The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDec. 5, 2017 PC PacketAL�N CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA December 5, 2017 - 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 November 7, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS 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 VIII. DISCUSSION A. Working Draft of Land Use Element, File No. 17003 IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS XI. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2017 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Mike Oliver, Tom Van Voorhees, John Whiting, Craig Nelson, Amy Moore, Jim Mock and Kay Harrison were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES John Whiting made a motion to approve the Septernber 5, 2017 minutes. Craig Nelson Seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; John Whiting, yes; Jim Mock, abstain. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES None VI. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to consider Resolution 848, amendments to Section 17.05.300(C) — Notice of application for Type II Decision and Section 17.05.400(C) Notification Requirements for Type III Decision in the Central Point Municipal Code. Community Development Director Tom Humphrey introduced new Planning Commissioner Jim Mock. Planning Commission Chair Mike Oliver read the rules governing a quasi-judicial hearing. The Commissioners had no conflicts, ex parte contact or bias to declare. Mr. Humphrey explained that the City was intending to increase the public hearing notification requirement for Type II and Type III applications from 100 feet to 250 feet from a subject property. He added that there would be a notice posted on a subject property as well. He clarified that notice of Type III Decisions would be mailed to any Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2017 Page 2 person who had standing, whereas notice of Type I1 Decisions would be sent to all the same people who received the notice of public hearing. There was discussion about what type and size of sign would be adequate for posting the notification on the project site. Mr. Humphrey indicated there was a letter in the packet from a local area resident, Katy Mallams, stating she was in favor of expanding the noticing boundary. The Public Hearing was opened Larry Martin, Taylor Road Mr. Martin stated he thought 250 feet was a reasonable distance for noticing. The Public Hearing was closed. The Commissioners discussed the advantages of the larger noticing boundary and indicated that signage would also be a good idea. Amy Moore made a motion to approve Resolution 848 amendments to Section 17.05.300(C) — Notice of application for Type II Decision and Section 17.05.400(C) Notification Requirements for Type III Decision in the Central Point Municipal Code as amended. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. The Commissioners thought it was a good change. Mike Oliver asked about noticing homeowner associations for any public hearings. Mr. Humphrey said that would not be feasible as a lot of associations were no longer active. Kay Harrison mentioned that public hearings should be included in the newsletter that went out with the water bills and stated that information regarding all meetings was posted on the website. Mr. Humphrey explained that citizens could contact the City and request notification of any public hearings and they would be included in any mailings ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, yes; Jim Mock, yes. Motion passed. B. Public Hearing to consider Resolution 849, amendments to Section 17.05.600(H) — General Procedural Provisions, City Council Review in the Central Point Municipal Code. Planning Commission Chair Mike Oliver stated the rules governing a quasi-judicial hearing stood as previously read. The Commissioners had no conflicts, ex parte contact or bias to declare. Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2017 Page 3 Mr. Humphrey explained the Council Review procedure. He said that the City Attorney had written it in order to clearly define the procedure, and to protect the City from litigation. Mr. Humphrey stated that there was no reason to question the Planning Commission's decisions unless there was a sense by the Council that the Commission had erred in weighing the evidence presented to them. He explained that there would need to be a majority of the Council members making a determination to review an application. The determination would be made and the decision reviewed during the regular appeal time period. If an appeal was filed and the Council decided that an error was made, the appellant's fee would be refunded. Mr. Humphrey explained that all applications were subject to the state's 120 day Rule. John Whiting asked for clarification of the process for Council Review. Tom Humphrey said that Staff provided findings of fact which they felt were sufficient to support an application, however during a public hearing additional information could be introduced and it would be up to the Planning Commission to either evaluate it during discussion or to continue the matter. The Council would be required to evaluate a decision by the Planning Commission solely on the record upon which their decision was based. He said that the procedure would allow the City to correct any error prior to an appeal being filed and thus avoid litigation. It was clarified during discussion that if the council decided that the Planning Commission's decision was based on incomplete evidence their course of action would be to overturn the decision and deny the application. If they wanted to ask for additional evidence for their review and make their own decision on the application, they would need to notice a new hearing and request that additional evidence be presented at the hearing. There seemed to be no option for the Council to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission and some of the wording of the procedures seemed unclear. The Commissioners felt there was a lack of clarity regarding the Council's options once a matter was reviewed. Public hearing was opened There were not comments Public hearing was closed John Whiting made a motion to continue the matter and request staff talk to the City attorney regarding clarification of the council call up procedures regarding the recourses for obtaining additional evidence. Kay Harrison seconded. Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2017 Page 4 The commissioners discussed the options that they understood the Council to have for making their decision on an application. They decided the procedures seemed somewhat unclear and conflicting. Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to amend the original motion to include changing Item 2A to replace the reference to Planning Director with the title Community Development Director. John Whiting seconded the amendment. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, yes; Jim Mock, yes. Amendment passed. Mike Oliver asked for a vote on the original motion to continue Resolution 849. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, yes; Jim Mock, yes. Motion passed. VII. DISCUSSION IX. MISCELLANEOUS Planning and Development Update. Mr. Humphrey said that he had provided the Commissioners with a table of contents for the Comprehensive Plan showing the dates the different elements were adopted. He said that Costco was scheduled to open on November 16`h,; Table Rock improvements went out to bid this month; The Railroad Crossing was awarded to Knife River, and the downtown improvements were progressing He reviewed possible future agenda items for the next meeting including The Land Use Element and the Conceptual Plan for CP -5 and CP -6 X. ADJOURNMENT Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to adjourn. Craig Nelson seconded. All members said "aye". Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the November 7, 2017 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of December, 2017. Planning Commission Chair AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.05.600(H GENERAL PROCEDURAL. PROVISIONS CITY COUNCIL REVIEW IN THE CENTRAL POINT MULTI AkADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT CENTRAL POINT 140 South 3` Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • (541) 664-7602 - www.centralpointoregon.gov STAFF REPORT December 5, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of an Ordinance amending the Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.05.600(h) regarding City Council review provisions. STAFF SOURCE: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director Sydnee Dreyer, City Attorney BACKGROUND: 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 for call-up procedures, hearings procedures, and overlapping appellate procedures. Council directed staff and the city attorney to research similar processes in other cities and to bring back recommended code revisions that prescribe the council review process. The Planning Commission questioned an apparent conflict between Council review due to lack of substantial evidence and that review being limited to the record. They also wondered whether the Council could remand a decision to the Commission to correct errors of law that might be made. Staff hopes to have answers to these questions by meeting time in order to proceed with a Commission recommendation to the City Council. FISCAL IMPACTS: If the Council were to exercise its review authority after an appeal was filed, the appellate fee would be refunded to the appellant. FINDINGS: The amendments are necessary to ensure the Council Review authority is well defined and the process set forth to avoid inconsistent application and/or to avoid appeal based upon failure to follow appropriate procedure. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" - Ordinance No. —An Ordinance amending the Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.05.600(h) regarding City Council review provisions. Attachment "B" - Planning Commission Resolution No. 849 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 849 Recommending Approval of An Ordinance amending the Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.05.600(h) regarding City Council review provisions. ATTACHMENT If ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.05.600(H) REGARDING CITY COUNCIL REVIEW PROVISIONS RECITALS: A. Pursuant to CPMC, Chapter 1.01.040, the City Council, may from time to time make revisions to its municipal code which shall become part of the overall document and citation. B. Upon review, the staff and city attorney for the City of Central Point determined that amendment to Section 17.05.600(H) Council Review Procedures is necessary in order to more clearly define the process for Council review of land use matters. C. The amendment is intended to set forth the timing and procedure for Council review. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 17.05.600(H), City Council Review is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter" or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re -lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Recitals A -C) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. SECTION 3. Effective Date. The Central Point City Charter states that an ordinance enacted by the Council shall take effect on the thirtieth day after its enactment. The effective date of this ordinance will be the thirtieth day after the second reading. PASSED by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this _ day of January 2018. Mayor Hank Williams ATTEST: City Recorder EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE AMENDED CITY COUNCIL REVIEW PROVISIONS New language indicated in bold. Deleted language indicated in str-ik thf!o...h" 17.05.600 General procedural provisions. H. City Council Review. 1. Authority. Whether or not an appeal is filed, pursuant to Section 17.05.550, Tthe city council shall, by majority vote, have the authority to call up any Type II or Type III application for review upon a finding that errors of law were made and/or there was not substantial evidence to support the decision. The decision to call up a z 2. Procedures: a. A summary of Type Il and Type III decisions shall be forwarded by mail or electronic mail to the City Council as an information item by the Community Development Director at the time the decision is mailed to the applicant. b. Review under this Section shall be initiated by the City Council before the adjournment of the first regular City Council meeting, following the date the City Council receives notification of the decision. c. Any member of the City Council or the Mayor may make a motion to review the Type I1 or Type [if decision which shall require majority of the Council present to approve. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Council member or the Mayor is prohibited from initiating or voting upon the motion if such individual has a conflict of interest or has participated in the proceedings below in his/her individual capacity. d. Unless subsequently discontinued by majority vote, City Council review pursuant to this section shall supersede and replace any appeal filed under Section 17.05.550. The appellant(s) of any appeal filed before a City Council call for review shall receive a full refund of the filing fee. e. The City Recorder shall set the hearing date for the next regularly scheduled Council meeting, that falls not less than fourteen (14) days after the date the Council approves the motion to review the application. f. City Council review shall be on the record which means that Council review is limited to the application materials, evidence, documentation, and specific issues raised in the initial proceedings and participation shall be limited to the applicant or owner of the subject property and any person who participated in the proceeding by submitting timely written and/or oral comments on the record prior to the decision. g. The notice, hearing and decision procedures for a City Council review shall follow the provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code for appeals. h. The decision of the City Council upon review shall become final on the date when written notice of the decision is mailed to persons entitled to notice of the decision. Any further appeal shall be to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. ��I 1 I ACj'"a%!T "_a." '�?, " YYY Ir.. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 849 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 ZONING FILE NO. 17003 Applicant: City of Central Point WHEREAS, on November 7, 2017 the Planning Commission, at a duly scheduled public hearing, considered a minor amendment to Chapter 17 Zoning of the Central Point Municipal Code ("CPMC") as follows, and as specifically identified in Attachment "A — Staff Report dated November 7, 2017: 1. Section 17.05.600 (H) - General Procedural Provisions, City Council Review in the Central Point Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, it is the finding of the Planning Commission that the above referenced code amendments only serve to clarify administration of Chapter 17 and as such are considered minor amendments and as such do not alter current land use policy or modify standards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE' IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. 849, does hereby forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendments as set forth in the Staff Report dated December 7, 2017 attached hereto by reference as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5th day of December 2017. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 5'h day of December 2017. Planning Commission Resolution No. 849 (12-05-2017) CONCEPTUAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN ❑F URBAN RESERVE AREAS CP -S AND M6 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: File No. CP -17001 A CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT November 14, 2017 Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Director Public Hearing to discuss a Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Areas CP -5 and CP -6; Applicant: City of Central Point. STAFF SOURCE: Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director BACKGROUND: The City's Regional Plan Element includes a provision that prior to expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB) into an urban reserve area (LYRA) 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 and we have also updated the Central Point Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. City staff held discussions with County residents and the Citizen's Advisory Committee in order to finalize a concept plan that reflects Iocal land use expectations and remedies for traffic congestion the land uses may generate. The City agreed to a residential/employment/open space split in the Regional Plan (76%, 4% and 18% respectively). More detail is given in Attachment A. That rneans 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 like to see given the constraints that exist in this area. Proposed land uses and existing environmental constraints are reflected in the draft Conceptual Plan and maps. ISSUES: Public Comment on the CP -5/6 Conceptual Plan was received during the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) on October 10'h and again on November 141. A number of county residents interacted with City staff and some residents sketched their own ideas for conceptual land use plans. The following maps reflect the original staff concept, various citizen alternatives and a final planning staff alternative which is intended to reflect CAC and citizen consensus. Each alternative is expounded upon as follows Staff Original Concept: This rendering reflects elements of a master plan that was presented to the City by residents along Grant and Taylor Roads. These residents wish to be included in a future UGB Amendment. City staff generalized the master plan into low and medium density residential land use categories, used proposed open space recommendations and then added more low and medium density residential land above and below the areas proposed by land owners. The original concept also proposed some internal local roadways. This version was presented at the first CAC meeting in October. Citizen Alternative A: Page 1 of 7 This rendering was one of the county resident responses to the original staff plan. It acknowledges the need for additional city land set aside for residential, employment and park land development but not to the extent recommended by staff. The focus of this plan is balanced in the center of CP -6 along Taylor Road with collector roads extending north and south to serve new neighborhoods. The center of this illustration is where higher density residential development is proposed as well as parks/open space and commercial land to serve the new neighborhood population. High density residential is surrounded by medium density and then low density which transitions into the surrounding agricultural land and the use of an open space buffer. Neither the land to the north or to the south of the core area is proposed for city land uses. They are identified on the map as Exclusion Zones with the exception of School District #6 property in the upper northwest comer. The residents to the south of the old county race track on County Rural Residential land wish to remain as they are on larger residential tax lots. Citizen Alternative B (Mallams): This rendering is similar to Citizen Alternative A with the core area centralized along Taylor (east and west) and then extending north along a new street corridor. Low density residential land uses surround the core and the southern Exclusion Zone is categorized as an established neighborhood with 1/3+ acre single family lots. These properties are generally zoned RR 2.5, RR -5 and UR -1 in the county. However there is some EFU zoned land in the mix. Some of the original concept streets are proposed for elimination and the size of the employment areas have been reduced. Ag and open space buffers are shown, some of which follow water courses. Parks are also identified in this alternative. The authors of this map proposed that UGB expansion be prioritized from CP -5 first progressing south to the Taylor Road core area. Staff Alternative B (CAC): This rendering was revised from the staff's original proposal and shows land use areas in larger masses with less specific relationships to tax lots. The circulation plan is changed with new collector streets limited to the north with intentional connections to the Twin Creeks development. Park areas are generalized using circles until the new Parks Master Plan can be revised and the tax lots in CP -5/6 identified for better park placement. An open space buffer is shown in the southern most park circle to reflect the wishes of county residents and CAC consensus. High density residential land uses (apartments, mixed uses, etc.) are introduced along Grant and Taylor Roads. Medium density residential land uses in the southeast comer of this URA were changed to low density land uses to better represent the low density county zoning. Agricultural buffers are shown and would be implemented on the borders and the farm interfaces of this URA. There is a strong sentiment by the majority but not all of those who reside or have property south of the old County Race Track that they would prefer to be left out of the UGB and not have new residents around them driving through their rural neighborhood. It's likely that the completion of the new Twin Creeks Railroad Crossing early next year will improve vehicle circulation as will the designation of existing county roads (Beall, Grant, Taylor and Scenic) as collector streets. Staff has received a petition from about 60 property owners from the area south of the old County Race Track who have asked to be excluded from any adjustments to the Urban Growth Boundary. We have also received minority reports from other property owners both north and south of Taylor Road (see Attachment Q. CONCLUSION: This item is being introduced for Planning Commission consideration and to allow affected county residents the opportunity to express their opinions throughout the City planning process. 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 (see Attachment A), 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. In the meantime they are shown as generalized circles, Page 2 of 7 10 A CENTRAL POINT N Plops- L od u.a !■1oYw ow F, sr.w aNNaWI a.w«ow Cl4A owe mlw m" • • ... hapow0 C4010W 1/a RooF3 Ca�naandM CMA - Wwuwnai ••••• Napsdcdmaw(m) llw CiMt 0.9 ow - CWoefar ••••• ►fo~CdbowOW) Lar Rao PWM MpOwAn ■ • 8 ►roppMC YYwr Nlrlr ..... P%powd Cam (1lono." UOS 11 2. Concept Plan CP -5A and CP -6A Conoept Plan N A Concept Plan Land Use Map - Citizen Altemative A t"Md CP -5A and CP -6A ,w.,. fthR*Gw&m 11 pCP•6A -- Concept Plan -- Pm*oow cdlww Lmw RwsNll UGM Cock Me" Do" - CSI PWM ew won iar ?me Z01r CP -611 121 aj A CENTRAL POINT N A Concept Plan Land Use Map (CAC) Legend •^•••^^ Staff Transportation Allernative3 C3Parka Target Areas (Per Master Plan) ras• Agricultural Buffer Page 6 of 7 Civic Law Density - Commercial Medium Density - High Density = Open Space (Cldzen Preferred) 14 CP -5A and CP -6A Concept Plan CP -5A CP -6A -- cltyllmits UGS - streams EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A — Excepts from City of Central Point Regional Plan Element" Attachment "B — CP -5/6 Draft Concept Plan" Attachment "C — Citizen Input" ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and discuss localized constraints, land use expectations and transportation options for the CP -5/6 Concept Plan. Direct staff to 1) use as presented or 2) refine the draft conceptual plan based upon public input received at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Continue the public hearing to the January Planning Commission meeting and have staff prepare a Commission resolution in order to forward a formal recommendation to City Council. Page 7 of 7 15 A,TTA(DIAMEENT « A At the northeast corner of CP -41) there is a one -acre parcel of exception land zoned Ur- ban Residential (UR -1). This property has an existing residence and abuts the City limits and residentially zoned lands to the east. The property also abuts agri- Bear Creek (CP4D) cultural lands to the north. As an ex- ception area, it was deemed appro- w priate to include the property with- in this Urban Reserve as first priori- 1� ty land. However, it is recognized that the property abuts agricultural I land and as such, future develop- ment of the property will be subject _ l - to compliance with the agricultural buffering standards to be imple- mented as part of this Plan. Because of the existing residential character of the property, and its proximity to _ other developed residential lands, it was deemed appropriate to include this parcel in CP -41). Reasonably Residential Aggregate Resource Open Developable Space/Parks Acres: 52 Employment [ Proposed Uses _ 1% 0% 0% 0% 1 AREA CP -5 (GRANT ROAD AREA) Area CP -S has approximately 31 acres lo- cated immediately west of city limits, east of Grant Road, and south of Scenic Avenue. Most parcels within the area are designat- ed as Rural Residential exception land. A 10 -acre parcel is designated as Agricultur- al land at the area's southern end. The parcel contains a walnut grove, Christmas trees, and a dwelling with accessory uses located southwest of the creek. A small pasture and two barns are on the creek's opposite side. Because the creek runs through the property and portions are in residential use, the property's effective farmable portion is significantly less than ten acres; no adjacent parcels are available for farm use in conjunction with this prop - Grant Road Area (CP -5A) Gross Acres; 31 Reasonably Residential Aggregate Resource Open Employment Developable Space/Parks Acres: 19 Proposed Uses 91%, 0% 0`J, 9%) 06% City of Central Point Regional Plan Element 16 Page 12 of 26 erty. Jackson Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain follow Grant Road except where they cut through the EFU parcel. The riparian areas create a significant physical barrier from the larger tract of farmland to the west and reduce the need for fencing. Consequently, the area can and will provide for urban needs in a manner that is compat- ible with nearby agricultural lands. There are no nearby forest lands or uses. AREA CP -6A (TAYLOR ROAD AREA) This area consists of 444 acres. The CP -6A area is adjacent to city limits, and could easily be served by services from the Twin Creeks TOD or from existing collector roads, such as Beall Lane, Taylor Road, and Scenic Avenue. The circulation plan for this area is a natural extension of the Twin Creeks TOD, and of historic east -west roads such as Tay- lor and Beale. Public water, sanitary sewer and natural gas maps indi- cate that this infrastructure can be readily, efficiently, and economically extended to CP -6A from the east and the south. Storm drainage can be developed, treated, and effectively discharged into existing systems. The Twin Creeks TOD uses passive water treatment. Central Point intends to require passive water treatment for new development in this area. Approximately two-thirds of the land in this urban re- serve is currently designated for agriculture, and was recommended by the RLRC as part of the Commercial Agricultural Base. The remaining one-third consists of exception lands planned Rural Residential. Soils in this area are Class 3 with limited amounts of Class 2. Agri- cultural use has been limited to livestock grazing or has otherwise remained fallow. Taylor Road Area (CP -6A) Gross Acres: Reasonably Residential Aggregate RewurCe Open Employment 444 Developable Space/Parks Acres: 386 Proposed Uses 76% 0% 0% 20% qct The area is generally free of any severe environmental constraints that occur elsewhere around the City, and proximity to the downtown core is conducive to urban centric growth objectives that minimize vehicle trip lengths and durations and the same repre- sents a positive consequence under all of the ESEE factors. Central Point's experience with TOD design on the west side of the City has been extremely positive and has fos- tered positive social relationships in the community. In the balance, it is concluded that the comparative ESEE consequences for urbanization are positive. In combination with the other Goal 14 location factors, CP -6A is determined to be suitable and appropriate as an urban reserve. The City believes that there are more natural linkages from the ar- eas west of Grant Road to the Downtown core and many other Central Point neighbor- hoods. City of Central Point Regional Plan Element 17 Page 13 of 26 ATTACHMENT Tuesday [November 28, 2017 Draft GRANT ROAD AREA CONCEPT PLAN A CONCEPTUAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR CP -S/6 AN URBAN RESERVE AREA OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT City of Central Point Adopted by City Council Resolution No.____, December, 2017 Page 1 of 20 18 PART 1. INTRODUCTION As part of the Regional Plan Element' it is required that the City prepare and adopt for each of its eight (8) Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) a Conceptual Land Use Plane and a Conceptual Transportation Plan 3prior to or in conjunction with an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) amendment within a given URA. This document addresses both conceptual plans, which are collectively referred to as the CP -5/6 Concept Plan ('Concept Plan'). Figure 1 illustrates CP - 5/6's relationship to the City and the other URAs. The concept plan is a general land use guide prepared in accordance with, and intended to facilitate implementation of the Regional Plan Element. It does not address compliance with ' City of Central Point Ordinance 1964 2 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1 Performance Indicators, subsection 4.17 9 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1 Performance Indicators, subsection 4.1.8 Page 2 of 20 19 As used in this report the term 'concept plan' refers Ato a document setting CENTRAL' forth a written and illustrated set of general = = actions designed to achieve a desired goal that ! will be further refined over p time as the planning process moves from the general (concept plan) to the specific (site development) . In the case of CP -5/6 the goal to be -- —w- achieved is a first generation refinement of how the land use Figure 1. contra, Pant distributions and Legend— Urban N6aWnArea - applicable performance ®UM indicators of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (GBCVRP) will be applied to CP -5/6. The areas of CP -5 and CP -6 are combined in this document given their proximity to one another and because of CP -5's small size. The concept plan is a general land use guide prepared in accordance with, and intended to facilitate implementation of the Regional Plan Element. It does not address compliance with ' City of Central Point Ordinance 1964 2 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1 Performance Indicators, subsection 4.17 9 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1 Performance Indicators, subsection 4.1.8 Page 2 of 20 19 the Oregon Statewide Land Use Planning Goals, applicability of land use planning law, or comprehensive plan compliance. These items will be appropriately addressed at some other time as the area's planning proceeds through UGB amendment, annexation, zoning, site plan approval, and ultimately development, with each step being guided by the Concept Plan. The Concept Plan illustrates the City's basic development program for CP -5/6; which is presented in Part 2 of this document. The remainder of the document (Part 3) is dedicated to providing background information used in preparation of the Concept Plan, including findings of compliance with the land use distribution and applicable Performance Indicators in the City's Regional Plan Element. In summary the Concept Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Regional Plan Element and Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan including all applicable performance indicators set forth in these documents. The development concept for CP -5/6 compliments and supports local and regional objectives relative to land use distribution and needed transportation corridors identified in the Greater Bear tmek Valley Regional Plan. PART 2. THE CONCEPT PLAN The long-term objective for CP -5/6 is that it will develop as another unique residential neighborhood which creates a 'sense of place' and enhances i nixed modes of transportation. The area is currently occupied by small farms and" home sites which are generally west of the current city limits on Grant Road, The Concept Plan is comprised of two elements: a. The Conceptual Land Use plan ('Land Use Planj The primary objective of the Land Use Plan is to refine the land use categories and spatial distribution of those categories throughout CP -5/6. This Is necessary because the Regional Plan Element only addresses land use in terms of general land use types, i.e. residential, employment, etc., and a percentage distribution of the land use. The Regional Pian Element distributes land uses within CP -5/6 into three land use classifications; residential (76%), open space/park (20%) and employment (4%). Employment land can include two categories in this case: commercial and civic. The Land Use Plan for CP -5/6 refines these allocations by aligning them with the appropriate Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning designations in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Those designations are illustrated in Figure 2, and tabulated in Table 1 as follows: Page 3 of 20 20 Residential. The Comprehensive Plan's residential designation is intended to 'provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the diverse needs of the City's current and projected households'. Land Use is broken down into two categories. 0 Low density; • Medium density; Employment. The Comprehensive Plan's commercial designation is intended to actively promote a strong, diversified and sustainable local economy that reinforces Central Point's® `small town feel', family orientation and enhanced quality of life. Civic uses and convenience centers meet immediate needs in neighborhoods and reduce out of area vehicle trips. iii. Parks and Open Space. This Comprehensive Plan designation is consistent with agricultural buffering in Regional Plan Element and allows for the continued use and improvement of irrigation systems and natural drainage. It also provides opportunities for passive recreational/open space use. 365.7 LRes, Mlles, Resldentlal Grit 1®: Wrerne Cirl I'arSftrWOpen Stu b. The Conceptual Transportation Plan (`Transportation Plan's The regionally significant transportation documents affecting CP -5/6 are the Central Point Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Concept Plan acknowledges these plans (Figure 2, CP -5/6 Concept Plan) and includes policies that encourage the thoughtful development of the URA and surrounding properties. Page 4 of 20 21 c. Implementation Guidelines The following guidelines are intended to serve as future action items: Policy CP -5/6.1 Land Use: At time of inclusion in the City's urban growth boundary (UGB) the property will be shown on the City's General Land Use Plan Map as illustrated in the CP -5/6 Concept Plan, Figure 2 except where the concept plan depicts a designation that does not currently exist or is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. In such cases, the City may apply a designation it deems appropriate under its current map designations. Policy CP -5/6.2 Transportation: At time of inclusion in the City's urban growth boundary (UGB) the local street network plan, road alignments and transportation improvements identified in various state and local plans will be included as illustrated in the CP -5/6 Concept Plan, Figure 2 and where feasible. Policy CP -5/6.3 Urban Reserve Management Agreement (URMA) and Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA): The City will revisit mutual agreements withlackson County in order to address the proliferation of 'marijuana grows' In proximity to urban residential land uses. The City and County will continue to coordinate land use activity within planning boundaries. Policy CP -5/6,4: Committed Residential Density: Upon UGB Expansion into CP -5/6 the county zoned residential land (e.g. RR and UR -1) will remain valid In'less dense' subdivisions. Once annexed, land will be changed to ;City zoning and redevelopment will be encouraged to support the residential land use densities agreed to in the Regional Plan Element. Policy CP -5/6.5 Forest/Gibbon Acres Unincorporated Containment Boundary: The City and Jackson County have adopted an agreement (Area of Mutual Planning Concern) for the management of Forest/ Gibbon Acres. Policy CP -5/6.6 Agricultural Mitigation/Buffering: At time of UGB Expansion into CP -5/6, the City and County will coordinate with RRVID to identify, evaluate and prepare potential mitigation. The City will implement agricultural buffers in accordance with adopted ordinances at the time of annexation. Page 5 of 20 22 M., N A Concept Plan Land Use Map (CAC) CP -5A and CP -6A LAvwd Concept Plan _.._._ �T^abdw..mwA" 3 , CYft V. O..%r CPI,► C] a.d %WAA� JPr rr.W., C..rr MM&m n..w r — 7 CNM por.rmuffar No MIN* or Sp o lCOwna+om► —der um -- sw. . Page 6 of 20 23 jk ceNrwu POINT N A Figure 3. Aerial Map Legend CP -5/6 Concept Plan CP uaft AREA_ L61 CP -9A M CP -&4 24 Page 7 of 20 PART 3. SUPPORT FINDINGS The findings present in this section provide both background information and address the Regional Plan Element's Performance Indicators. a. Current Land Use Characteristics This section describes the general character of CP -5/6 in its current condition. Natural Landscape: CP -5/6 is traversed by various creeks and waterways east and west of grant road which bisects the two URAs. Various ponds and wetlands have formed along the creeks and some are independent from them. Topographically, the land in CP -5/6 is flat but gently sloping to the north/northeast. In spite of the numerous creeks, ponds and wetlands present in the URA, there are relatively few tax lots that are subject to the flood hazards as shown"in Figure 4. The 31 acres that make up CP -5 are most affected by flood hazards which reduce the total buildable area to roughly 19 acres. Those areas that are subject to flood zones will be required to perform mitigation. Cultural Landscape: CP -5/6 is oriented to the west of the current city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary which is Grant Road. The preponderance of land in the URAs is Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and is irrigated by the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District (RRVID). Active farming is done west of Grant Road consisting of grazing, truck crops and pow cannabis. Other land (approximately 150 acres) in the URA has been subdivided into rural residential lots (Figure 5) some of which are served by the Rogue Valley Sewer Service (Figure 6). No city water has been extended into these UW. b. Current Land Use besignations & Zoning Jackson County zoning acknowledges the unique geographic features of CP -5/6 by designating land for both agricultural and residential uses. The area's proximity to the Central Point UGB and the city limits make it plausible and convenient to extend city infrastructure and services in this direction. The existing county land uses and zoning are shown in Figure 5. Page S of 20 25 CENTRAL POINT V1, Floodway CP -5A �1 CP -6A AE A 26 Figure 4. Flood Hazard Urban Reserve Area CP-6A/8A Concept Plan Page 9 of 20 CENTRAL POINT UGB �q/Y1Wypx4mNW W1NIN010N:IMp RafamNCly vl j1dWP.19 COMPI PIMICp4a Camay Ia.:1y 27 Figure 5. Zoning Urban Reserve Area CP W6A Concept Plan Page 10 of 20 Legend ZONE 0 IC ; RR -10 M UR -1 AR LI - RR -2.5 - UR -10 ARS M LU _ RR -5 _ UR -30 - EFU PIC ;__ I RR-S(A) UR -S FR M 09R RRS M WR OC RLI € RS al RR -00 SVR9 UGB �q/Y1Wypx4mNW W1NIN010N:IMp RafamNCly vl j1dWP.19 COMPI PIMICp4a Camay Ia.:1y 27 Figure 5. Zoning Urban Reserve Area CP W6A Concept Plan Page 10 of 20 A comparison of the existing and proposed land uses are reflected in Table 2. 39.81 RR -2.5 46.41 RR -5 59.57 l]R-1 Likes 329.51 VU The proposed city zoning will be divided into residential, employment and park land in keeping with the Regional Plan. c. Existing Infrastructure Water Currently, public water service is not available to CP -5/6, and will have to be extended from the Twin Creeks Development, Taylor and Grant Roads. Sanitary Sewer CP -5/6 is in the RVSS service area and sdhtt ip sewer lines have been extended into the Residential areas south of Taylor Road (Figure 6). More lines will have to be extended to the area. Storm Drainage CP -5/6 does not have an improved storm drainage system and relies upon natural drainage and drainage from road improvements to channel water to various creeks. Street System CP -5/6 is accessed via Scenic Road, Taylor Road and Beall Lane from the east and the west. Grant Road runs north and south and forms one boundary of the two URAs. These roads are primary collectors and others roads are envisioned to be built in order to promote better internal circulation (see Figure 2) and to relieve demand on existing roads that may ultimately have capacity limitations. Irrigation District CP -5/6 is located within the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District (RRVID). Irrigation water is transferred via canals, laterals and some natural means. Most of the land in these URAs is irrigated (see Figure 7). Page 11 of 20 28 Aik CENTRAL POINT Legend Waterline Mains Rogue Valley Sewer Services 29 Figure 5. Utilities Urban Reserve Area CP-5A/6A Concept Plan Page 12 of 20 D 0. �e r. AA, CENTRAL POINT ATTACHMENT 19 Legend 0- F-1 CP -5A — Major Arterial Proposed Collector 1= CP -6A — m1w Aa &iw ......•••• Proposed Collector (A111) NVISMON Ag Buffer Collector PFOPOSed Collector (Alt2) dtylimits Proposed MirlorArterlal .......... Proposed Collector (Remove)vw UGE3 Streams 7 '� \ - 0 T) - a 0 t � E YN 0. --Ca- — Concept Plan Base Map CP -5A and CP -6A Concept Plan V f CA 3�Sy r� �� P -a Le t�ce\� CCP- • tie. r -o ?UA ro Ofd\ay.c�\ _ "S` d�e- Sir c S 32 fit\ tam o a cKs, C�� e b% acs Cat t�.rcl�� Pr -p c d L C OSS U3 cam\ U K -P -RM -A Bch 4ct-,,`-,ave 44-toc as ccn c.Nr,vc - 1 co, :S�o� Ca.)c5e- Ira� 33 3 VN-, N,S�c�� S �,�S�s1 0� �� e V-cv-r. Ga,,\ C`rosszr C��\ chi 'c`-._ Nor—,cc wN-, CJS `c�rj a 'r WGor� ;rvc w cry C)r ej �+� Qom'+ S�cw - rim mac,-� � c.Se% . 34 I �-A �4r O � S Octr ��— to —ao�`1 35 vt.=- CENTRAL POINT A P WmLmdvm L69ww exim" and P vp m camommim r . a y� AqwwPrPqw careerw C�Mwmhm Concept Plan cr-O � WW AM" PMPO-d coomm" OW) mmim fts , CIft ft bow - career K"d Cmftgbf WW) L" RM ON Puft aftaft 8 pmpm" mow - 1 Cdm9,w(F4wwQ,) UO! Floure 2. Concent Plan t4J2- Page 6 of 20 Ll k Cullk 36 ft'IU44ele Tom Humphrey From: Russell Kockx <kockx@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:09 AM To: Tom Humphrey Subject: 44419 Grant Road UGB Inclusion Hello Tom, I would like to include my property at 4419 Grant Road for Inclusion into the growth boundary and future expansion into the city limits. Thank you - Russell Kockx 37 �. vu 38 To: Citizen's Advisory Committee, City of Central Point Subject: CP -6A Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Date: November 14, 2017 We, the undersigned, residents of CP -6A, do not want to be included within the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary. Signed, Signature Address Date signed � r 1 :.' � ■ page _ of 39 Comments on UGB Expansion and Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) CP -5 and CP -6A (see attached maps). 1. The 150 acres needed for residential development in the next UGB expansion should be allocated proportionately by acres among URAs CP1-C, CP -213, CP -5 and CP -6A. This calculates out to approximately 12 acres, 56 acres, 5 acres, and 77 acres respectively. CP -5 and CP-6A's share would be approximately 82 acres. 2. While we might argue whether land within CP -5 and CP -6A is of higher priority for UGB expansion than land within CP -IC and CP -213, within URAs CP -5 and CP -6A that are being considered here, CP -5 and the north end of CP -6A are the most logical areas to expand into first. CP -5 is adjacent to ongoing construction within Twin Creeks and its infrastructure including North Haskell Street and Twin Creeks Crossing and is very close to Highway 99. The north end of CP -6A is also very close to Highway 99 and adjacent to Twin Creeks Crossing. The inclusion of these two areas simultaneously would provide the opportunity to correct any problems with the north end of Grant Road and the floodplain along Jackson Creek before being overwhelmed by traffic from any new development to the south. It would facilitate extending North Haskell Street and would allow the school property off Scenic Avenue to be brought into Central Point. 3. At this time, exclude all area south of Brock, Martin, and Wiedman properties from consideration for UGB expansion. This is an older neighborhood of relatively small lots along Oak Pine Way, New Ray Road, Blue Jay Lane, Robin Lane, Heritage Road, Freeland Road, Palomino Drive, and Green Acres Drive. Retrofitting an existing neighborhood will be difficult, time-consuming, expensive, extremely disruptive to residents and provide relatively little additional land for new housing. Central Point's stated objective for CP -6A is to "develop unique residential neighborhoods which create a sense of place and enhance mixed modes of transportation". These qualities already exist in this neighborhood and would be destroyed by cramming in more houses and adding or widening roads. Many of the residents have lived here for years with no desire to live within Central Point. They have a sense of place. People are often seen walking, running and riding bicycles through the neighborhood because there is little traffic and cars move slowly on the narrow roads. Since it is within the Urban Reserve, in a future UGB expansion (at least ten to fifty years from now), it is possible that these neighborhoods at the south end of CP -6A will be brought into the UGB. Once within the UGB, this neighborhood to remain Single Family Residential with 1/3 acre and larger lots. Characteristics of urban development that destroy older neighborhoods that we do not want include big houses on small lots, tall newer houses in areas of low older houses, widened roads with curbs and wide sidewalks, street lights, increased through traffic, removalideath of mature trees, and restrictions on livestock and poultry. Paving all the streets, driveways, and paths destroys the ability to naturally recharge the water table through rainfal I. This leads to nearby wells drying up, death of mature trees and other vegetation, and for excessive use of city water to irrigate landscaping. 4. Racetrack Park and a two -hundred -foot -wide open space buffer is proposed to separate the older neighborhoods at south end of CP -6A from higher density development to the north. TOD type development to the north would be acceptable provided this park and open space buffer are adopted. The open space and park could be a corridor for a foot/bicycle path and for wildlife from the Hatter property pond east of Grant Road, through CP -6A, and potentially all the way to Old Stage Road. 40 5. Commercial zones to be limited to the minimum size necessary to accommodate one convenience type store. No residential shopping centers, strip malls or drive thru businesses. Sufficient shopping already exists in downtown Central Point within 2 miles of CP -5 and 6A. It is not a food desert. 6. New roads are to be exclusively within new developments and tie directly to Beall Lane, Grant Road, and Taylor Road without going through existing neighborhoods. No widening or extension of roads in existing neighborhoods into new developments. This includes Oak Pine Way, New Ray Road, Blue Jay Lane, Robin Lane, Heritage Road, Freeland Road, Palomino Drive, and Green Acres Drive. Specifically, do not extend Oak Pine Way at either end into new development as shown on the Concept Plan base map. Realignment of Grant Road through the Wiedman property to be as short as possible to minimize disruption to existing neighborhoods and creation of a high-speed "freeway". Dense, cookie -cutter developments, traffic, and urban sprawl are what people move here to get away from so don't continue to destroy the very things that create a sense of place and makes this neighborhood a desirable place to live. ;7:74 � less R^d C&,A pori o� g 7a"o2 41 f; ri 0 ant Pian Basra Ill Comments on Concept Plan and UGB Expansion, CP CAC Meeting November 14, 2017 Priority Map; The 150 acres .needed for residential development in the next UGB expansion should be allocated proportionately by acres to CPl-C, CP -213, CP -5 and CP -6A instead of all impacts in one area. This is about 12 acres and 56 acres in t -C and 2B and 5 acres, and 77 acres in CP -5 and CP -6A. 2. CP -5 and the north end of CP -6A are the most logical areas to expand into first. CP -5 is adjacent to Twin Creeks and its infrastructure including North Haskell Street and Twin Creeks Crossing, Its very close to Highway 99. The north end of CP -6A is also very close to Highway 99 and Twin Creeks Crossing. The inclusion of these areas would provide the opportunity to correct problems with the north end of Grant Road and the floodplain along Jackson Creek before traffic from new development is added. It would facilitate extending North Haskell Street and could add the school property off Scenic Avenue to Central Point. We want you to exclude all area south of Brock, Martin, and Wiedman properties from consideration for UGB expansion at this time. This is an older neighborhood of relatively small lots along Oak Pine Way, New Ray Road, Blue Jay Lane, Robin Lane, Heritage Road, Freeland Road, Palomino Drive, and Green Acres Drive. Retrofitting these neighborhoods would be difficult, time-consuming, expensive, extremely disruptive to residents and provide relatively little additional land, Central Point's stated objective for CP -6A is to "develop unique residential neighborhoods which create a sense of place and enhance mixed modes of transportation". These qualities already exist here and would be destroyed by stuffing in more houses and adding or widening roads. Many of us have lived here for years. We have a sense of place. People often walk, nun and bicycle through the neighborhood because there is little traffic and cars move slowly on the narrow roads. Our streets don't need traffic calming — they provide it as they are. Concept Map We realize we're in the Urban Reserve, so in a future UGB expansion (at least ten to fifty years from now), neighborhoods at the south end of CP -6A may be brought into the UGB. Once in the UGB, we want these neighborhoods to remain Single Family Residential with 1/3 acre and larger lots. We want the City to allow poultry and small livestock. We want the City to require innovative practices such as narrow streets (I suggest you look at Mallard Street ,in Ashland, in a new development off East Main, 1-1/2 lanes wide with narrow sidewalk on one side and on -street parking only in cut-outs), minimal lighting, and porous paving and rain gardens to allow the water table to recharge through rainfall. Without recharge wells dry up, valuable mature trees die, and excessive amounts of city water are used to irrigate landscaping. We want all new roads exclusively within new developments and tie directly to Beall Lane, Grant Road, and Taylor Road without going through existing neighborhoods. No widening or extension of roads in existing neighborhoods into new developments. This iae'ludes Oak Pine Way, New Ray Road, Blue Jay Lane, Robin Lane, Heritage Road, Freeland Road, Palomino Drive, and Green Acres Drive. Do not extend Oak Pine Way at either end into new development as shown on the original Concept map. Realignment of Grant Road through the Wiedman property should be as short as'possible to minimize disruption to the neighborhood and creation of a high-speed "freeway" on a road people already drive too fast on. 4. An aspect of the TOD I like is the open spaces and walking paths. Open space benefits everyone in and near urbanized areas, We propose Racetrack Park and a two -hundred -foot -wide open space buffer to separate the older neighborhoods at south end of CP -6A from higher density development to the north (e,g. along Grant Rd at TPVCX). The current fad of using walls to separate old neighborhoods from new development is ugly, creates a prison -like feeling, and doesn't buffer noise. It blocks the movement of wildlife. TOD densities to the north would be acceptable with this park and open space buffer. It could be a corridor for a foot/bicycle path and for wildlife from the Hatter property pond east of Grant Road, through CP -6A, and potentially to Old Stage Road. 5. Commercial zones to be limited to the minimum size necessary to accommodate one convenience type store. No residential shopping centers, strip malls or drive thru businesses. Sufficient shopping already exists in downtown Central Point within 2 miles of CP -5 and 6A. It is not a food desert. Kt comments 11.14.2017 K 44 1 17 st 1 1 I - 1 �^• • - WORKING DRAFT LANs} USE ELEMENT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 45 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM V-A AX CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT December 5, 2017 (CPA -17003) Planning Department Tom Humphrey,AICP, Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator Discussion of Land Use Element (working dram), 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 will be introducing to the Planning Commission a working 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 SLI is maintained and updated with each application for land development. The purpose of the 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 fundings 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 refining 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: °o Changes needed to reflect prior land use activity. These changes are primarily driven by prior actions that affected land use goals and policies Haat 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. 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. Page 1 of 4 46 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 notified 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: Appiy TOD as an Overlay district. Page 2 of 4 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 recommendation should be reflected as a specific goal of the Land Use Element. o 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 47 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 fialher review before any action. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A!'— Working Draft of Land Use Element (to be distributed at the meeting). Attachment "B" — Map Illustrating Land Use Classification Changes Attachment "C" — Power Point Notes ACTION: Discussion of the working draft of the Land Use Element. RECOMMENDATION: Direct Staff to schedule a public hearing to take public comment at the January 2, 2018 meeting. Page 3 of 4 48 Ak CENTRAL POINT Legend Propo.ad RWdan" Proposed Crnenarolal propsaad Indualdd Propoud Civic and Parka UDIl M Vary Low Donaiy - Commanfy Commomal - Light Proposed CMM ^-^— TOO Dlarilcl Low DwWty Empbymenl Commercial - General Q Pmpoaed Parka and Open 9pau _ Madlem Densly - Gm" Go mwdal M High Deneiy Page 4 of 4 DRAFT Proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan Changes - 2017-2040 Lass u~ nro ka 1009" lou Ole eo .ali wy Z, 49