Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Commission Packet - June 7, 2011
CENTRAL Pv~Nr CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION & Ci'i'iZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA 3une 7, 2411- 6:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission ResolutiUn No. 783 T. MEETING CAI,I.ED TO ORDER. II. ROLL CALL Planning Commission: Connie Moczygemba, Chuck Piland, Pat Beck, Mike Oliver, Justin Hurley, Tian Schmcusscr and Rick Sarnuclson Citizens Advisory Committee: Herb Farber, David Painter, Wade Six, Sam Inkley, Jr., Lamy Martin, Jefl'Pfeifer and Eric Snyder III. CORRESPONllENCE IV. MINUTES Review and approval of March 1, 2011 Planning Commission M.inutcs Review and apln~oval ofJa»uay 11, 2011 Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS VII. DISCUSSION A. Rcgi©nal Problem Solving Update a. Current Status and Schedule h. RPS Goals (3} and Implen~.entation (18} a Timeframe, Population and Denisity d. Urban Reserve Areas, Restrictions, and Land Use Distribution Ygs. 1- 33 e. Comprehensive Plan, Regional Plan Elczncnt (draft} B. Urban Renewal Update C. East Pine Stmt Corridor Study VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX, lVIiSCELLANEt?US X. ADJtJURN1VIEIVT City of Central Paint Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 2011 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Connie Moczygemba, Chuck Piland, Tim Sclvneusser, Mike Oliver, Rick Samuelson, Jr., and Pat Beck were present. Justin Hurley was absent. Also in attendance were: Dan Burt, Planning Manager; Connic Clunc, Community Planner; Dave Jacob, Community Planner; Matt Samitore, Public WorkslParks & Recreation Director; Stephanie Simonich, Planning Intern; and Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary. Ill. CORRESPONDENCE -Revised agenda, revised staff report, Vilas Reservoir Top Slab Plan and summary of changes to proposed cads amendments for Chapter 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention were distributed in conjunction with items an the revised agenda. IV. IVIINUTES Chuck Piland.made a motlon to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2411 Planning Commission mewing as submitted. Tim Schmeusser seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Piland, yes; Oliver, abstained; Beck, yes; Schmeusser, yes; and Samuelson, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES -None. VI. BUSINESS A. File No.11414. A public hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the conshucHon of a three million gallon municipal water reservoir iri an R-2 Two-Family zoning district at 181 W. Vilas Read (Jaoksan County Assessar's~ map as 37S 2W q 1BA, 'l: as Lots SU3 and 702). Applicant: City of Central Point; Agent: Neathamcr Saryeying, Inc. There were no conflicts or ex parts communications to disclose. Mike Qlivex, Cotuiie Moczygemba, and Chuck Piland had made site visits. Planning Commission lllinrrtes Murt:h 1, 2011 Page 2 Dave Jacob, Community Planner, presented a staff report in connection with this project that has been revised to include an updated landscape plan, preliminary plans for a pump building and a diagram of the top of the pibposed reservoir depicting the installation of solar panels. Mr. Jacob reviewed the zoning designations of those parcels surrounding the site, capital improvement authorization and project design. The height of the proposed reservoir is twenty feet above grade with five feet underground and solar panels installed on tap. The applicant, Mr. Jacob stated, intends to use natural screening to integrate the site into the surrounding neighborhoods with a detention pond slated to be included at the northwest earner of the site for drainage on the southeast side of Don Jones Memorial Park. The pump station for the reservoir will be located in Whispering Trees subdivision to #hc north of the reservoir site, with applicant deeding the land for this pump station to the City of Central Point. For security purposes, an eight foot fence will be constructed around the reservoir and an adjacent service building as well. Ingress and egress to the reservoir site will take place tlu~ough pxoposcd V~hispcring Trees subdivision to be located directly to the north. Mr. Jacob assured commissioners that there would not be an antennae located next to the pump station as depicted in Figure 2 of the revised staff report. Commissioner Moczygemba asked why a section of sidewalk had been eliminated from the proposed la;ldscape plan. Matt Samitore, Public Works Director, responded that a nearby neighbor was disputing the location of the walkway and couldn't be present at the meeting this evening so that section has been eliminated until the matter can be resolved. In addition, the slope of the sidewalk in that area was not ADA compliant. Mr. Samitore added that prior to designing the reservoir, a request for comments was sent out to the citizens of Central Point and the biggest concern expressed was preserving the ability to get to the top of the berm to enjoy the view. Mrs. Moczyge~nba suggested that steps be used in place of a walkway to accommodate the slope. Mr. Samitore described the underground location of irrigation easements on the property and stated that all would be moved prior to construction of the reservoir as they run directly underneath the proposed site. An antennae would be hardwired into the proposed pump station as all operating systems are controlled by computer. Scciu7ty cameras will be added later. Connmissioners asked questions about nighttime illumination in the area to which Mr. Samitore stated there would be a pedestrian scale path lighting system; no amphitheater would be included as a part of this project; monies for the project are predominantly coming from the Federal Government American Recovery Act. Mr. Samitore added that deficient pressure for adequate fire suppression is driving the need for the new facility. The project will be three phased with the old reservoir in the City Shops yard demolished during the third phase sometime in approximately 2013. The public hearing was then opened and as no one came forward to speak either for ox against the application, the public hearing was closed. Chuck Piland asked about the PZunnireg= Con:rnissian Mfnufes Mcer~ch 1, 2011 Pu~;e 3 existing trees o31 the site. Matt Samitorc said that all would be incorporated into the landscape plan with the exception of two large cedax trees that can't be saved. In t-esi}once to a question raised about access easements, Mr. Samitorc said that all necessary easements have been dedicated. Clu~.ek Piland made a motion to approve ttesolution 781 granting approval of a conditional nse permit for the construction of a three {3} million gallon, public water storage reservoir, pump station, and related water distribution system at 181 W. Vilas Road {Jackson County Tax Assessor's map 37S 2~ O1SA, Tax LUts 503 & 702) based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the Planning Commission report. The Commission asked the applicant to reinsert the proposed pathway into a revised landscape plan. Mike Oliver seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Piland, yes; Oliver, yes; Beck, yes; Schmeusser, yes; and Samuelson, yes. Motion passed. A. File No.1 I015. A public hearing to considea• a Tentative Plan application far the purpose of creating a 21 lot, residential subdivision known as ~N~hispering Trees Subdivision. The 4.S acre property is in an R-2, Residential Two-Family zoning district. The subject property is located at 13'7 and 165 Vilest Vilas Road and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2'~V O1Bh, Tax Lots 500 and 700. Owner Apptieants: Dennis and Bailee Patterson; Agent: Neathamer Surveying, Inc. There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Mike Oliver, Connie Moczygemba, and Chuck Piland had made site visits. Community Planner Connie Clune presented a staff report in support of an application for construction of a 21 lot residential subdivision to be known as V~hispering Trees subdivision on 4.5 acres of property. Tract A of the proposed subdivision vtrill be dedicated to the public and utilized as a subsurface water meter station far the municipal reservoir that will be built directly to the south of the proposed subdivision. The subdivision is slated to be built in phases with existing stntctures on the project site to be removed prior to final plat. A map of the tentative plan was displayed for commissioners, showing the location of proposed access drives and the location of irrigation lines. Matt Samitoxe added that he has worked with the applicant to relocate the irrigation lines as far as possible from the pxopcrty lines. The public hearing was opened. Bob Neathamer, agent for the applicant, came forward and advised that the infracture improvements would benefit both the subdivision and the municipal water reservoir. Irrigation easements, he said, have already been granted to the Planning Comrnission Minutes March 1, ,2011 Pad,=e 4 Rogue Valley Irrigation District. Irrigation water would go around the pei~meter of the two projects while storm water would go dovvaa the streets and into storm drains. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Mike Oliver made a motion to approve Resolution 782 granting approval of a tentative plan fora 211ot residential subdivision to be known as "Whispering Trees" subdivision on Q.S acres of property in an R-2 Residential Two- Family zoning district at 1.37 and lb5 W. Vilas Road {Jackson County Tax Assessur's map 37S 2W 01BA, Tax Lots 500 & 700) based nn the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Tim Schnncusscr seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Piland, yes; Oliver, yes; Beck, yes; Schmeusser, yes; and Samuelson, yes, Motion passed. VIT. DISCUSSION Ilydtzte on ~'lond Damage Preveratfon and Hazard 111itigati©n Ordinance~2niendmentc Matt Samitore presented Comanissioncrs with a summary of changes to the proposed code amendments for Chapter 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention, that have been proposed since the public hearing that took place on February 1, 241 ]. Stephanie Holtey, Floodplain Manager, could not be present this evening as she is attending a class in Seattle, Vl~ashington. Mr. Samitore stated that there were four changes for consideration: • Clarification of Floodplain development procedures for specific projects in response to I,i78A Decision No. 2Q09-407. This change would impact older homes. Based upon the value of improvements made, at srnne point a property owner could be required to improve the entire hoarse to meet current standards. • Clarification of when Fede~•al Exnerge7~cy Management Agency (FBMA) Conditional Letter of Map Revision {CLOMR) is required; • Address TI/MA's concerns regarding expiration timelines and oaganization of the floodway developancnt standards section; and ~ To enhance the Ci#y's Community Rating System status to earn additional discounts on flood insurance for floodplain residents by adding a cumulative substantial damagelimprovemcnt dcf nition, enhancing subdivision regulations to require preservation of the Special Flood Hazmd Area {SFHA) as open space or demonstration of no adverse impact to existing or future anticipated development, and prohibition of accessory shucture (less than 2Q0 square feet) construction within a rcgulalory floodway. Mr. Samitore reported that this change •cvould impact two properties here in town. Planning C.o»z»tission Minutes March 1, 2011 Page S Don Burt, Planning Manager, pointed out that these changes will be heard by the City Council in a public hearing on March 1 U, 2011. The Planning Comrnission can direct staff to schedule a formal hearing on these changes ox determine that they are administrative in nature and forward a recommendation to the City Council advising that these a3nendments are consistent with those previously reviewed. 1Yiike Oliver made a motion to deem the changes to Chapter $.24 as received and accepted by the Planning Co~nm~ission at~d recommended tha# they be forwarded to the City Council for c©nsideration. Tim Schmeusser seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Piland, yes; Oliver, yes; Beck, yes; Schmcusscr, yes; Samuelson, yes. Motion passed. Don Burt thanked Connmissioners for their support and stated that FEMA was very impressed with what the City of Central Paint has done. Review ofReside~tiad Density. Historv ref:d ~'ruic~ctiUns Planning Intern Stephanie Sirnonich presented a brief overview of the different rneas~uemez~ts used by staff to verify population projections from the time of the 1954 comprehensive plan to 2U10. These measurements included acres, dwelling units and population. The ach~al density in 201 U was very close to 1984 projections. Going forward, the same process is being used to project density from 2010 to 2060 in order to meet the densities in the Regional Plan. Land use mix, housing needs, population changes and redevelopment will factor in. Don Burt pointed out that by implementation over tune, the projections will be met. The bottom line is that we arti going to put more people into less area. Once we understand what the housing needs are, we can plug in different densities. Mr. Burt anticipates that Central Point will have one of the highest densities in the Rogue Valley as we are surrounded by agricultural Lands. The topic of redevelopment will be covered by Urban Renewal and more information will be presented as we proceed. The Comprehensive Flan, he said, will become a bigger part of our daily operations, and we will have to make zoning districts work better. VIII. ADMINIS'I'1tATIVE l1;EVIE~VS iX. MISCELLAlYEC}US X. ADJOURNMENT Mike Oliver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Chuck Piland seconded the motiol~. Meeting was adjourned at 7:3U p.m. Plunning Commission Minutes Munch 1, 2011 Puge b The foregoing minutes of the March 1, 2011 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Caznznissivn at ifs meeting on the day of 2011. Planning Commission Chair City of Central Point Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes January 11, 2011. 6:00 p.tn. A Citizens Advisory Committee meeting was held in City Coiulcil Chambers on January 11, 2011, commencing at 6:00 p.m. Present were ChaiiYl~an Herb Farber, David Pai3~ter, Sang Tnkley, Jz•., and I.,ara•y Martin. Eric Snyder and Jeff Pfeifer were absent. Also in attendance were Tom HLUUphrey, Community Development Director, Connie Clune, Conn~~u~~ity Planner, Stephanie Holtey, Floodplain Coordinator, and Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary. Misauter Larry Martin made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 13, 201 U meeting. David Aaintez• seconded the motion. All members said "aye". Motion passed. David Painter made a. motion to approve the minutes of the Uctobcr 12, 2010 meeting. Sam Inkley, Jr. seconded the motion. All members said "aye". Motion passed. Paahlic At»>earances There were no public al~~earances. Discussion _ Lea?islative Land Use Re~ulat~vn Auaen~litaents tU the City of Cetat,•aZ Poitat 11~unici al Cnde C1aa ter' i}:24 Tlnnd Dahaa a Preventdnn and Cha .ter 17.,57 Fetsce.~ Stephanie Holtey, Floodplain Coordinator, explained that with the adoption of a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIl[tM}, code amendments are being required by FCMA in order for the City to maintain compliance with the National Flood lnsurancc Program. Stephanie reviewed some of the basic terminology and definitions used in conjunction with floodplain managcrncnt. She added that there were some fairly significant impacts to the community with the advent of the new flood map. Mortgage lenders will be requiring flood insuxancc with rates based on risk. Communities will be required to update and enforce flood damage prevention regulations in order to avoid large sanctions for non-compliance. In addition, we (the City} would run the risk of being suspended Citizens Advisory Committee January 11, 2011 Page 2 1'rorn the program fbr failure to adopt the new ordinance and comply with new regulations. Griffin Creek north acrd south of Taylor Road arc the areas most vulnerable because the fioodway has increased substantially in these areas. At the present tune, various znitigatiori options arc bcin~, considered. Better data, Stephanie said, has created these changes and Torn Hurrrphrey, Community Development Director', added that there is rnorc impervious surface and runoff than there used tv be. In addition, the ability to do more refined planning is better. Stephanie explained further that staff has made every effot•t to bring various sections of the code together in order to obtain consistency between the tii#i;erent sections of code. Adopting a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map is referenced in CPMC Chapter 8.24.070 which incorporates new State model wde formatting aria language, provides reference to building codes, adds and refines definitions and adds new sections. The City has also revised the #ence wde standards, has provided a reference to stream setback requirements in Chapter 17.60.090, added drainage provisions drat refer to public works standard spetr~ifications and has added a compensatory storage requirement. In summary, the revised map will become effective on May 3, 201 l . Code changes must be in effect by that date in ordcc to avoid sanctions. Flood insurance requirements will be based on the new map, and there a;•e many properties that will experience chaj~ges in flood risk. The C`.ity of Central Point has attempted to mitigate impacts to residents through a variety of actions and work will continue on these mitigation efforts. ~t~a~rsn~rtatlnn Grnrvth Mar~a~-eprtent Mr. Humphrey advised that appointments to an ad hoc TC,TM committee would be made a# the City Council meeting on January 13, 2011. Don Jnf~es Park Mr. Humphrey stated that the City was reviewing landscape ideas for the proposed water storage reseavoir located next to Don Jones Park err 1N. Vitas Road and that a site plan would be forthcoming. David Painter requested that Mr. I-Imphrey check into the absence of r•unal~Je strips on the westbound section of V~. Vitas Road in the vicinity of the park. A motion to adjourn was made by Larry Martin and seconded by David Painter. All members said "aye"• Meeting was adjourned at ?:SO p.m Citizens Advisory Conunittee Jsuiuury 11, 2011 ]?Age 3 The foregoing ~aainutes of the Ja~auary l 1, 2411 Citizens Advisory Committee were approved by the Citizens Advisory Committee at its meeting of , 2411. Chairman R~DIONAL PROBL~I~i SOL.VI~'~I~ I.JPDR'T'~ City of Central Point, ~tegon Planning Department 140 So.Third St.,Centrai Pofnt, Or 97542 CE~ITt~AL Tom I•iumphr~y, AICP, 541.664.3323 Fax S4r.664.6384 CommunltyDevelopment Director/ www.ci.central•point.or.us PC31NT Assistant City Administrator MEMORANDUM '1'0: Plararring Coraunissiorr and Citizens Advisory Committee rroirz: Tour I-Iumphrey AICP, Community Development Director Subject: Regional Problem Solving, the Regional Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendments Date: June 7, 2011 Br;ck~•ourzd The Jackson County Plarming Commission has concluded public hearings on t}rc Regional Plan and is now deliberating about its reconarneradations to the Board of Corntarissioraers (130C}. The expectation is that they will make their recommendations bythe end of June. Each city will have an opportunity to review these recornmcndations and can either agru: with them or object to them and develop their trwn recommendations to the B(lC. T'l1e Central 1?airlt Plannirlg Commission can expect to be presented with the County Commission's r~ecormnendatiorzs at their next regularly scheduled meeting. In the meantime, each city is planning for what they will clo to implement the Regional Plan. The County has elected to incorporate the Regional Plan as a separate element in its Comprehensive flan. 'i'he pities are considering the same strategy. 1}iscussion As you know, the Commiuaity Development Department has been anticipating the adoption of the Regional Plan for some time and over the past 12 months has been making revisions to various elements clfthe City'4 Comprehensive plasl including the Urbanization element; the T.and Use element; the Housing element; the Economic element; the Public Facilities element; and the Transportation element. Given the fact that the County's public hearings have taken longer than expected, this has been a `moving target' and none of these clcmcnts has been cornplclcd. The decision to simply adopt a separate Regional Plan element was made recently aver city planners met with sta.fi' from the Department oi' Land Conservation and Development (DECD}. The lt,egional Plan isn't considered `complete' until the County and all six cities amend their Conrprelrcttsivc Plans to recognize it. The thinking is that each airy can more quickly adapt an element that has a similar format and whose individual content comes right out of the County's Regional Plaza. Once the County's plan is adopted, it will be sent to the T.and Conservation and T}evelopznent Cornnaissiora {LCllC} who will await the City kegional Ylan hlements before the acknowledgement process can be finalized. Once the Regional Plan is acknowledged, each city can proceed at its own pace to make changes to the: other clcmcnts of their Comprehensive: Plans for the sake of consistency. ~_,.. ~~ You will lie aglted to review Cent1•al Point's ltegdnr~all'lat: 'dement and provide your feedback to the Comnltu3ity Development Department about its consistency with the County Plan. The Department will inform you of the Coiu~tty Planning Commission's recommendation to the BOC whcn we havc that information. You CAII Cxpcct. LO rormulAl.C Alt Ol}1111Qn A~)OUt the ('aunty's plan relative to Central Point and foz'wArd that o~inian to the City Council. Attachmen#s A. City of Central Point Regional Nlan >/lement - 20SU 4 `~' ti ... :.~: , City of Central Point COMFREFJElVS1VF PtAtU Chapter 3 -Regional Plan Eiement - 206© City of Central Paint REGIONAL PLAN ELEMENT - 2060 DRAFT 1 2 O 4 V t~ 5/21j2011 TABLE 4F CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......... ................................................................................ ............................................3 2. Population ANd EMPLOYMENT ProjectionS ............................................. ............................................4 3. Projected Land NEEDS ............................................................................... .......................... ..........4 3.1. Res(dential Land Needs ...............................................:......................... ............................................5 3.2. Employment Land Needs ...................................................................... ............................................5 3.3. Parks and Open Space Land Needs ....................................................... ............................................5 4. URBAN RESERVE AREAS ............................................................................ ............................................5 4.1. CP-1B (Tolo} Urban Reserve Area ......................................................... .............................................8 4.2. CP-1C (Scenic) Urban Reserve Area ...................................................... ...........................................14 4.3. CP-213 {Wilson} Urban Reserve Area ..................................................... ...........................................12 4.4. CP-3 {East Pine) Urban Reserve Area ................................................... ...........................................14 A.S. CP-4D (Bear Creek} Urban Reserve Area .............................................. ...........................................16 4.6. CP-5A (Grant} Urban Reserve Area ..................................................... ......................................... .17 4.7. CP-6A (Taylar~ Urban Reserve Area ...................................................... ...........................................18 4.8. CP-6B {Beall) Urban Reserve Area ........................................................ ...........................................20 5. MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION .................................................... ...........................................21 5.1. Community Buffer Strategy .................................................................. ...........................................21 5.2. Regional Agricultural Buffering Standards ........................................... ...........................................21 5.3. Performance Indicators ........................................................................ ...........................................21 5.4. Incentives and bisincentives ................................................................ ...........................................27 5.5. Monitoring and Plan Adjustments ......................:.........................................................................:.27 5.6. RP5lmplementation Techniques ....................................................................................................28 6. REGIONAL PLAN ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES ........................................................................ ...28 Goal 1: Manage future growth in accordance with the greater bear creek valley regional plan...........28 Goal 2: For their important economic, cultural, and livability benefits, and in accordance with the greater bear creek valley regional plan, conserve resource and open space lands within the urban reserve areas .....................................................................................................:....................................30 Goal 3: Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique features, and relative competitive advantages and disadvantages o#the city of central point in accordance with the greater bear creek valley regional plan ....................................................................................:............................................30 7. Urban Reserve Area Management Agreement ...................................... ErrQr~ Bookmark not de#ined. Page Z of 31 4 ~~ "..Iona-ranee piannina for pDpulaifon and emaloymentarowth by loco! gev_ernments can offer greater certainty for...commerce,nther industries, other private landowners and providers of public services by determining the more ~Iikely) and less likely locations o~future expansion of urban growth boundaries and urban development. " 1. INTRODUCTION (}n ~ , 2011 the Jackson County Board of Commissioners adapted Ordinance fda. xx.xx a rovin the Greater Bear Creek Valle Re Tonal Plan Re lanai Plan ~Fae Fteg+e~aal-R~a~the product of a regional land-use planning project under#aken by Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, Medford, Phoenix, Talent, and Jackson County {Participants}-ta . The Reeianal.Plan was prepared in conformance, and camolies with. the Greater Bear Creek Valley Reeional Problem Solvin,g„A„~reement. The most significant product of the Regional Flan is the establishment of minimum residential density requirements and creation of urban reserve areas for each of the Participants, the purpose of which is to rese~ve.land for future urban-level development. The method of establishing an urban reserve is defined in state law (see ORS 195.137-145}, but the applicable ItPS statute (ORS 197.652-658) allowed this region same flexibility in making its selections. . The purpose of this element is to incorporate by reference the Greater Rear Greek Valley Regional Plan {Regiona! Plan}',and to summarize those sections of the Regional Plan that are applicable to the City of Central Point, and in so doin_P~commence implementation of the Realrartal Plan. ~~'e ... , " Gn4 • • nn rm c an~f ~~A az-~-~-rrr - ~ - ~ 2 The entirety of the Regional Plan can be fund in the Jackson Cowity Comprehensive Plan. ~ :, PAge 3 of 3X i.~ 2. REGIONAL PLAN DURA'T'ION The Re Iona! Plan is addresses a Fannin duration of flit 50 ors from 2010 to 2pg{}, The plannine period is divided into two timeframes in accordance with {}AR 66©-21-U43©f1). a twenty {20) year urban growth boundary time frame and an additional thirty {30) year urban reserve time frame. ~:3. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS The driving force behind the Regional Plan is future population and employment growth, and the need to develop regional urbanization strategies that address population and employment projections far all Participants to the year 2460. For the City of Central Point it is projected by the year 2460 the City's population will increase by 20,766 residents, including the addition of 6,716 jobs. Table 3-1 identifies Central Point's population and job allocations as projected in the Regional Plan. The Citv acknowledees and accepts the population and employment allocations set aside for Central Point. In accordance with the Regional Plan the projected population for the City will be maintained by the County and adjusted as needed based on latest population data The evaluation of population projections will occur periodically in accordance the monitoring and implementation requirements of the Regional Plan (see Section . ~Y~a~r ~,: ,rPb~;Glatlon`~ , ;s .. ~,z ~ ~ :.,~I~. ~~. it• lobs ...:: 2Q~ b ` • ` 17,832 ". ~ - ~'~ 'xp'go. ``' 31,237 ~ 3v " 38 598 ~ -:: ; r: raa _.::, ~ ~,,, plfferen'c'e';~t}i0~Z06b ~ `.s 20,766 6,716 ~:4~. PROJECTED LAND NEEDS To accommodate the population and employment allocations used in the Regional Plan it is projected that the City will require 1,952 gross acres to satisfy this projected growth. Currently, within the City and its urban growth boundary there is 664 gross acres of land, leaving a need for an additional 1,452 acres to meet the City's urbanization needs by the year 2060. The land needs are allocated to one of three broad land use categories; residential, employment, and parks/open space. The specific methodalo€~y and allocation for each land use category is summarized in Table 3-2. and is hereby aeknowledeed and accepted by the Citv. ® , , Page 4 of 31 x:4.1. RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS The Regiona! Plan calculated the City's residential land needs using the population projections in Table 3.2, and average household size, and residential density illustrated in Table 3.3. The density objective is to attain an average density for new residential development of 7.4 dwelling units per gross acre. To accomplish this density objective the Regional Plan uses a tiered formula. The average residential density for new development, while constant at 6.90 for the current UGB, differs for each of the two planning periods for lands within the urban reserve areas. Between 2010 and 2030 the average density for new residential development is set at 6.90 dwelling units per gross acre. Between 2031 and 2060 the target density for new development increases to 7.90. 3:~:4.Z. EMPLOYMENT LAND NEEDS For job growth the Regional Plan projected future employment growth for the region and allocated employment growth to each Participant. Using the Regiona! Plan employment allocation process it was projected that Central Point will need an estimated 779 acres of buildable employment land to accommodate the 6,716 projected jobs by the year 2060. Table 3.4 identifies the employment land calculation inputs. X4.3. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE LAND NEEDS The Regiona! Plan defines Parks and Open space as areas that provide environmental, aesthetic, cultural or recreational value to the valley. Currently, the City determines its parks and open space land using a ratio of 10 acres of parksJopen space land per 1,000 residents, which is line with the recommended ratio from the National Recreation and Park Association. /~ f°~ Pagc 5 of 31 R! f~ According to Central Point's 2008 buildable Lands Inventory, the current amount of parkland in Central Point is approximately 165 acres {p.3). In 2008, the City had a population of 16,793, which translates to 9.8 acres of parks or open space per 1,000 residents, close to the recommended national average of 10 acres per 1,000 residents. The Regional Problem Solving Plan designates indicates that there will be 163 acres for parks and open space in the URAs, which in conjunction with the existing 165 acres total 328 acres of land dedicated for parks and open space lands, for an eventual ratio of 8.5. Though these numbers indicate a reduction in park and open space land, there remains other opens space and park opportunities in the Residential lands category {difference between gross and reasonably developable.) that can make-up the difference bringing the ratio up to 10. At this time there is not a specific inventory of these potentially available lands, nor a precise determination of the actual acreage.. 4:5. URBAN RESERVE AREAS To provide sufficient lands to meet all of the City's urbanization needs the Regional plan establishes eight distinct urban reserve areas. Collectively, the urban reserve areas total 1,722 grass acres3. For development purposes the Regional Plan estimates that there are 1,430 gross acres of reasonably developable land in the urban reserve areas that are available for future urbanization needs. Based on the Regoono! Plan's needs analysis the 1,430 acres in the urban reserves is very close to the 1,452 acres identified as needed. Considering the long-term nature of these estimates the difference is considered acceptable. Table 3.5 summarizes the acreage for each urban reserve area. The following describes each of Central Point's urban reserve areasA. Figure 3.1 illustrates all urban reserve areas in relation to the current urban growth boundary. Figures 3.2 -3.9 illustrate individual urban reserve areas. .; ;. Urban Reserve Area .. .. Gross Acres {GIS Shape Fllel Gross Tax Lot Acres _ __.. _~_ Gross Reasonably Developable Acres CP-16 628 54A 441 CP-1C 37 70 61 CP-2B 334 325 282 C P-3 40 36 27 CP-4Q 110 82 52 CP-5 34 31 19 CP-6A 466 444 386 CP-66 2Q1 138 1b2 g The gross acreage figure represents the sum of All tax lots within each urban reserve area. Existing public rights-of- way as of 2010 are not included. ~ A mere detailed description can he found in the Greater bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, Chapter 4. (~, ~, ~} Page 6 of 3l ®~ a Page 7 of 31 ~:-1:5.1. CP-1B (TOLD) URBAl1i RESERVE AREA CP-1B is approximately 544 acres in area and is illustrated. in Figure 3.2. The current primary and dominating land use is Industrial - 224 acres. The Regional Plan allocates all of this urban reserve area far Employment use (see Table 3.6j. A small portion of this area extends south of Interstate 5 to Willow Springs Road to include property gwned and occupied by Erickson Air Crane, a major valley industrial employer with facilities already connected to the City's municipal water supply and the RVSS sewer system. Page ~ of 31 The city's comprehensive plan addresses proximity to the interchange as an opportunity to develop transportation-dependent uses {such as trucking terminals and freight forwarding facilities) in the area. Central Point currently lacks attractive and suitable sites for new Industrial development. The Tolo area's industrially-zoned sites could accommodate new industries and the expansion of existing industrial uses. The properties in this area are currently planned and zoned far industrial use by Jackson County and may be developed, pursuant to flRS 197.713, with industrial uses including buildings of any size and type that may be served by on-site sewer facilities notwithstanding land use planning goals related to urbanization (Goal 1.4} or public services and facilities {Goal 11}. A county approved truck-train freight transfer site already exists near the interchange for- the Cross Creek Trucking Company. The Hilton Fuel and Supply Company, North Valley Industrial Park, and Erickson Air Crane are all significant and existing employment lands in the CP-1B area. To ensure that the interchange is able to function ar-d continue to operate within the State's mobility standard over time, designation of CP-16 as an Urban Reserve Area is to be subject to the fallowing condition adopted by the RPS Policy Committee: CP-18 Urbanlzatton Condrtion: Prior to the expansion of the Central Point Urban Growth 8eurtdary Into the CP-3B area, 0007, Jackson County and Centro! Point shall adapt an Interchange Area NTanagement Pian {IAMPJ for the Seven pales Interchange Area. ~~ Pagc 9 oi'3]. 4:5.2. CP-1C [SCENIC) URBAN RESERVE AREA FIGURE 3.3 CP-1C The City intends to promote a master planning effort for this area to ensure efficient urban development that: • Incorporates nearby natural features incEuding Griffin Creek into the neighborhood design; ~ b Pala l0 of 31 l~f CP-1C is 70 acres and located on the northwest border of the current CityJi,~GB boundary see Figure 3.1 and 3.3) and is intended for future residential development. • Creates appropriate agricultural buffers; and • Establishes an internal street network that minimizes access onto Highway 99. In CP-1C (and unlike other areas in Central Point} aright-angled railway crossing is possible to Highway 99 and the same is necessary to correct the existing oblique angle railroad crossing which now exists at the intersection at Scenic Avenue and Highway 99. Correcting the angle of intersection is important to serve Central Point's objective of providing for a higher density master planned Transit Oriented Development neighborhood on land west of the rallway. The needed road connection would extend north from Scenic Avenue on the east side of the highway before crossing Highway 99 in a perpendicular alignment; the triangular parcel at the northwest corner of the projected intersection is necessary to ensure that its geometry is safe and efficient. Currently, a 12-inch water line extends the length of Highway 99 from the city boundary to the Erickson Air Crane facility. Other water and sewer lines are near CP-1C inside the city limits. As such, new infrastructure tv serve the CP=1C area will not require extensive public or private infrastructure investment and urban uses can be more cost-effectively delivered. The northern portion of the area is developed with approximately 15 residences. Page l l of 31 ~1:~;.ra.3. CP-2B f~WILSON~ URBAN RESERjIE AREA FlGt1RE 3.4 CP-ZB Interstate 5 currently divides the City, and Central Point believes it is important to maintain a proper urban form by closing the loop along the city's northern boundary to permit, among other things, the installation of looped municipal water mains to ensure proper pressure for fire flows. The County Roads Department, in cooperation with ODOT, reconstructed the Upton Road bridges in 2008. This strengthened the connection between northeast and northwest Central Point. The City also determined the area to be suitable to rags iz of sl ~~ CP-2B is located to the north of the CityjUGB boundary as illustrated in Figure 3.4, and contains approximately 325 gross acres. provide a needed connection of the east-west leg of Upton Road westward to Gebhard Raad. Public infrastructure, in the form of sewer lines and gas lines, already extend into CP-2B. Water lines exist in city subdivisions east of Gebhard Road and north along Table Rock Road. These water lines can be extended into CP-2B. This area also is critical for extending storm drainage from the exception area south of Wilson Road and from other areas closer to Bear Creek. Yagc 13 of3] 4:~-:5.~. CP-3 {EAST PINES URBAN RESER~tE AREA 1 ~ • ~ i 1 • ~ ~ `, R~asonslb~~= r 5 ~ st E GrassAc~es i~~vefbpabl~Acres ResJdential ~ Employment Open ' '~ptaf~ross ~',', '36 a I~ ~,..1, IL ~ s i ~ ! ~ I s t 1 ~ 4} N ~ _ ~ r ri ~~ Space/Parks a y ~ Acre~i - - . ~ 1 ~ 1 :~s ~, Z ~f i1~~ t. ~~ .4I `~ f'. 3 ~ -1 ~- ~~YCe~tdg~ t~lStri~UtlDi~ '` ~<< - ' ~ 42°.n 58°1 100°/b _ . f:.~ ~ ..3 '~4 ty,. h t Z :., 3 ~~ ,... r S.'. r.". C~rbss~ACrea~e ~S15tr3bUtlbrs ' ~; `~` - 15 21 36 Page 14 of 31 At 36 acres CP-3 is the second smallest urban reserve area. CP-3 is the second smallest of the City's urban reserves. The lUt}-year floodplain of Bear Creek impacts this area, but does not entirely constrain development in this urban reserve area. }~ Page 15 of 31 The area contains approximately 82 acres, two-thirds of which is currently owned iy Jackson County, with the southerly third owned by the City of Central Point. Both tracts are part of the Bear Creek Greenway. As a result of environmental constraints {wetlands and #lood-plain)this area is planned for passive recreation, dedicated open space, or parks ad]acent to and in connection with the Bear Creek Greenway. .{.~ Page 7 fi of 31 4:5.5. CP-4D {BEAR CREEK) URBAN RESER~IE AREA ~:~:5.b. CP-5A tGRAN'r) URBAl1f RESERVE AREA FIUURE 3.7 CP-5A Page 1.7 of 3 L This area contains approximately 31 acres located immediately west of the city limits. ~ :7:5.7. _CP-6A [TAYLOR] URBAN RESERVE AREA Page 18 oP31 FIGURE 3.8 CP-6A This area is approximately 444 acres in area and is the City's second largest urban reserve area. The circulation plan for this area is a natural extension of the Twin Creeks 70D, and of historic east-west roads such as Taylor and Beale. Public water, sanitary sewer and natural gas maps indicate that this infrastructure can be readily, efficiently, and economically extended to CP-bA from the east and the south. Storm drainage can be developed; treated, and effectively discharged into existing systems. 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 the City's urban centric growth objectives that minimize vehicle trip lengths and durations. v .~. Page Z9 of 37 ~~:5.a. CP~bB (BEALL) URBAiV RESER[~E AREA FIGURE 3.9 CP-6B This 188 acre area is located immediately south of CP-6A and is generally comprised of rural residential parcels ranging from small to fairly large acreages {up to 13 acres). There is an existing network of local order streets in a block pattern that lends itself to further and more intensive urbanization. Redevelopment potential is feasible for the area given existing large lots and awell-defined transportation network. CP-6B has a history of serious water problems and failing septic systems. ~ 6e ~ !~/ Pagc 2U oY 37 ~~. Mt7NITORING AND IMFLEMENTATION C~a{a~Eer~-s~t~teThe Regio»af Plan °~-*~'~s, ;eTidentifies six requirements for the monitoring and implementation of the Regional Plan. These six requirements are summarized in this section and included by reference as part of this Regional Plan Element. ~~6.1. COMMUNITY BUFFER STRATEGY The community buffering requirements of the Regional Ptan do not apply to the City of Central Point. ~:b.2. REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL BiJFFERING STANDARDS The Regional Plan includes agricultural buffering standards. The Buffering Standards are contained in Volume II, Appendices III, of the Regional Plan, and, by reference, are hereby made a part of this Regional Plan Element. .The City of Central Point will, as stated in Regional Plan Element, Goal 2, Policy 2.2, amend its Land Development Code to include the agricultural buffering standards of the Regional Plan. ~~:b.3- PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The Regional Plan identifies eighteen performance indicators used to monitor implementation of the Regional Plan. These performance indicators are hereby incorporated by reference, and made a part of this Regional Plan Element. The measurable performance indicators listed below are those identified as appropriate far monitoring the adopted Plan. Each subsection identifies the means by which the City complies with each performance indicator. 5.3.1 Jackson County shall adopt the Regional Plan in its entirety into the County Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinance. Cittt City C.om~alianre: Not ataalicable. ~:-X5.3.2 All participating jurisdictions shall incorporate the portions of the Regional Plan that are applicable to each individual city into that city's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances and will reference the Plan as an adopted element of Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan. City Carnplrance: Adoption and acknawledaement o_f City of Centro! Point Comprehensive Ptan~ Regional Ptan Element. 35,3.3 Urban Reserve Management Agreement. Participating jurisdictions designating an Urban Reserve Area {URA) shall adapt an Urban Reserve Management Agreement (URIVIA} between the individual city and Jackson County per Oregon Administrative Rute 660-021-0050. Adoption shall occur prior to or simultaneously with adoption of the URAs. Page 21 of 31 Cit Com !lance: As art o the Re Iona! Plan Element there is included the ado Lion o the City of Central Point 1lrban reserve IVlanagementAareement as presented in Appendix "A". X5.3.4 Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement. If there is an inconsistency between this Plan and an adopted Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA}, the city and Jackson County shalt adopt a revised UGt3MA. When an inconsistency arises, provisions in this Plan and associated URMA shall override the provisions in the UGBMA, until the UG6MA is updated. City Compliance: The existing Tolo Urban Growth Boundary ManagementAgreement has been modi led in accordance with the a roved Urban Reserve Mana ement A rent. A copy of the approved Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement is presented in Appendix "B". 55.3.5 Committed Residential Denslty. Land within a URA and land currently within an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB} but outside of the existing City Limit shall be built, at a minimum, to the following residential densities (central Point 6.9 between 2010-2030 and 7.9 between 2031-2060). This requirement can be offset by increasing the residential density in the City Limit. City Compliance: See Policy .Z.3 for compliance. 5:-3:4.-15.3.5.1 Prior to annexation, each city shall establish (or, if they exist already, shall adjust} minimum densities in each of its residential zones such that if all areas build out to the minimum allowed the committed densities shall be met. This shalt be made a condition of approval of a UGB amendment. ~~:~5.3.G Mixed-Use/Pedes#rian-Friendly Areas. For land within a URA and for land currently within a UGB but outside of the existing City Limit, each city shall achieve the 2020 benchmark targets for the number of dwelling units (Alternative Measure #5) and employment (Alternative Measure #16) in mixed-usejpedestrian-friendly areas as established in the 2009-2034 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP} or mast recently adopted RTP. Beyond the year 2020, cities shall continue to achieve the 202© benchmark targets, ar if additional benchmark years are established, cities shall achieve the targets corresponding with the applicable benchmarks. Measurement and definition of qualified development shall be in accordance with adopted RTP methodology. The requirement is considered met if the city or the region overall is achieving the targets or minimum qualifications, whichever is greater. This requirement can be offset by increasing the percentage of dwelling units andJor employment in the City Limit. Ci~+ Compliance: These density taraets are already included in the City`s Transportation Systems Ptan. ~--~5.3.5,~ The 2009-2034 Regional Transportation Plan recommends TOD sites in Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, and White City to provide mufti-useJpedestrian- friendlyareas that comply with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR}for Vehicle (~ Yagc 22 of 31 Miles Travels (VMT). Central Point is already meeting the mandated reductions in VMT by establishing a fully compliant TOD center in the northwest section of the city. The tables below show the expected targets by 2Q2CI for the region and for Central Faint. Measure 5: °~b ..~.~.......~.. ,., .....,.....6 ...........b Mixed•use DU in permits-the ratio between D% 9% 26°b 41% 49% new development new DUs in TODs and total new DUs in the region. •. • ~ i S E_,,~a~ rEt.Ev s) ii : if ~i°"'~ii a ~~~~ f`7r rr ifr~iK ~ >.~~E! 5 r fr~1F j ~E s 1 ~ ~ F ~-y~ Mfr.. ~fi u:. Ei,a ~ s, F:`,1~ ! J , i y F v. ~~af-r ~ ~+-E.~t~E sLE~1r,.L ~' .f.;ij i 2`~ ~ f>{ ~' e p f r~Ei e-!r E'E' Ir ~r r { ~ a. ~; lid ~~ 4 t~r$J'} °z'K~i~-4 i~f'~i 1~'~r r Jr~ '~Cfr~~...., i '-FS S'~ ~~ r 3~ ~~~' ~ ~` iES 4~ iisG+" ~~. tip i4r ~3Ir ~I LS, [#F s ~ 1{jl Y ~ ~ ~~'~~s`y uar41 f3.~"~~v. ~~.r~ h r~ ?-i~s`!'1 ! r + t - ~~ ~ a1 ~~~~-~f~'. E[ ~ ~ ~'' i L l ; v 1 T ~{_~ 6°JuNgd~-t~~~, ~ ~ ~ S ,,,) '21 ~ ,£.s ~ '~ : C i r ~. ~ .s h ~feBQ~ ~ " , ,:>~ ! 1 T 1 .s 'f ruV J L f i 1 S tEE~ J l ` F ' ~ r r '~ilSl~Y~f 'fj, c?`.~' 1 u c ~ -: -F.'~ 'f ~0~ ~*~a z ~z -`a'Y ~ ~ f 4 li < I~I,S~. fl ~ r~ f3, i ~0. ~ ~aZ,B r 4 Y ~ t f~~zL J ° ~` ~0~~~ ~ ` '~'i )~ 1 f'°'yF' ~di:'. ~~cc 1 ~ ~ r r" ~ JG~(~rc ~ !,p~1 ~k~~ ~~ _ 'Er7-f' 1 u 4 " ~ ~i ~ ~ 'fU ~ ' d`^ Y Y.G., x'_S9 {~ 1~.'~` F { ~ '~~ ~ ~ ~1~I r F 'L } t 2 .~ ~ .. E 1)~ '~ , Si S E' ' ~ ~ r h~i~ ) ~~.st` ~ T ~ ~ f S'c. ..~~ ~"'~~, i ~ ~ w~~~ F:!! { 1>j~, I ~ ~ x' .. ~ f i 1 '}C'i:~: j :~~ t '`ir H T ~ ~ V ,.~ S1 . ~ , ,:~z_,~7 t : ~ Y .`.l. i,F !'°yj r r 4 . ~ i,... ii_4~' ~ ~ . New DU (total) 555 1,092• 1,715 2,423 ntr l P fnt C .._...__.....__ ._._-- 391 e a o Mixed-Use DU 55 274 6DD 945 New DU {total} 2,697 6,206 8,827 11,967 MPO T t l 49% o a Mixed-Use DU 231 1,616 3,$14 5,851 Measure b: °fo Estimated from annual Mixed-use employment files from State - employment in represents the ratio of new 4% 9% 23% 36% 44% new development employment in TOOs over total regional employment r ry~ ;'rdr~ 1_~1 { ~' 13 rr~~ t{r ~ J ff o > r~.-. 4 s is t~ S ~+, Ei, ~ ~ # Jur~~dlitt~"if } ~ ,' , ~~ >y~"3. i~z ~ ~ P ~ t e ~j 13~ty;. 1 ! sy ~ 4,+'pz ~ E7 ~ a~ 1 rq i ~1M `r ` f r r '`".£i f~; J i~.~1~1{ .rS13 {` ',`!{,.ri13i f z»3i s.. s ~ a 1. Y '}'31 ;f1af i t~ 1 ~ ~ i 4 i~. ~' ~ t'~ 0 ~~~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3~t i1 m. 1 ; "~' ~ ~ r - #.lJnr~~~~3 Y iii .~~ ~ 2b0 '~- ~ ~ l1~[x°r~ T ~ ~ o-~R ° #j, ~ c ~ ~.i Fr >20i(~ 4 Y` ail; 4~1f ~ ~c~ ~ 6" ! "' ~ ~, ~ a h xs ~ ~~•~ ~~- 20 5 ~' 3 ~ 'i- rs F~~ i 4 'K d s 'v "Es !. ~ 2020 ~ i r ~ ~ i.1~ :: ! # ,{ ~r'q~ ~.,ry {, '. .-.~ ~ ~ ~ f ' f fir'` F 3.:, ~~a 02d9~~ ~ ,. E ~'~ ' 3; '~d r ~~ I tii~, r sr4, > i ~4 '~~J~ Y .-c j ~3 1 r . ~A4~ ?S``f~~~~1~!"~9-~{n1~[j~i~.r ~ E~ic"t' rS ~ ~~ pj i~~l t ~~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ h I~~H ~ ~iu~ i ~~ ~4 » F'r " Vii. ~i4 S ~ ' 7 ,T i <`~3}4flr j.~~ ~ > : ' r.?_j~~7K? .`sJ ~ ~ ' ' E L 3.. 4 ~ -..I ;~l r4 ~f #~f3S ?;,1 ~ ~ . , .> ~ ' .c,._,. „,;.. sz'~,# 'siE~,S- r ~ f R ~} 1 ~ 7 [' ~~i~~-i;s~'s` t~~ ~~.:,...~4,. ;,,b ,s h' ~J - >~ Y ~ ,ir. ,~~t ~ I k~t~a~-~~. -~:. "1 ~ I!~ 5 {{r . ~-c.~-.rn~•. ~ iu~:-: { .1 C} { ~.i~z......;~ O ~I I .}(ir'- ar'.rE~v, ~",t~ . t., New £mployment (totall 405 811 1,216 1,622 $% Central Point 4 iNixed-Use Employment 41 243 4~6 778 New Employment {total} 3,922 7,843 11,765 15,686 MPO T _._.___..-----"--._..- .....-._... ........ - 441 otal Mixed-Use Employment 357 1,832 4,279 6,907 .w i- ~*~ ~ Yuge 23 ~f 31 City Com llanre: These densit tar ets are ahead included in tine Cit s Trans ortation S stems Plan ~.3.fi5_3.7 _._ _._Conceptual Transportation Plans. Conceptual Transportation Plans shall be prepared early enough in the planning and development cycle that the identified regionally significant transportation corridors within each of the URAs can be protected ascost-effectively as possible by available strategies and funding. A Conceptual Transportation Plan for a URA or appropriate portion of a URA shall be prepared by the City in collaboration with the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, Jackson County, and other affected agencies and shall be adopted by Jackson County and the respective city prior to or in conjunction with a UGB amendment within that URA. Cit Com liance: See Goa! 3 Pollc 2.5 thrau Jt 3.6. 5:-3:~:~_5.3.7.1 __TTransportation infrastructure. The Conceptual Transportation Plan shall identify a general network of regionally significant arterials under local Jurisdiction and associated projects to provide mobility throughout the Region. City Compliance: See Goal ~~-Policv 1.S throuah 1.6. 5~~5.3.8 Conceptual Land Use Plans. A proposal for a UGB Amendment into a designated URA shall include a Conceptual Land Use Plan prepared by the City in collaboration with the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, Jackson County, and other affected agencies for the area proposed to be added to the UGB as follows: 5-35.3.8.1 Target Residential Density. The Conceptual Land Use Plan shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate how the residential densities of Section 2.5 above will be met at full build-out of the area added through the UGB amendment. Cit Com liance: See Goa13 Pollc 3.7 and 3.9. X5.3.8.2 Land Use Distribution. The Conceptual Land Use PEan shall indicate how the proposal is consistent with the general distribution of land uses in the Regional Plan, especially where are specific set of land uses were part of the rationale for designating land which was determined by the Resource Lands Review Committee to be commercial agricultural land as part of a URA. This applies to the following URAs: CP-1B, CP-1C, CP-4D, CP-fiA, CP-2B, MD-4, MD-6, MD-7mid, MD-7n, PH-2, TA- 2, TA-4. City Compliance: See Goat S, Poticv 2.7 and 1.9. X5.3.5.3 Transportation Infrastructure. The Conceptual Land Use Plan shall include the transportation infrastructure required in Section 2.7 above. City Compliance: See Goa! .2, Policy 2.6. ~~5.3.8.4 Mixed UsejPedestrian Friendly Areas. The Conceptual Land Use Plan shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate how the commitments of Pagc Z4 of 31 Section 2.6 above will be met at full build-out of the area added through the UGB amendment. City Compliance: See Goof 2, Pollcv 1.7 and 1.9. s-X5.3.9 The following conditions apply to specific Urban Reserve Areas: r~5.3.9.1 CP-1B. Prior to the expansion of the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary into the CP-16 area, ODOT, Jackson County and Central Point shall adopt an Interchange Area Management Plan ~IAMP) far the Seven Oaks Interchange Area. ~#-X5.3.9.2 ~CP-4p. Use of CP-4D is predominantly restricted to open space and park land with the exception of an existing one acre homesite. ~~5.3.9.3 CP-66. Development of the portion of CP-66 designated as employment land is restricted to institutional uses. Clty Compliance: See Goa! L Potlcv 1.1. ~~5.3.10 Agricultural Buffering, participating jurisdictions designating Urban Reserve Areas shall adopt the Regional Agricultural Buffing program in Volume 2, Appendix III into their Comprehensive Plans as part of the adoption of the Regional Plan. The agricultural buffering standards in Volume 2, Appendix II sha11 be adopted into their land development codes priarta a UGB amendment. City Compliance: See Goat 2, Aolicy 2.2. ~A5.3.11 Regional Land Preservation Strategies. Participating jurisdictions have the option of implementing the Community Buffer preservation strategies listed in Volume 2, Appendix V of the Regional Plan or other land preservation strategies as they develop. City Compliance: floes not_appty. ~-15.3.12 Housing Strategies. Participating jurisdictions shall create regional housing strategies that strongly encourage a range of housing types throughout the region within 5 years of acknowledgement of the RPS Plan. City Com~l„iance: See Goal 1. Policy 1.8. 5:3:15,3.13 „Urban Growth Boundary Amendment. Pursuant to ORS 197.298 and Oregon Administrative Rule 660-021-0060, URAs designated in the Regional Plan are the first priority lands used for a UGB amendment by participating cities. City Compliance; See Goa! .2, Paticy .2.1. ~:~:12-15.3.13.1 Land outside of a city's URA shall not be added to a UGB unless the general use intended for that land cannot be accommodated on any of the city's URA land or UGS land. ~ }°~ ~~ ~ Page ~S of'31 Clty Compliance: See Goa! .2~ Folr~cy ~~2. ~3-353.14 Land Division Restrictions. In addition to the provision of Oregon Administrative Rule 660-021-Q040, the following apply to lots or parcels which are located within a URA until they are annexed into a city: 5~1~5.3.14.1 The minimum lot size shall be ten acres; ~1~5.3.14.2 Development on newly created residentially zoned lots ar parcels shall be clustered to ensure efficient future urban development and public facilities, and this shall be a condition of any land divisions. 3-3.~-~.~5.3.14.3 Land divisions shall be required to include the pre-platting of future lots or parcels based on recommendations made by the city government to which the urban reserve belongs; 3:345.3.14.4 Land divisions within a URA shall not be in conflict with the transportation infrastructure identified in an adopted Conceptual Transportation Plan; and X5.3.14.5 As a condition of land division approval, a deed declaration shall be signed and recorded that recognizes public facilities and services will be limited as appropriate to a rural area and transitions to urban providers in accordance with the adopted URMA. City Compliance: See Appendix "A -Urban Reserve Management Aareemertt". ~~45.3.15„~Population Allocation. The County's Population Element shall be updated per statute to be consistent with the gradual implementation of the adopted Plan. If changes occur during an update of the County's Population Element that result in substantially different population allocations for the participating jurisdictions of this Regional Plan, then the Plan shall be amended according to Section 5 of this Chapter of the Plan. Cit Com fiance: The Cit a rees to the o ulatlon aUacations o the Re iona! Plan see Section 3, Population and Employment Pra'e Ems-X5.3.16 Greater Coordination with the RVMP©. The participating jurisdictions shall collaborate with the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Organization (RVMPO) to: ~-5.3.16.1 Prepare the Conceptual Transportation Plans identified in Section 2.7. ~5.3.1fi.2 Designate and protect the transportation infrastructure required in the Conceptual Transportation Plans identified in Section 2.7 to ensure adequate transportation connectivity, multimodal use and minimize the right of way costs. ~~ Aage 26 of 3i ~5.3.1b.3 Plan and coordinate the regionally significant transportation strategies critical to the success of the adopted Regional Plan including the development of mechanisms to preserve rights-of-way for the transportation infrastructure identified in the Conceptual Transportation Plans; and s:3:15:45.3.1G.4 Establish a means of providing supplemental transportation funding to mitigate impacts arising from future growth. C~ Comaliance: See Goa! 1~ Poticv 1.8. 5:3-~h5.3.17 Future Coordination with the RVCOG. The participating jurisdictions shall collaborate with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments on future regional planning that assists the participa#ing jurisdictions in complying with the Regional Plan performance indicators. This includes cooperation in a region-wide conceptual planning process if funding is secured. ~'1tv Comt~tiance: See Goat 1, Policy 1.8: ~5:~-:6.4. INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES In accordance with state requirements the Regional Plan delineates the factors, mechanisms, or outcomes that constitute the most compelling reasons for participants to comply with the regional plan over the identified planning horizon. These requirements are listed in Chapter 5 of the Regional Plan and are hereby incorporated by reference, and made a part of this Regional Plan Element. The City. as a Participant, hereby acknowledees and a rees to abide b the incentives and disincentives set forth in Chapter 5 of the Regional Plan. -5:b.5. MaNITORING AND PLAN ADJUSTMENTS As a Partici ant in the Re tonal Plan the Cit a rees to cam I with the monitorin and Ian ad'ustment standards and criteria as set forth in Section 4 Cha ter 5 of the Re tonal Ian. Specificall r~,Thethe Regional Plan requires Participating jurisdictions to maintain a monitoring system to ensure compliance with this plan and future amendments. Specific standards against which performance will be judged are listed in Section 42+t~Chapter 5 of the Regional Plan. The regular monitoring system will consist of reports submitted by the participating jurisdictions every five years, starting in 2Q17. The reports will include descriptions of their jurisdiction's activities pertinent to this plan for the preceding five-year period, analysis as to whether and how well those activities meet performance standards in Section IV of the Participant's Agreement, and a projection of activities for the next five-year period. Monitoring to ensure compliance with the adopted Plan will be a shared responsibility. Each city will be responsible for monitoring its adherence to the portion of the adopted Plan that is incorporated into its comprehensive plan. Jackson County, which will have the full adopted Plan incorporated into its comprehensive plan, will be responsible for overall monitoring. Processing amendments to the adopted Plan will be the responsibility of Jackson County, and can only be proposed by the governing authority of a signatory jurisdiction. In ,,, Page 27 043 .~ acknowledgement ofthe collaborative process by which the adopted Plan was created, Jackson County will have available the assistance of the signatory entities to this Agreement through a Technical Advisory Committee and Policy Committee. Both committees serve on an as-needed basis, and both serve in an advisory capacity to Jackson County. b.6. RPS IMPLEMENTATION TECHNIQUES As a Participant in the Reaionat Plan the City acknowledges and agrees to comply with the implementation techniques set forth in Section 4 Cha ter 5 of the Re ions! Flan. S..pecificalE the fie-Regional Problem Solving Agreements contains "Optional Implementation Techniques". ~tieeChanter 5 o#the Regional Plan, explains haw these optional techniques are applied in- to solve the Regional Problems and achieve the Regional Goals associated thereto. Implementation techniques noted here are organized according to Section V of the Regional Problem Solving Agreement {RPSA} found in Volume 2 of the Regions! Plan. The problem statement, associated goal and implementation technique from the RPSA are recited and are followed by the techniques' execution by yr through the plan. ~7. REGIONAL PLAN ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES The Greater Bear Creek Vattey Regiana! Plan, by reference, is incorporated into this Comprehensive Plan and in so doing the City of Central Point agrees to abide by and comply with all goals, objectives, and requirements of the Regions! Plan as applies to the City of Central Point. The following goals and policies reference and restate the Regional Plan goals and policies as appropriate for implementatlon by the City of Central Point: GOAL 1: MANAGE FUTURE li~~~GR4WTEI .~N AC~I2DANCCS WITH THE GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY RBGIONAL PLAP~I. Policy 1.1 The urban reserves identified in this element shall be the first priority lands T~used far urban growth boundary expansion] unless the general use intended for that land cannot be accommodated on any of the City's URA land or UGB land-. The followin urban reserve areas are sub'ec to the follawin conditions: ~ CP-1B. Prior to the ex ansion of the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary into the CP-16 area,_ODOT, Jackson County and Central Point shall adapt an Interchange Area Management Plan tIAMPI for the Seven Oaks Interchange Area. *~ CP-40. Use of CP-4D is redominantl restricted too en s ace and park land with the exception of an existing one,acre homesite: s Adopted by the City of Central Point on 20Q8,by Ordutance I~1o. sz fy Pagc 28 of"31 • CP-6B. Develo ment of the onion of CP-bB dgisi Hated as employment land is restricted to institutional uses. -~Polic 1 2 The City will implement the Repiona! Plan, throueh the Reeional . , _, Y.....______ Plan Element the Urban Growth Mana ement regiments and a licable i_rnplementine ordinances. i ~....~~w,d.,+~ ,..., ~.r.~ e-ean~eher~sive Pa_IicV-1.3 The ep's-overall-urban-gousln previda~er~er~-efflNenNarad-aitep: City's averase urban housing density for all new develo ment shall com I with the followin densit standards: Policy 1-:~6Policy 15 The City wilt, in its Public Services Element, identify major infrastructure corridors needed in the future, including strategies to achieve the long-term preservation of these corridors. PoiNcy-t:~PolicV 1.G Tkie~eg~ie ' #The City, in its Public Facilities Element, Transportation Systems Plan, will ensure a wel!-connected network of public streets as a means to reduce dependence on state highways far intro-city travel. 1~1~.-CaPo I ic~~ 1.7 ~#e-Rt~e~a-u~+ll-fac-+1+fat~ ~alar}ce`e€ie~artd .The City will address in its Land Use Element and Economic Element, the development of a healthy balance of jobs and housing in accordance with the general land use distributions identified in this element for each urban reserve area. ~° Pagc Z9 of 31 n^~,--~,-~y-7:~Policy 1..~i,_ ^The City will adhere to the policies and requirements of the Urban Growth Manaeement Aereements a-a~aalic-regulating the extension of sanitary sewer and public water facilities beyond estabiis#ed urban growth boundaries. #~il~y~Policy 1.8 bs~nnr-~yjpyrc cF-.rFe..rr :.. 7f19 C ibac. !" - - ~-~- 1 The Cit will collaborate with the Partici ants and the Rowe Valley Metropolitan Planning Oreanization {RVMPO) in the continued mono ement and im lementatlan of the Re Tonal Plan 1~sli~~r-3-&Polic 1.9 Prior to expansian of the UGB the City will prepare and adopt conceptual plans in accordance with the Regional Plan, Performance Indicator 9. GOAL Z: FOR TIiIiIR IMPORTANT ECONOMIC. CULTURAL. AND LIVABILITY BENEFITS. AND [N ACCORDANCIE,WITH THE GREATER BEAR CREEK,yALLEY REGIONAL PLAN. CONSERVE RESOURCE AND OPEN SPACE LANDS WITHIN THE URBAN RESERVE AREAS~~ ~~~~n;;~E ~ ~ •' A xfT • ~Policy 1.10 ~et~aereialiy~4ableda~ad-base f~r ~°°'~°~'*~~~° f~.n°*.•~.,.,,~°~~-°°°}° - °. The City will participate and collaborate with other Partici ants in the establishment of inter overnmental a reements and administer policies and laws that implement the shared vision of maintaining a commercially viable land base for aericulture. forestry and a re ate resources. ~.~9Policy 1.11 _ ~ ~ s-te . Prior to the expansian of th_e urban rawth boundary the City will adopt standards t~ buffer aericultural lands from planned future urbanization. F-e'Policy 1.12 ~~esea~e~~-!n collaboration with other Partici ants the Cit will ex lore strate ies to increase the viabilit and rofitabilit of resource lands. n~'~Policy i.13._x~e-~ie~wiN~ +-patie , r-areas-ln collaboration with other Participants the City will explore incentives and other measures to achieve the Ion -germ preservation of re~ianally si nificant a ens ace includin an lands that ma be located within existin and future . community buffer areas. GOAL 3: RECOGNIZE AND EMPHASIZE THE 1NDIVlDUAL IDENTITY, UNIQUE FEATURES, AND RELATIVE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GREATER BEA C~ REEK VALLEY REGIONAL PLAN ;~i`a-n' rr~~awRarwrimc~uir•s•~rw~ •n~r• Dr_~~~+i~ 3 ~ Pale 3n of31 Policy 3.1 -The C_ ity_will facilitate and enhance the ind':vidual identity of:Central Point bv: a. laws-tFaa~i+~pleme Establishine distinct design features along transportation corridors that demark the municipal boundaries, or b. ~e-~gier~ju~ ' h-aa~-Implenaerat Other appropriate means. Policy 3.2 he canal~ea~-and Rel1NQS-Tf~e.Citv's expansion of the urban Growth boundary will comply with the coals and policies of this elemenf and the goats and policies of the Regional Plan. Policy 3.3 egil~will~evelep-a~r~teg~r .The Cit will com 1 with the eneral land use distributions for each urban reserve area as identified in the Re~lonal Plan and restated in thls el,,,_,_, e~nt Policy 3.4 ~/.!~~ U N ~~V N~aEterist+ss-To facilitate urban rowth tannin and Goal 14 decisions it is the Cit 's oat to maintain the Ci of Central Point's small town feel and famll rl n h u h growth polities that entouraate and support pedestrian scale development, nrntection of agricultural lands, and the provision of timely and efficient urban services and infrastructure °~ ~ Pugc37; of3t