Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNov. 14, 2017 CAC PacketCITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Tuesday, November 14, 2017 - 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers @ Central Point City Hall I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALLANTRODUCTIONS David Painter (Chair), Sam Inkley, Jr., Larry Martin, Cameron Noble, Cinda Harmes, Patrick Smith and Caitlin Finley III. MINUTES Review and approval of October 10, 2017 minutes IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES V. BUSINESS VI. DISCUSSION A. Open discussion about a Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Areas CP -5 and CP -6; Applicant City of Central Point VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Citizens Advisory Committee October 10, 2017 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:10 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Present were: David Painter(chair) , Larry Martin, Cameron Noble, Cinda Harmes, Pat Smith. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary III. MINUTES Larry Martin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 15, 2017.Pat Smith seconded. All members said "aye". Motion approved. IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - NONE V. BUSINESS A. Chair David Painter read an overview of the purpose and responsibilities of the Citizen's Advisory Committee. He stated that the Committee would be hearing a Concept Plan for Urban Growth areas CP -5 and CP -6. Larry Martin said that he owned land in that area and recused himself. Community Development Director Tom Humphrey gave an overview of the Oregon Land Use laws. He explained the Regional Plan/Regional Problem Solving process. He said that in order to avoid urban sprawl and eating up agricultural lands, the state encouraged development in city centers rather that agricultural lands. He defined Urban Growth Boundaries as a regional boundary set for the purpose of controlling urban sprawl by mandating that the area inside the boundary be used for higher density urban development and land outside the boundary be used for lower density development. He said that the state required the City to have a 20 year supply of land for projected growth. In order to expand the urban growth boundaries the City must demonstrate a need for the additional land. Also, the City must first utilize CAC Minutes October 10, 2017 Page 2 land that has already been compromised by subdivision or used by public utilities. He explained how urban reserve areas were identified and described the boundary area of CP -5 and CP -6 and reviewed the growth of the City over the last 15 years. He said that before the City could expand into any urban reserve area, they were required to have a concept plan for that area. Mr. Humphrey stressed that people would not be forced to annex into the City. The purpose was to conscientiously plan for future growth. Caitlyn Finley arrived at 6:25 p.m. Mr. Humphrey explained that the City had recently updated the Housing Element based on population projections by Portland State University. He said the Concept Plan for CP -5 and CP -6 was intended to demonstrate a proposed land use based on the population projections. David Painter asked if the Committee had any questions. There were no questions. David Painter opened the meeting for comments from the audience. Katy Mallams, Heritage Road Ms. Mallams stated that she does not want to come into the City as she enjoys the peace and quiet of the area. She asked for an explanation of the different densities. Mr. Humphrey replied that low density is a single family dwelling on an individual lot. It also included attached single family homes and row houses. He stated that as part of the regional planning process, in the interest of preserving agricultural land, and using the land most efficiently, the City had agreed to an average of 6.9 units per acre. He said Twin Creeks was a good example of using different housing types to meet the average density of 6.9 units per acre. He explained that the land had already been subdivided. By coming into the City, the owners of any property would have the option to partition or subdivide but would not be required to do so. Ms. Mallams asked if there would be an increase in taxes and Mr. Humphrey responded that taxes would increase only if they decided to annex into the City. Jim Booth, New Ray Road Mr. Booth said he does not want to be in the City. He does not need city services and there is too much traffic already. He said his family had farmed property CAC Minutes October 10, 2017 Page 3 where Twin Creeks is now located. He expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning of the concept plan. And asked how that would affect his property. Mr. Humphrey explained that no one would be forced to annex into the City and City zoning would only apply to a property if and when it was annexed. The zoning set forth in the concept plan was only a concept. He added that the City could only demonstrate a need for approximately 150 acres and that land did not necessarily need to come from one area only. He stated that there would be some people who would want to come into the City so they could develop their land. Others would rather not and they would not be forced to. Tim Higginbotham, Taylor Road Mr. Higginbotham expressed his appreciation for the years of hard work that the citizens and staff had done to develop the Regional Plan. He expressed his opinion that there were some lands within CP -5 and CP -6 that would be appropriate for development. He said that a lot of the area was already developed and he believed the City would have options to bring in land from other areas to make up the 150 acres. Louise Sakrida, Scenic Avenue Ms. Sakrida stated she was raised here and loves the farm land. She said good farm land is limited and expressed the opinion that all the land indicated in the concept plan was prime farm land. She stated the City's focus should be on non- farmable land. She also expressed concern about pollution and traffic. June Brock, Taylor Road Ms. Brock stated she has lived here for 30 years and that she agreed with Mr. Higginbotham and was in favor of this concept plan to move forward. Hank Williams Mr. Williams said that he had lived in Central Point for over 50 years and was the Mayor of Central Point. He said he had been involved in the Regional Problem solving for 8 years. He expressed support for the concept Plan. Katy Mallams, Heritage Road Ms. MalIams asked if the 150 acres had to come from one place or if it could come from several different areas. Mr. Humphrey responded that the land could come from different areas. He explained the process of creating a Concept Plan, getting approval of the Planning Commission and City Council and submitting the adopted plan to the State. 4 CAC Minutes October 10, 2017 Page 4 Dean Finch, New Ray Road Mr. Finch pointed out the proposed new roads in the Concept Plan would not work. He said that there was currently a lot of traffic in the area and the proposed roads would cause more problems. Mr. Humphrey answered stating it was a concept, but he understood that there were problems as the subdivision of the properties that were currently developed had not had consistent standards when the homes were built. Mr. Finch asked for information regarding tax rates in the City and Mr. Humphrey said he would get the specifics for him. Mr. Finch asked for clarification of the annexation process and Mr. Humphrey described the procedures. Mr. Finch stated that he had seen another proposed development plan of the area. Mr. Humphrey explained that several land owners had previously gotten together and hired someone to design a concept plan for the area. He added that the City had taken that plan into account when creating this current Concept Plan. Mr. Finch asked if the development would create a fire hazard for the community. Stephanie Holtey answered that the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan identified a wildfire hazard zone further up in the foothills but there was no mapped hazard in this area. Mr. Humphrey stressed to everyone that this was a Concept and not a rule of law. He said that the questions tonight brought up some good issues to consider. Katy Mallams, Heritage Road Ms. Mallams asked about the agricultural buffer that was referenced in the materials. Mr. Humphrey explained that part of the Regional Plan the City was required to maintain an agricultural buffer around any development. He pointed out to her where it would be located on the Conceptual Plan. Judy Booth, New Ray Road Ms. Booth stated that should the area become part of the City she had been told they would be required to cap their wells. Mr. Humphrey said that wells could continue to be used for irrigation, but residents would need to be connected to the City water system for residential use. Ms. Booth said that she was frustrated with the County not taking care of the part of the road that she lived on. She was further dismayed that should the CAC Minutes October 10, 2017 Page S street be developed by the City, it would be too close to her house. She disagreed with the road as shown on the Concept Plan. She added that if the plan was developed as depicted, they would lose their view of the mountains. Mr. Humphrey stated that he understood the frustration and he added that the purpose of this meeting was to invite people to participate in the planning process. Mr. Humphrey explained the process of expanding the urban growth boundary and said the timeline for the expansion would be at least six months or longer. He expressed again that there would be no requirement that anyone annex into the City. Steve Wilson, New Ray Road Mr. Wilson said the land in the area is prime farm land and he did not want to see the land ruined by development.. Mr. Finch asked how to contact the planning department should they wish to discuss the Conceptual Plan. Mr. Humphrey said they could schedule meetings, or come in and talk to whoever was available. He said more public meetings could be scheduled. He offered maps for people to take and use to create their own concept plan. David Painter declared the public portion of the meeting closed. The Committee thought it would be a good idea to have more discussion before moving forward. Pat Smith made a motion to have a second meeting regarding the Conceptual Plan. Cameron Noble Seconded the motion. All members said "aye". Motion passed. Mr. Humphrey advised that staff would take any input received before the next meeting on November 14th and try to incorporate it into the Concept Plan map and that could be discussed at the November meeting. VI. DISCUSSION A. Development Update. Mr. Humphrey said that Costco is targeting November 16, 2017 as their opening date. There was an office building going in on South Front street and demolition of the existing building had begun. Rogue Credit Union was officially opening on November 19, 2017. The assisted living/memory care project in Twin Creeks was starting their building. He said CAC Minutes October 10, 2017 Page 6 he was not sure what the railroad's timeframe was for the crossing. the work on Pine Street had begun and should be about a year long project. He stated there has been some interest in the lot by the Veterinary Clinic for a two story office building with cafe or coffee shop and retail on first floor and offices on the top floor. Stephanie Holtey said that on Freeman road there was some interest in developing a professional building of the same sort, retail on the bottom and professional offices on the top. Possibly a dental office and eye clinic. Mr. Humphrey said the county would be obtaining bids for the Table Rock project in November. He said that he thought once Costco opens there may be a lot of interest in the available properties nearby. He explained that USF Reddaway had a deferred improvement agreement which is being called in and will be expanding Hamrick Road. Mr. Humphrey said there has been some interest in White Hawk but nothing concrete is happing at this time. When that does happen the SDCs will help to fund the signal at Beebe and Hamrick. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Cameron Noble made a motion to adjourn. Caitlyn Finley seconded the motion. All parties said "aye". Meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the October 10, 2017 Citizens Advisory Committee were approved by the Citizens Advisory Committee at its meeting of November 14, 2017. Chairman CONCEPTUAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR URBAN RESERVE AREAS CP -5 AND CP -5 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: File No. CP -17001 AX CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT November 14, 2017 Planning Department Tom Humphrey,AICP, Community Development Director Open discussion about a Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Areas CP -5 and CP -6, Applicant: City of Central Point. STAFF SOURCE: Tose Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director BACKGROUND: The City's Regional Plan Element includes a provision that prior to expansion of the urban growth boundary into an urban reserve area (URA) it is necessary to adopt conceptual land use and transportation plans for the affected urban reserve. The City received a request to add parrs of LIRA, 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' have been working on a conceptual plan for Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) CRS and CP -6 and we have also updated the Central Point Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. City staff is continuing this discussion with 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 residential/ernploymentlopen space split in the Regional Plan (76%, 41/1a 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 will be asked for their opinions 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 Tuesday, October l Orb and since that time a number of county residents have been interacting with City staff and some residents elected to sketch their own ideas for conceptual land use plans. The following Citizen Alternatives are illustrated in the following maps along with a planning staff alternative. Each alternative is expounded upon as follows Citizen Alternative A: This rendering acknowledges the need for additional city land set aside for residential, employment and parkland development.. The focus of this plan is balanced in the center of CP -6 along Taylor Road with collector roads extended from it 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 using an open space buffer. Neither the land to the north or south of the core area is proposed for city land uses. The residents to the south of the old county race track in County Rural Residential land wish to remain as they are with the larger residential lots. Page 1 of 7 Citizen Alternative B: This rendering is essentially the same as Alternative A except that the Exclusion Zone is replaced with a low density residential land use designation which is largely what the properties consist of in the County (RR 2.5; RR -5; UR -1, etc.). The City is obligated to assign a land use category to this area as part of the Regional Planning process. This does not mean that the ultimate land use designation will be low density residential or that the property will ever become part of the UGB. Citizen Alternative C: This rendering is similar to the City's first proposal but without the collector streets that were shown in that illustration. Those have been removed south of Taylor Road. This alternative also reflects the input of a private property owner by showing a commercial use at the crossroads Twin Creeks Crossing (extended) and then surrounded by medium density residential land uses. The medium density uses extend north and south along a collector road and a park site is proposed for both recreation and as an agricultural buffer. No new changes are proposed south of Taylor Road than the odes proposed originally by city staff. Staff Alternative B: 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 connections to the Twin Creeks development. Park areas are generalized until the new Parks Master Plan can be revised and the tax lots in CP -516 identified for better placement. High density residential land uses (apartments, mixed uses, etc.) are introduced along Grant and "Taylor Roads. Medium density residential land uses can either remain in the southeast corner of this URA or it can be changed to low density laced uses. No agricultural buffers are shown but they 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 there 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. Page 2 of 7 10 r AOW4k CENTRAL POINT N A Concept Plan Land Use Map - Citizen Alternative A Legend Streets High Residential r_—_—i CP -BA cltyllmos •--- Proposed Colleclor Lav Ramdenliat UGB Civic i 9V Medium Density — Streams Commercial Parks • Exclusion Zone True Zane L D CP -5.A CP -5A and CP -6A Concept Plan A CENTRAL POINT N 1 Concept Plan Land Use Map - Citizen Alternative B _jI{I,( fill: Ve—e Legend Concept Plan II� fl Land Use Low Residential C.:] CP -15A Citic Medium Density Com, CP -BA Commercial Parks -- aitylimils —t + Exclusion Zone Tree Zone UGB High Residential - Streams s S r I Twin Crks Crossing a i I + + I A 1 Beall Lade N Concept Plan Land Use Map - Citizen Alternative B CP -5A and CP -6A Legend Concept Plan -- Proposed Collector Land Use Low Residential C.:] CP -15A Citic Medium Density Com, CP -BA Commercial Parks -- aitylimils Exclusion Zone Tree Zone UGB High Residential - Streams R - CENTRAL-� POINT A Concept Plan Land Use Map - Citizen Alternative C Legend Civic - CP -5A — Collector Commercial CP -6A •---• Proposed MlnorArterial Low Density Residential — cltyllmits • •••••••• Proposed Collector Medium Density Residential VGB •••••••••• Proposed Collector (AI11) -- Parks MajorArterial ••••—•••• Proposed Collector (Alt2) MinorAderlal ^•••^••• Proposed Collector (Remove) 13 CP -5A and CP -6A Streams Concept Plan A CENTRAL POINT f ' I � 1 I � ' TwlnGksC�aing� A` f _ E ILL 1 T T8 M. FIr1 eel,� I 1 Beal Lane N Concept Plan Land Use Map - Staff Alternative B Legend CP -5A and CP -6A StaffTranspadationAlternative 3 Commercial MedlumDensity �CP45A Concept Plan QParks Target Areas Hlgh Density Medium Residential CP -BA CIVIC Low Density Ag Buffer -- Cltylimlls UGB Streams 14 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: Discuss localized constraints, land use expectations and transportation options for the CP -5/6 Concept Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to refine a draft conceptual plan and make a recommendation to the City Council and City Planning Commission lased upon public input received at the CAC meeting. Page 7of7 15 ATTAC-NME-ENT " 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 (CPd0) cultural lands to the north. As an ex- Fil 35 ception area, it was deemed appro- priate to include the property with- - -; in this Urban Reserve as first priori- ty land. However, it is recognized that the property abuts agricultural land and as such, future develop- ment of the property will be subject j r �i to compliance with the agricultural _ - buffering standards to be imple- mented as part of this Plan. Because of the existing residential character !.` i! L. of the property, and its proximity to rt " `'.=: ': other developed residential lands, it was deemed appropriate to include this parcel in CP -41). Reasonably Residential Aggregate Resource Open Employment Developable Space/Parks Acres: 52 Uses 1% 0% 0% 99% 0% AREA CP -5 (GRANT ROAD ARFR) Area CP -5 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) i I J Gross Acres: 31 Reasonably Residential Aggregate Resource Open Employment Developable Space/Parks Acres: 19 Proposed Uses 91% 0% 0% 9% 0% 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 Resource Open Employment 444 Developable Space/Parks Acres: 386 Proposed Uses 76% 0% 0% 20% 4% 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 ATTAC-NMIENT " 5 " Tuesday November 9, 2017 Draft GRANT ROAD AREA CONCEPT PLAN A CONCEPTUAL LAND USE AND TRANSPOR TA TION PLAID 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 21 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. .IA CENTRAL POINT in Legend 0 Figure 1. Central Point -� —Urban Reserves Area As used in this report the term 'concept plan' refers to a document setting forth a written and illustrated set of general actions designed to achieve a desired goal that will be further refined over 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 achieved is a first generation refinement of how the land use distributions and applicable performance indicators of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (GBCVRP) will be applied 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 1 City of Central Point Ordinance 1964 Z City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1 Performance Indicators, subsection 4.1.7 3 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1 Performance Indicators, subsection 4.1.8 19 Page 2 of 21 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 Pion 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 Creek Valley Regional Pian. 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 mixed 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 PIan') 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 Plan 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 21 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. • Low density; • Medium density; ii. 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. fTable 1 Proposed Land Use Zoning by Ac:rnaeF 365.7 LRes, Mlles, pAd&M l Qrk 17.8 ` GC Commercial 91.6 Park Par1r/llpen Space 475.0 i b. The Conceptual Transportation Plan (`Transportation Plan') The regionally significant transportation documents affecting CP -5/6 are the Central Point Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Concept Plan acknowledges these plans (Figure 2, CP -5/6 Concept Plan) and includes policies that encourage the thoughtful development of the URA and surrounding properties. Page 4 of 21 9 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 focal plans will be included as illustrated in the CP -5/6 Concept Plan, Figure 2 and where feasible. Policy CP -5/63 Urban Reserve Management Agreement (URMA) and Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA): The City will revisit mutual agreements with Jackson 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 21 22 AAk CENTRAL POINT N AFlours 2. Concaot Plan Lid cp-SA Ealodn9 ond►rwowd S&ooto MIWAr*" ..... proposed C'N" r hoo epod Lind 1)w Rowdendol ComuWatel 1O Raa om Cmardw CP -5A and CP -6A Concept Plan CP-" 000�A&WAMA&I ••••. Propad Cdbclgr 041) os mmwl Rea CNIG Ifi)dfflt 159 Saw cow4w ..... Prapsoed CONCW (NZ) Low Rs perk® dty*nha ■ ■ ■ Pmpaoed MtnaMeda • • •• • propowd Calbcw (Rsm w) uae - Mmane Page 6 of 21 23 A CENTRAL POINT N A Concept Plan Land Use Map - Staff Alternative B Le9o„d CP -5A and CP-6A -•-••••-SWff TraneWWfanAJbuMV"3 =Cormnerdal Medium Densly r-1CF'-5AConcept Plan QParlta Targe) Areas High DMaily Civic Low D.—ty Medium Reald 081 Q CPdM 24 AB Gaffer -- drylimlla UGB — Sueama Page 7of21 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 Farrn Use (EFU) and; is irrigated by the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District (RRVID). Active farming is done west of Grant Road consisting of grazing, truck crops and now cannabis. Other land (approximately 150 acres) in the URA has been subdivided intapyral residential lots (Figure 5) some of which are served by the Rogue Valley Sewer Service (Figure 6). No city water has been extended into these URAs. b. Current Land Use Designations & Zoning Jackson County zoning acknowledges the unique geographic features of CP -5/6 by designating land for both agricultural and residential uses. The area's proximity to the Central Point UGB and the city limits make it plausible and convenient to extend city infrastructure and services in this direction. The existing county land uses and zoning are shown in Figure 5. Page 9 of 21 26 CENTRAL POINT 710f7f���4p� O°� Legend 11 Floodvay CP -5A 1 CP -6A AE < i A 27 Figure 4. Flood Hazard Urban Reserve Area CP-GA/6A Concept Plan Page 10 of 21 CENTRAL POINT Legend ZONE AR ARS EFU FR = UGB !C RR•10, UR -1 LI RR -2.5 UR -10 LU RR -5 UR -30 NC RR -5(A) UR -8 OSR RRS WR RS orp1•. • .i. e....��.P �/IIW [.�/JS r �!l llo�l4i{ ll FgeGPf P IP f oru.01 PI MIf,P to f. a�mY Zenmq 28 Figure 5. Zoning Urban Reserve Area CP-5A/6A Concept Plan Page 11 of 21 A comparison of the existing and proposed land uses are reflected in Table 2. ProposedTable 2 Current and 39.81 RR -2.5 46.01 RR -5 59.67 UR -1 Utes 329.51 EFU _L 475.0 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 Setiver CP -5/6 is in the RVSS service area and some sewer lines have been extended into the Residential areas south of Taylor Road (Figure 6)_ More lines will have to be extended to the area. Storm Drainage CP -5/6 does not have an improved storm drainage system and relies upon natural drainage and drainage from road improvements to channel water to various creeks. Street System CP -5/6 is accessed via Scenic Road, Taylor Road and Beall Lane from the east and the west. Grant Road runs north and south and forms one boundary of the two URAs. These roads are primary collectors and others roads are envisioned to be built in order to promote better internal circulation (see Figure 2) and to relieve demand on existing roads that may ultimately have capacity limitations. Irrigation District CP -5/6 is located within the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District (RRVID). Irrigation water is transferred via canals, laterals and some natural means. Most of the land in these URAs is irrigated (see Figure 7). Page 12 of 21 29 t CENTRAL POINT Legend Waterline Mains Rogue Valley Sewer Services 30 Figure 5. Utilities Urban Reserve Area CP-5A/6A Concept Plan Page 13 of 21 CENTRAL POINT Legend J CP -5A ® RRVID Irrigated Land J CP -6A 31 Figure 7 Irrigation Urban Reserve Area CP-5A/6A Concept Plan Page 14 of 21 ATTA.C."HMIENT " C- " 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 7' Address Date signed rJ- -IV C v k,, f 44 ORIM V Al 04, cLIA&L 9,46d- i0gge,, 3 2 6 7 /1 /0/ 7 4e IVg> ff!dUEe— L ` jr 8 1-7 J J 2 . lJ! 0\ page Of J W-4 7' -IV V Al 04, cLIA&L Op- C ff!dUEe— J139 � &KEEA Xf- A 7s; J J 2 . lJ! -,X tv, page Of J W-4 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, Q7[Yn9t%trO A AAT - -a rtata cinnw4 page _A of! 33 Al 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 i /0-16-47 7A L4 - ---� 3vZ . "-� 90.I RD _ 7-1-7 // �Z' L 7 La�-r7 -__BGG 3VIX oak 34 page 1 of 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 Lt Lf page A of 35 3AQ4 - ) D-- 27 1 -Z -:Z;? kP 3�qi 1 a- A�tft4%i kV=:g�� ,3-ZZ u (rt IM tom- ?f -17 f .` c page A of 35 A CENTRAL POINT C", UJIL �j f N A Concept Plan Base Mal: Legend CP -5A and CP -6A E —_JCP -5A — Major Arterial ,-k v,- c �Concept Plan .......... Proposed Collector 17:11 CP -6A — mbwAd" .......... Proposed Collector (Altl j r f= X r Ag Buffer Collector .......... Proposed Collector (Alt2) It -- dlylimils Proposed Minor Arterial Proposed Collector (Remove)vw •V'�\, UG8 Streams A' 36 4 �� �, `c�'^n i � mai Cr�c e � •- � ,n C e,r r. s. � � (-CxvCc 1 1 P'GY1 Rom she STd v` �e��e-t C")Ctit} Qr JOY r "S\ o.4t' Sar C�Cj ��1 9-3� Ra \'s Cor Gaa ed q �-.� a rt\ R•5 o 37 a ��d�'w e h��t� �s c3c ��•�� �o�cd , r.0 VNl , h CY-e-e XL] • E. v�,��, 'c`�,�h i � � fy,\ 1 � o Cis Ck e-.-o-Q pkc. t SC r.%C),r\ Ao �c�.r� �-��-. tea•-. �vt. Scc ��c.. �� � C�c..`S � �4�,� � CkDc),e— e`c,,J ,.c e rg 38 3 -eco O ,� 0(2klc- Q 1V\ way P �o�dsPd q--cd- 39 --cd 39 Y�'�I�fAr O P, Som¢ 1c.e,d A�Col 1.a1V"N \t.0.Nc.i we- t-A'r Wti�.k - 'Q r O ,fo Se d Q o�v-� ©Ad pOt-Wk -ItZ� 40 CENTRAL --- POINT Fi ure Z. Concept Pian upfna '•',°••� °s CP -5A and CP -6A ruf.uey n,a n�o..r so -..a flra��i r J CP M &ftWA Wr%9 PVD~ colycw POV A.. Cu nM.,d l Conceit Plan CP; ft�MkrorArriwl •++••PrapardCalYcbrWr�) sralumAes CWtc Ag&JFw -C.O.Or •,• ProDowd CaWWW VJ2) ww Res P.M 0 • • Prapooed Mfv k*fW ... • • Pro~ CMM"r (A*MW SJ UG8 r L" -7YL-Lc' c-cc-rr�,c _ r Page 6 of 20 lG�--�• ,- A C9 -rev CXsCl Tw- , -A�,%.G L) 41- ,� Tom Humehrey w ■ i i r From: Russell Kockx <kockx@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 201711:09 AM To: Tom Humphrey Subject: 4419 Grant Road UGB Inclusion Hello Tom, I would like to iPrlude my property at 4-419 Grant Road for inclusion info the growth boundary and fufure expansion into the Gity limits. Thank you - Rrissell Kockx 42 43