urban area was sufficient in size to accommodate a population of
16,000 by the year 2000. By the end of 2017 the City's urban area accounted for approximately 3,000
acres of which 2,679 acres were classified as developed.
Page 12 of 33
17
Since 1983 the most noticeable change in land use was due to changes in the Industrial and Residential
land use classifications. This was the result of land use changes in 2003 allowing for the Twin Creeks
TOD. At that time the lands currently occupied by the Twin Creeks TOD was designated for industrial
use and needed to be changed to residential use to accommodate the Twin Creeks project. This change
was off -set by changes in the southeast quadrant of the city from Residential to Industrial land use. Table
4.1 identifies and compares the City's current land use distribution based on the 1983 Land Use Element
to year 2000, current land use for 2017, and projected land use needs to 20388.
The other noticeable change in Table 5.1 was in the Civic classi€rcation from a projected 7% of total land
area to 4% by 2017. This reduction was the result of changes in accounting methodology f6r civic land
uses. The current figure is based on lands actually designated as Civic use on the band Use plan Map and
account for such public uses as schools, libraries, and mise. government uses. The earlier 1983 tuigiiber
was based on an accounting of all "civic" uses such as churches, private schools, fraternal orgattbAtions,
etc. which is located within other land use classifications (predominantly Residential). When all "civic"
uses (public and private) are accounted for the actual percentage in 2017 was close to 7°.'a. Going forward
the term "Civic" applies to only public or utility related civic uses. Uses such as churches and private
schools, because of their size, no longer are limited to the Civic land use classification, but are allowed in
other zoning districts as either an out -right perrni ted uses, or conditional uses. The City BLI well continue
to maintain an inventory of these "other civic" land uses and make appropriate adjustments to the
underlying land use classification and zoning as they occur.
�W)6. Land Use Classifications 1W_,.qft
01.,
The City's current (2017) urban *ea contains approximately 3,000 acres distributed across six (6)
primary land use classifications, which are supported by nine (9) secondary land use classifications
(Table 6. 1), and four overlay classifications, for a total land use system of 19 land use classifications.
'Fable 6.1. Land Use Classifications
VAI)
Very Low Density (VI -Res)
Medium Density (JARes)
tommbw
I
Conworew
Employniant Cotnrrterdial
`s I
3 Industrial
General Industrial GI
s Civic (G)
,&.
Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
MWL— Hemard MMW
9 PSU Certified 2017 Population
18
Page 13 of 33
Airport (A -A)
Central Business District (CBD)_ .l
Table 6.2 identifies the distribution of the different land uses by net acreage for the current planning
period (2018 to 2038). In Table 6.2 the additional 300 acres represent lands within the current URA that
need to be brought into the City's UGB, As previously noted the acreages and their land use distribution
are based on the needs established in such other elements as Housing (residential lands), Economic
(commercial and industrial lands), 'Parks, etc. Figure 7.1 (Land Use Map) represents the spa€ial.
distribution of all land as defined in the Land Use Element, less what is shown in Table 6.2 as additional
needed net acres uses.
Table 6.2 Current and Projected Land Use Needs
Land Use C7asslflcadon
Current
inventory
Addidonal
Needed
Net Acres
Total
2038
Need
Residential
1,491
113
1,604
Commercial
247
15
262
Industrial
313
38
351
Civic
109
9
118
Parks & Open Space
227
53
280
Public Right-of-way
694
73
767
TOTAL
3,081
301
1
Source: Buil&Me kande InxnWy, 2017
N W
6.1. Residential Land Use
The City's residential land uses account for 52% of the City's total urban land area and represents the
largest single land use classification. For a City the size of Central Point such a high percentage
residential representation is historically typical (after adjusting far private sector civic uses). The next
largest is Right -of -Way at 22% followed by Industrial at 9%,
The purpose of the residential land use classification is to maintain an adequate supply of buildable
land at densities and housing types sufficient to accommodate the City's projected housing needs as
set forth in the Housing Element. The Housing Element identifies not only the residential acreage
needed during the planning period, but also the acreage distribution by density category and range of
housing types.
Historically, the primary challenge in administering the residential land use classifications was the
reliance on maximum densities, rather than the achievement of minimum densities. The prior Land
Use Element established maximum density as a goal, with the assumption that the private sector
would construct, if not at the maximum density, then surely close to it. In 1983, based on the City's
range of maximum allowed densities, the average density for new development should have been 11
dwelling units per gross acre. Between 1980 and 2016 the actual average built density was 4.7
dwelling units per gross acre. In 2006 the City amended its Zoning Ordinance establishing minimum
Page 14 of 33
19
density provisions and maximum density. Residential development post 2006 increased to 5.6 units
per gross acre.
Although impacted by the Great Recession, and a heavy emphasis on multiple -family construction,
the built density between 2006 and 2017 was 5.6 dwelling units per gross acre, a significant
improvement over the prior twenty years. Moving forward (2018-2038) it is planned, in both the
Regional Plan Element and the Housing Element, that the minimum density for all new development
will be 6.9 dwellings per gross acre, or greater.
The residential densities presented in the Land Use Element are based on the density pbtes in the
Housing Element. The minimum and maximum lot sizes identified in the Land Use Element, and the
Housing Klement, are suggestions only, and not mandatory. The minimum and maximum lot sizes are
set by the Zoning Ordinance, and can be adjusted from time -to -time, provided they comply with the
minimum densities in the Housing Elenient as carried forward in the Land Use Element.
6.2. Residential Land Use Classifications
Since 1980 residential lands have accounted for approximately 50% of all developed lands within
the City. Over the next 20 years it is projected that the residential percentage of the City's land
inventory will remain at approximately 50%. On a population basis the ratio of population to
acres was initially planned in 19$0 at 80:1,000 (Acres per 1000 residents). By the year 2000 the
actual ratio was 80:1,0009. Seven years later (2016) the ratio was 83:1,000. By 2038, with the
mandated minimum density it is expected to drop to 77:1,000.
There are four (4) residential land use Classifications and nine (9) supporting zoning districts. The
four (4) land use classifications, their zoning designation, and minimum and maxinium densities
are:
Density)
LRes (Urw Density)
Miles (NIedlum
Density)
HSS% (HIO Dewily)
�6. NOW
Atmc�x+d
single-Farnily Attached,
Plexes and ikpartments
Single"F'rtnily Attached,
Ptrxes, Apartments
R44
. 11 1
R-1.10
R-2
7.5 to 20
LMR
R-3
MMR
30 tv 50
HMR
The following defines each Residential Iand use classification:
9 The projected need for residential land exceeded the actual population growth by 2000.
Page 15 of 33
20
6.2. 1. Very Low Density Residential (VLRes)
The purpose of the VLRes classification is to encourage, accommodate, maintain and protect a
suitable environment for residential living at very low densities on lands that are impacted by
environmental constraints, or agricultural buffering needs. The VLRes classification was initially
established to act as a buffer between both the industrial areas to the east and the agricultural
lands to the west. The VLRes classification was previously identified as Farm -Residential.
As a percentage of the City's residential lands inventory it accounts for slightly over 1%. Today
the reliance on buffering from agricultural use has been mitigated by implementation of
agricultural buffering standards 10, reducing the reliance on the VLRes classification as tate sole
solution to agricultural buffering strategy. However, the VI.Res classification is st'll a viable
option to agricultural buffering, and in environmentally sensitive lands, sucli as flood hs—
areas and wet lands, where larger lots will facilitate buffering mitigafm
The VLRes land use classification is supported by the Residential Low Density (R -L) zoning
district. "Che minimum and maximum allowed densities and general lot size ranges are illustrated
in Table 6.2. The reference to minimum and maximum lot size is not mandatory, but advisory.
The setting of minimum and maximum lot size is the responsibility of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, provided that the minim and maximum density is compliant with the Housing
Element.
6.2.2. Low Density Reideatial (LRes)
�.�,
The LRes land use classffiication supports the need for low density housing and represents the
City's R -I zoning district. The LRes classification represents the largest residential land use
category, accounting for 60% of the City's residential land use. The purpose of this land use
classification is to accommodate the demand for single-family attached and detached housing.
The miuiinum density is 4 dwelling units per gross acre (R-1-10), with a maximum of 8 dwelling
units per gOss -Acre (Table 6.3).
Single family attached housing is pc-nnitted within the LRes classification subject to design
standards that assure architectural compatibility with abutting single-family detached dwellings.
Design emphasis is on massing, fenestration, and pedestrian and vehicular access to assure
individual identity for each attached unit.
10 CPMC 17.71 Agricultural Mitigation
21
Page 16 of 33
6.2.3. Medium Density Residential (MRes)
As its name implies this land use classification supports medium density housing. The MRes
classification's preferred location is within 112 mile of activity centers and/or transit facilities.
The MRes classification allows for a mix of detached and attached dwelling units, both owner
and renter occupied, subject to compliance with the minimum and maxinmin density
requirements in Table 6.4. The MRes designation covers two zoning districts; the R-2 and the
LMR districts. The LIAR district is perfbramce based zoning district dw applies to all neve
development within the UGB. The R-2 district applies to older areas of the City that are already
developed. To avoid non -conforming issues properties in the R-2 retains separate development
standards from the LMR district, but may in -fill, or redevelop us*g LMR standards.
6.2.4. High Density Residentlal (HRes)
This land use classification supports #ugh density housing. The HRes classification's preferred
location is within 1/2 w9e a£utivi.tycenters and/or transit facilities.
The HRes classification supports tbrce zoning districts; the R-3, the MMR, and the HMR (Tab;e
6.5). The only distinguishing factor between the R-3 and MMR zoning districts is that the R-3
district is typically in the older areas of the City and were developed under older standards, while
the MMR HMR are applied to new development within the UGB,TOD and CBD overlay. The
HMR district is the City's highest density residential zoning district, which was initially reserved
for use in the TOD district/corridor, but is now allowed outside the TOD district/corridor per the
Land Use Plan Map (Figure 6.1).
Page 17 of 33
22
Figure 71 Land Use Plan Map
&Mwwmar R.ii1 wMvo�
err ww�ff
/�wur OilL�ifi Lf�a fww
®ffpyidYwiifiw V�tij p4{�1i�i
�}St-.+�-l�:s�ar
�� 4�'1a11Y�
��. Y1■
now
Or/YAAf�OYM�'
-�LLO�waIY
- IB�wO�wr
fff� WLOYr
�f�wAfi
Draft Laa_ d Use M
2019-2038
4L/b.1fH Yy f01]
rw1111�11�sr7blrrw�w�l wY s
IwMwLlI7YPw �Ivr UYpJIlMf
+w �a�m++�w�frY��aF�Lfy+�w�f�fr�� rffwr moi»
fritW'r.wr,
r�rfL7fH
Yee � %Mfl
23
Page 18 of 33
6.3. Residential Land Use Plan Map
The Land Use Plan Map distributes each of the residential land use classifications based on, and in
order of priority, as follows;
1. Acreage needs as identified in the Housing Element. The density mix and acreage on the Land
Use Plan Map shall be consistent with the density mix and acreage mix in the Housing Element.
2. Locational factors, such as adjacent land uses, proximity to activity centers, proximity to public
transit, and street hierarchy.
6.4. Residential Infill and Redevelopment
Most of the City's residential infill is scattered throughout the City, while rodeveloonmt
opportunities are, as would be expected, concentrated around the downtown and older ams of the
City. The Housing Element addresses infill and redevelopment goals and pofices.
6.5. Small Town, Neighborhood Preservation, Identification and
Livability N JP
One of the benefits of living in Central Point is ita small town chmrsOiir, the importance of which is
acknowledged in the City's 2007 Central Point ForvnW Fair City Vision 2020 (Vision Plan) ".. .
with a `small town' commitment and feel d a+t,promows community pride, safety, and friendliness;,,
followed by the value statement that the Gty values °`... planned growth that will retain our small
town atmosphere." With the "small town dipiration ..." and i1tcreasing residential density urban
design is an important consideration.
As used in this Land Use F-Umtent the term "saran town" is qualitative (feel), not quantitative (size of
population), with an emphasis on urban design elements that are pedestrian in scale.
6.6. Residential Zoning & Density
The residential densities shown in the above tables are based on gross acres. All
residential development must meet the minimum density requirement based on its land
use classification and the applicable underlying zoning district. The minimum and
maximum net lot area shown in the above tables are advisory only. The designation of
minimum and maximum lot size for each residential district is the responsibility of the
City's Zoning Ordinance, which may be modified from time -to -time provided they
comply with the applicable densities set forth in the Housing Element for each associated
residential land use classification.
6.7. Minimum/Maximum Density Calculation
The range of residential units allowed within any particular zoning district can be calculated
by taking the gross acreage (43,560 sq. ft. per gross acre) less any areas proposed for public
Page 19 of 33
24
parks/open space, civic uses and environmental lands (SFHA and designated wetlands) as
that term is defined in the Land Use Element Environmental Overlay discussion (Section 7).
Below are two examples of how to calculate the minimum/maximum density for the all
residential zoning districts.
Example 1: Property is 2.5 gross acres within the R-1-8 zoning district (min.5 units/gross sore).
No proposed acreage deductions for Environmental, public parks/open space, or civic uses.
Gross acreage equals 2.5 acres
Minimum required density 5 units/grass acre.
Maximum allowed density G units/gross acre.
2.5*5--12 minimum number of dwelling units.
2.546=15 maximum number of dwelling units.
Allowed Density Range for the property: 12 to 15 units.
Example 2: Property is 2.5 acres within the R-1-8 zoning district (5 units/gross acre). There is
0.75 acres designated for public parity/open space and 0.25 acres for a church and 0.25 acres
within the floodway (exempt acreage) for an adiusted total gross acreage of 1.25.
Gross acreage equals 2.5 acres minus 1.25 acres ((exempt acreage) = I.25 acres
Minimum required density 5 units per gross acre.
Maximum allowed density 6 units per gross acre.
1,25*5=6.25 rounded to 6 ininimurri number of dwelling units.
1.25*6r--7.5 rounded" � to 8 maximum number of dwelling units.
Allowed Density Range for the property: 6 to 8 dwelling units.
Over the course of the next 20 -year planning period the City will need approximately 250 acres of
additional residential land to ince€ its expected population growth". The below tables illustrate
how the new residential lands are scheduled to be distributed by land use classification13 as
necessary to meet the minimum density standards of the Housing Element.
VV
1 Conventional rounding method
'' City of Central Point Housing Element
!3 City of Central Point Housing Element
25
Page 20 of 33
Table 7.6 Proposed hlaxlmum and Minimum Gross Density, 'Zoning
R -L
5%
1.00121
12
2.50
IZ
30
Total
s"/.
1.0D
12
11
E
R-1-6
R-1-8
R-1-10
30%
18%
12%
6.00
5.00
4.00
76
46
30
456
228
122
8.00
6.00
5.00
76
46
M
608
274
152
Total
6D%
5.30
152
'no
7.I9
LMR
R-2
10%
10%
7.00
7.00
26
25
182
175
10.00
10.00
26
25
260
250
?oralMe
7.00
51
357
lD.Q9
s<
s14
R-3
MMR
HMR
6%
5%
5%J
12.00
12.00
25.00
15
ll
11 1
182
137
285
20.00
20.00
50.00
15
11
ll
304
228
569
TOWMQ
Is."
3w1,
ow r�
tOl
Periodically, through the BLI, the need for urban land-Aall be monitored and the UGB amended
as necessary to maintain an inventory of vacant land adequate to meet demand as noted in Table
7.6.
In addition to the above residential acreage need, additional residentially designated acreage will
be needed to for public parks and open space, and private sector civic uses.
6.7.1. Public Parks and Open Space.
The City's Parks and Recreation Element does not identify specific locations for future parks, but
instead provides proposed target areas needing parks (Figure 7.1). To maintain park land to
population ratio it is noted in the Parks and Recreation Element that by 2038 an additional 42 acres of
park land will need to be.acquired and developed. Generally, the location of parks and open space
lands are associated with residential lands. At such time as parks and open space lands are designated
and acquired within the Residential land use classification, then the Residential lands acreage will
need to be adjusted to accommodate for the loss in acreage due to the Parks need. The residential
land use need includes, in the' aggregate, the 42 acres projected for public parks and open space. As
park lands are identified the Land Use Element will be amended to reflect the change.
•i .
6J.---2 ,Civic Uses.
The designation of Civic lands, as with parks and open space, predominantly responds to residential
development. Similar to the provision to adjust residential lands for park and open space
development, when civic uses, such as churches, develop within the Residential land use
classification, then the residential lands must be appropriately adjusted to accommodate the loss in
acreage. As civic use are developed then the Land Use Element must be amended to reflect the
change, and the underlying land use corrected
Page 21 of 33
26
6.7.3. Environmental Lands.
Throughout the City there are lands that are developmentally encumbered as a result of flooding or
other environmental constraints. The presence of environmental constraints is maintained in the BLI
and for development purposes is deducted from the gross acre figure for any given property.
6.8. Residential Goals and Policies:
Residential Goal 1: To ensure a high degree of livability and environmental quality in all
residential areas of Central Point.
r�
Residential Goal 2: To support a well-balanced variety of residential densities and housing
opportunities/types for all residents of the community as defined in the Housing Element.
Residential Goal 3: To support a greater distribution of Rousing opportunities by providing for a
variety of housing densities and types throughout the City, particularly in order to avoid
undesirable and inefficient concentrations of housing types and segments of the population in any
one location.
Residential Goal 4: To preserve the value and character of older-single-fanuly neighborhoods
through proper zoning, including reasonable efforts to encourage maintenance and rehabilitation
as an alternative to transitional development at higher densities.
Residential Goal 5: To encourage and make possible innovative residential planning and best
practices development techniques that would help to Increase land use efficiency, reduce costs of
utilities and services, and ultimately reduce houft coM
Task 1: To evaluate the mobile home park density conflict in the R-3 district and mitigate as
deemed necessary.
Residential Polity 1: To continue to ensure that long-range planning and zoning reflects the need
to locate the highest densities and greatest numbers of residents in closest possible proximity to
activity centers.
Residential Polity 2: To continue to update the Zoning Ordinance, as necessary to take
advantage of planning innovation, best practices, and technological improvements that could have
applications in Central Point to the benefit of the community.
Residential Policy 3: In areas where residential neighborhoods abut commercial or industrial
areas, orient the residential structures and local streets away from these land uses to avoid any
undesirable views and to strengthen neighborhood solidarity.
Residential Policy 4: In any area where development of one or more parcels may create obstacles
to development of others, require the initial developer to develop a specific plan that would
provide for the future development of the entire area, including the provision of adequate access
to potentially landlocked properties.
Page 22 of 33
27
7. Employment Land Use
The Employment land use category is comprised of six (6) supporting land use classifications
addressing the City's land use needs for commercial, office, and industrial acreage. The City has a
2017 inventory of 511 acres within the urban area designated for employment purposes. Based on the
findings of the Economic Element it is estimated that by the year 2033 the City will have a need for
10 to 20 additional gross acres 14, or 13 acres per 1,000 residents of employment lands to meet its
2033 year growth projection. The Economic Element was based on the assumption that by 2033 the
population would be 27,410. Portland State University Population Research Center's 15 official
forecast for 2033, at 22,257, was considerably lower, and that by 2038 it would be 23,290. Because
the 2038 population projection does not exceed the Economic Element's 2033 population projection
the estimated demand of 10 - 20 additional acres tar employment purposes will be used for the 2018
- 2038 planning period.
City of Central Point
Ca mems rcla I Land Inventory
- - - —
Perseabse
=6 Acres
1rOd Urbsts
a ff0ta!
nr IAW
VM
Lod Use CimsiScoea
Grass Mmes
Acres
reowfides.
P atlas
YCom
22.55
0.8%
EC
145.41
4.9%
GC
67.66
2.3%
""I
r 7-10%
12.72
12.
7.1. Commercial Land Use Summary
The City's conunercial land use classification is comprised of three secondary classifications:
• Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
• Employment Commercial (EC); and
• General Commercial (GC)
The EC and GC have: been redefined from their prior descriptions to broaden the scope of allowed
uses. Of the 5 11 acres designated for employment purposes, 235 acres are identified for
commercial use. By 2038 it is expected that an additional 6 acres will be needed to maintain the
established benchmarks.
l4 Adjusted for 47 acre 2015 Industrial UGB expansion, Ordinance No. 2013
1S Coordinated Population Forecast 2015 through 20651ackson County, Portland State University Population
Research Center.
Page 23 of 33
28
7.2. Commercial Land Use Plan
The City's commercial land use plan is based on the Economic Element's analysis of commercial,
office, and tourist needs of the community for the planning period (2013-33). At the time the
Economic Element was completed (2013) the City's commercial lands account for 8% (235 acres) of
the City's total land inventory. At 8% of the total land area the population to commercial land use
ratio was 13 acres of commercial land for every 1,000 population by the year 2033. This ratio remains
consistent with the standard adopted in the 1933 Land Use Element, and is supported by the
Economic Element which notes that there are sufficient commercial lands within the current urban
area to address future commercial land needs to meet the 2033 population.
However, not all of the commercial lands are effectively distributed to serve the needs f an expanding
UGB. As the urban area expands into the URA there will be a logistical need for additional
commercial lands that exceed the benchmarks. From an urban design perspective there will be a need
for additional commercial lands to serve growing neighborhood needs outside the current UGB is
warranted as activity centers to serve existing and new neighborhoods.
The Land Use Plan includes three (3) commercial land use classifications:
7.2.1. Neighborhood Commercial (NC).
Neighborhood Commercial, provides for small neighborhood convenience retail and services
needs of adjacent residential neighborhoods. To assure that Neighborhood Commercial
districts are sized to service neighborhood needs. Neighborhood Commercial district shall be
limited to approximately 3-5 ac -m with a typical service area of 3 miles. The NC district shall
be located along collector and/or arterial streets and designed to complement the retail and
service needs of abutting residential neighborhoods. The design of this commercial district
shall be at a scale and architectural character complements and is functionally compatible
with the neighborhood and emphasizes pedestrian and bicycle convenience.
Currently, there are duce (3) NC districts in the City, three (3) on the west side approx. 1 acre
in size, and one (1) on the east side, approx. 7 acres in size.
7.2.2. Employment Commercial (EC).
The W classification is designed to accommodate a wide variety of retail, service, and
office uses in an environment that is pedestrian oriented in scale and amenities and
supports pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use. Residential uses above the ground floor are
encouraged.
The EC land use designation replaces the prior Tourist and Office -Professional
classification.
Page 24 of 33
29
7.2.3. General Commercial (GC).
The GC classification is designed to accommodate commercial, business, and light
industrial uses that are most appropriately located along or near major highways or
arterials and are largely dependent of highway visibility and access. The GC land use
designation replaces the prior Thoroughfare Commercial classification.
7.2.4. Commercial Development Goals and Policies
Commercial Goal t: To create an economically strong and balanced commercial sector of the
community that is easily accessible, attractive, and meets the commercial needs of the local market
area.
Commercial Goal 2: Continue to pursue implementation of the Downtown and East Pine Street
Corridor urban renewal plan
Commercial Policy 1: Maintain the zoning of all commcrcial areas of Central Point as necessary to
conform to the 2018-2038 Economic Element.
Commercial Policy 2: Undertake an in depth study of the downtown business district and develop a
comprehensive improvernent plan that would include such considerations as traffic circulation and
off-street parking, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and access, structural design guidelines, and
guidelines for landscaping and signing.
Commercial Policy 3: Encourage the developnternt csf shared commercial parking areas in the
downtown area to be carried out by the local businesses with City assistance.
Commercial Policy 4: Promote the planned integration of abutting commercial development for the
purpose of more efficient customer parking, better design and landscaping, coordinated signing, and
increased retail sales.
Commercial Policy 5: For that section of Highway 99 between Beall Lane and the High School
implement the 99 Corridor Plan to improve this corridor, improve raffic circulation, and improve the
overall visual and aesthetic Character of the area.
7.3. Industrial Land Use Plan
It was determined in the 1980 Land Use Plan that a typical city in Oregon similar in size to Central
Point had approximately 15 acres of industrial land per 1,000 residents. At that time the City's
industrial lands inventory accounted for only 4.1 acres per 1,000 residents. Today (2018) the City has
14.87 acres per 1,000 residents, and industrial acres ui number and size to provide an attractive
inventory.
The City's vision plan restates the continuing need to improve the industrial, employment, and
economic health of the Community as a major goal, and to mitigate the City's "bedroom community"
image. Since 1980 the City has successfully pursued this goal, having attained a ratio of 14.87
industrial acres per resident.
Page 25 of 33
30
City of Central Point
Industrial Land Inventory
The industrial land use classification is divided into two sub -classifications; Light Industrial and
Heavy Industrial. Together they total 275 acres, of which 54 acres are considered vacant. The
Economic Element determined that by 2033 an additional 36 gross acres 16 will be needed for
industrial purposes. This need determination was based on a 2033 population proiectton of 27,410.
Since adoption of the Economic Element Portland State University's Population Research Center, in
accordance with recently adopted legislation, completed an updated population estimate for 2015 and
a projection to 2060. The projected population for 2037 is 2 3,08 5 which is less than that used in the
Ecouomic Element. As such, and since population was used as an indicator of future need, the
Economic Element's project need is deeined acceptable for 2037 use.
7.3. 1. Industrial Goals and Policies
Industrial Goal L To support and maintain a strong and diversified industrial sector in accordance
with the Economic Element.
Industrial Goal 2: To maximise industrial expansion and new development opportunities in locations
that utilize existing highways and other infrastructure, are in close proximity to employee housing
areas, and will minimize conflicts with all non -industrial land uses.
Industrial Goal 3: Through the BLI monitor and manage the use of industrial lands.
Industrial Goal 4: To encourage light industrial uses in the General Commercial district subject to site
and architectural standards that ensure compatibility with adjacent commercial uses.
Industrial Policy 1: Within CP -113 maximize the industrial development potential of the Highway
99/Southern Pacific railroad corridor to meet the needs to the year 2038.
Indusfrial Policy 3: Work toward the development of requirements and guidelines for the
establishment of industrial parks or other forms of master planning in the larger industrial.
Industrial Policy 5: Ensure through the plan review process that all industrial development proposals
adequately address the importance of maintaining environmental quality, particularly air and water
quality.
Industrial Policy 6: Continue to support the landscape requirements for industrial development as set
forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
" City of Central Point Economic Element, Table 5.2-2
31
Page 26 of 33
Percentage
2016 Acres
2000 Acres
Total Clty Total UGB Total Urban
ofTotal
per 1,000
per 1,000
Comprehensive Plan Desi. nahoo
Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres
Acres
Population
Po olation
Lind
84.54 111.50 196.05
6.6%
HhW
39.67 39.73 79.40
2.7%
TOTAL INDUSTRIAL
124.21 I5114 275AS
93%
14.87
2200.
The industrial land use classification is divided into two sub -classifications; Light Industrial and
Heavy Industrial. Together they total 275 acres, of which 54 acres are considered vacant. The
Economic Element determined that by 2033 an additional 36 gross acres 16 will be needed for
industrial purposes. This need determination was based on a 2033 population proiectton of 27,410.
Since adoption of the Economic Element Portland State University's Population Research Center, in
accordance with recently adopted legislation, completed an updated population estimate for 2015 and
a projection to 2060. The projected population for 2037 is 2 3,08 5 which is less than that used in the
Ecouomic Element. As such, and since population was used as an indicator of future need, the
Economic Element's project need is deeined acceptable for 2037 use.
7.3. 1. Industrial Goals and Policies
Industrial Goal L To support and maintain a strong and diversified industrial sector in accordance
with the Economic Element.
Industrial Goal 2: To maximise industrial expansion and new development opportunities in locations
that utilize existing highways and other infrastructure, are in close proximity to employee housing
areas, and will minimize conflicts with all non -industrial land uses.
Industrial Goal 3: Through the BLI monitor and manage the use of industrial lands.
Industrial Goal 4: To encourage light industrial uses in the General Commercial district subject to site
and architectural standards that ensure compatibility with adjacent commercial uses.
Industrial Policy 1: Within CP -113 maximize the industrial development potential of the Highway
99/Southern Pacific railroad corridor to meet the needs to the year 2038.
Indusfrial Policy 3: Work toward the development of requirements and guidelines for the
establishment of industrial parks or other forms of master planning in the larger industrial.
Industrial Policy 5: Ensure through the plan review process that all industrial development proposals
adequately address the importance of maintaining environmental quality, particularly air and water
quality.
Industrial Policy 6: Continue to support the landscape requirements for industrial development as set
forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
" City of Central Point Economic Element, Table 5.2-2
31
Page 26 of 33
Industrial Policy 7: Maintain an industrial lands ratio of 15 acres of industrial land per 1,000
residents.
7.4. Civic Land Use
Lands designated for this use consist of a variety of uses considered to be public in nature or perform
public services, particularly public schools, which account for the largest percentage of acreage in this
classification. In 2016 the ratio of Civic lands to 1,000 residents was significantly below the projected
2000 ratio. This discrepancy was a result of the methodology used in calculating Civic land uses. In
the previous Land Use Element all civic land uses were inventoried regardless of the land use
classification. As illustrated in the below table only lands within the Civic classification were
included in the inventory. If all civic land uses were accounted for in the below table the ratio is the
same as the 2000 ratio. Apo* Ai
Going forward only public civic uses will be counted in the Civic classification. Quasi -public uses
will be noted, but will be relegated to an allowed use in other- land use classifications.
City of Central Point
Civic Land Inventory
7.4.1. Civic Land Use Goals and Policies
Goal 1: To include in each land use category sufficient public lands for land uses related to
community public facilities, such as city hall, public schools, community centers, etc. Other quasi -
public uses such as utilities, c4yrches, etc. will be relegated to other land use classification consistent
with past practices
Policy 1. Ensure that any major public or quasi -public facility that is proposed to be located within a
residential neighborhood is located along a collector or secondary arterial street, is compatible with
surrounding land uses, and does not contribute unreasonably to traffic volumes within the
neighborhood.
Policy 2: Work with officials of School District 6 to develop and implement a school site acquisition
program that is consistent with the long-range comprehensive plans of the City and the District.
Policy 3: Continue to emphasize the need for pedestrian and bicycle access to all public facilities and
areas frequented by local residents.
Page 27 of 33
32
Pereeitap 12016 Ana
IM Aerea
Total City Tont Urb=
Told Urb n
ofTotd per 1.000
Per 1J0
Comprebenive Plan Desiffmdon Gross Aeras Groh Aerea
Arm PwvAii
Aeras foWad=
1 edge
27
3.7%
Civic 108.66 108.80
TUFTAL CMC 10L" MAO
27
3.756 IV
12,66
7.4.1. Civic Land Use Goals and Policies
Goal 1: To include in each land use category sufficient public lands for land uses related to
community public facilities, such as city hall, public schools, community centers, etc. Other quasi -
public uses such as utilities, c4yrches, etc. will be relegated to other land use classification consistent
with past practices
Policy 1. Ensure that any major public or quasi -public facility that is proposed to be located within a
residential neighborhood is located along a collector or secondary arterial street, is compatible with
surrounding land uses, and does not contribute unreasonably to traffic volumes within the
neighborhood.
Policy 2: Work with officials of School District 6 to develop and implement a school site acquisition
program that is consistent with the long-range comprehensive plans of the City and the District.
Policy 3: Continue to emphasize the need for pedestrian and bicycle access to all public facilities and
areas frequented by local residents.
Page 27 of 33
32
7.5. Parks and Recreation Land Use
Goal 1: To integrate into the Land Use Plan the parks and recreation, and open space needs as set forth in
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Policy 1: Whenever possible, encourage the location of public park sites adjacent to public school sites to
establish neighborhood educational/recreational "centers" that can benefit by the joint utilization of both
types of facilities.
City of Central Point
Parks and Open Space Land Inventory
7.6. Circulation/Transportation Land Use
The Land Use Plan maintains an accounting of the City's public street system as a percentage of the
City's total land inventory. As a typical rule"af thumb the right-of-way needs of a typical community
averages 25%'7 of all land uses within an urban area. In 1980 it was estimated that by the year 2000 the
City's street right-of-ways would account for 20% of the City's total land area. By 2017 the figure was
actually 22%. V V0
City of Central Point
Bight -of -Way Land inventory
PercerAW 2016 Acres
3000 Aeras
Totd City Total Urban
Totd Urbaa of eW per 1,000
per 1,064
Cu!qw,@Wns1v&P1=Deslr=don Grass Acres Gross Aeras
Area tared■ Aeras Pu atedoe
Poodstioa
OS 1 96.90 174.89
72 5.9%
P I 1 0 Pn alation
TOTAL PAS= & OPEN SPACE 96.90 174J9
72 39% 9A4
10.13
7.6. Circulation/Transportation Land Use
The Land Use Plan maintains an accounting of the City's public street system as a percentage of the
City's total land inventory. As a typical rule"af thumb the right-of-way needs of a typical community
averages 25%'7 of all land uses within an urban area. In 1980 it was estimated that by the year 2000 the
City's street right-of-ways would account for 20% of the City's total land area. By 2017 the figure was
actually 22%. V V0
City of Central Point
Bight -of -Way Land inventory
TOTAL ALL XON M MS1131CI5 1 2Ast0.31 2,96136 6.899 100,'1 1AM I 17 M.
The City's circulation planning is the responsibility of the City's Transportation System Plan. The
Transportation System Plan address not only the City's street right-of-way needs, but also, rail, bicycle,
pedestrian, and air.
7.6.1. Circulation Land Use Goal
The most significant relationship between land use and circulation planning is the reliance of
circulation/transportation planning on its ability to provide an acceptable level of services based on the
underlying land use mix. Typically, as land use intensifies traffic volumes increase. The Land Use
Page 28 of 33
33
Perc0eta8e
12416Aeras12000 Here$
Totd Ary Total Urbsa Totai Urbu
ofTotd
I psr I*M per 1.W
Compnbudve Plan MWxwdou
Gross Acrn Grog Aces Area rwoos
Acre
P I 1 0 Pn alation
PUBLIC RIGHT -OW -WAY
$" is 641.21
21.6%1
34.61 1 33.63
TOTAL ALL XON M MS1131CI5 1 2Ast0.31 2,96136 6.899 100,'1 1AM I 17 M.
The City's circulation planning is the responsibility of the City's Transportation System Plan. The
Transportation System Plan address not only the City's street right-of-way needs, but also, rail, bicycle,
pedestrian, and air.
7.6.1. Circulation Land Use Goal
The most significant relationship between land use and circulation planning is the reliance of
circulation/transportation planning on its ability to provide an acceptable level of services based on the
underlying land use mix. Typically, as land use intensifies traffic volumes increase. The Land Use
Page 28 of 33
33
Element and the Transportation System Plan are currently in balance. As land use changes are proposed it
is necessary that the impact of the change is evaluate for compliance with transportation standards and
mitigate as necessary. This occurs at two levels; when projects of a certain size are developed, and as land
is brought into the UGB.
Goal 1:To effectively manage the use of land within the Central Point Urban Area in a manner that is
consistent with, and that supports the successful implementation of the City's Transportation System
Plan,
Policy 1: Prior to inclusion of lands from the URAs into the UGB a traffic impact analysis must be
completed to determine level of service at time of development.
X% .
7.6.2. Existing Circulation Land Use Summary AW,.
The City's public right-of-way system currently accounts for approximately 22% of Ibc City's total urban
land area, which includes underdeveloped lands within the UGB, and as such is cowidered a Iow figure.
For fixture planning purposes a Figure of 25% is used, which is based on build -out.
7.7. Overlay Districts
As previously noted there are five (5) overlay districts that affect the various land uses. Those
districts are -
7.7. 1.
re:
7.7.1. Central Business District (CBD)
The Central Business Distriicct (CBD) Overlay represents the City's historic business
center of the commurk. As an overlay district the CBD encompasses a mix of
commercial (retail and etffice) and residential use classifications that support a pedestrian
and transit oriented environment. The CBD Overlay extends along Pine Street; from First
Street and Seventh Street. The CBD Overlay is intended to identify and strengthen the
comrn&cial core area as a unique area of the City.
7.7.2.Transit Oriented Development District (TOD)
The TOD overlay represents the existing TOD is to encourage, through a master plan
process, development that includes a mixture of housing, office, retail and/or other
amenities integrated into a walkable neighborhood and located within a half -mile of
quality public transportation.
7.7.3. Environmental Overlay
The Environmental Overlay identifies lands that are environmentally constrained such as
high risk flood hazard areas and/or environmentally sensitive lands such as wetlands,
riparian areas, etc. that are not developable. Figure 9.2 Overlay Map identifies the area
covered by each overlay.
Page 29 of 33
34
The Environmental Overlay includes the floodway plus 25 -ft or the top -of -bank plus 25-
R, whichever is greater. The objective of this overlay flood overlay is to reduce flood
risk to the conununity while restoring and/or preserving floodplain and riparian areas,
which provide multiple community benefits (i.e. meet state and federal regulatory
requirements, reduce the cost of flood insurance, improve fish and wildlife habitat,
increase neighborhood recreation areas, mitigate increased flood hazards- generated by
new land divisions in the flood overlay zone, etc.).
7.7.4. Airport Overlay
The Airport Overlay includes two overlays; the Airport Approach Overlay and the
Airport Concern Overlay. The Airport Overlays are intended to reduce risks to aircraft
operations and land uses within close proximity to airports and heliports. These overlays
are required pursuant to federal and state laws, specifically Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR, Part 77) and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 660-013 and OAR 738-070).
8. Land Use Plan Map
The Figure 8.1 is the City's Lazed Use Plan Map for 213 1 8-2038. This map identifies all land uses
used by the City, and has been prepared in compliance with such other Comprehensive Plan
elements such as the Housing Element, the Economic E lemew, the Parks and Recreation
Element, etc. The City's Zoning Map shall be consistent, at all times, with the land use
designations in the Land Use Element_ -W.
When amendments to the UGB are proposed they must be found consistent with the Concept
Plans in the Regional Plan Element,
It
Page 30 of 33
35
Figure 8.1
A
CENTRAL
POINT
l"Wo ►r mmoown.Am. 1!N , m IY�wr �or./.rAe_�p�M
Ol/1..0U�l14.r �cNAw/ �.W L"d�M _to" M>ftL"Q'"/
a•.�Ulr 1brt.rrO�ABper (tlrl -��Ib/ewRalb�e -iM S.rrr.4
Csr rrr� orm aeon � rawer de�rrl/r Yr o.rw
sew touorwr wb000m
dw w... asr.lMAWJM--
na i.S Uq 2".
Aft .war.r.ea0.0fte lndal—ftw—.*.
orwUd UMP rrlb 3rr weWom,0 em 1lft
Aln—W,y e•nr %C V ,j4 04r
,.i�.rn� ■--PVnn I,- 7AwoffrA rw am -on" Lin IftoM lark W7
a-hdbr. Won
ao�.n.;sn
�t o.a.tiwr t4tlMr
91
Draft Ladd Um Map
2018-2038
Page 32 of 33
Figure 8.2
Ak
CENTRAL
POINT
Ll—a.
rowo� awn
7-2 t:. AMUR
DRAFT CGMPrd"dV* LAUd USS ?W Or
-QV -IM
2017-2037
37
Page 33 of 33