The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02022021 PC Packetr1 A CENTRAL POINT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA February 2 - 6:00 p.m. I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members, Tom Van Voorhees (chair), Amy Moore, Jim Mock, Pat Smith, Kay Harrison, Brad Cozza, Chris Richey IV. CORRESPONDENCE V. MINUTES Review and approval of the January 19, 2021 Planning Commission meeting minutes. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to consider Resolution No.887 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan General Land Use Map (Major) adding roughly 444 acres to the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) including portions of Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) CP -2B, CP -3, CP -4D and CP - 6A. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment includes a change to the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA) adding two (2) new policies. File No. CPA -19001. VIII. DISCUSSION IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS XI. ADJOURNMENT Individuals needing special accommodations such as sign language, foreign language interpreters or equipment for the hearing impaired must request such services at least 72 hours prior to the City Council meeting. To make your request, please contact the City Recorder at 541-423-1026 (voice), or by e-mail at: deanna.casey(iDcentralpointore,gon og_v . Si necesita traductor en espaiiol o servicios de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a una junta publica de la ciudad por favor llame con 72 horas de anticipaci6n al 541-664-3321 ext. 201. Page 1 of 391 Page 2 of 391 City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 2020 Meeting Held Via Zoom and in person I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:04 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Tom Van Voorhees (chair), Kay Harrison, Amy Moore, Chris Richey and Jim Mock were present via zoom. Brad Cozza, was present in person. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Tom Humphrey (via zoom), Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner (in person Matt Samitore, Public Works Director, (via zoom) Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner (via zoom) and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary (in person). III. CORESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES Kay Harrison made a motion to approve the December 1, 2020 minutes. Jim Mock seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Brad Cozza, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Chris Richey, abstain. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public hearing to consider a Tentative Subdivision Plan for the development of a 5 -lot residential subdivision, to be known as Covington Court. The project site is located in the Residential Single Family (R-1-6) zoning district and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 11D, Tax Lot 500. Applicant: Jason Artner. Tom Van Voorhees read the rules for a quasi-judicial public hearing. The commissioners had no conflicts of interest, ex parte contact or bias to declare. Mr. Gindlesperger described the proposed subdivision as a 1 acre property at the intersection of Pittview Avenue and Covington Court. He said the tentative plan proposes frontage improvements along both streets. There are adequate services available for the proposed subdivision. He said it is consistent with the existing development pattern and is within the minimum and maximum density. Each lot complies with the lot dimension standards in the R-1- 6 zoning district. Mr. Gindlesperger explained that during the review of the application, it was noted that the development will need to address storm water management and identify how surface water runoff will be conveyed and treated. The west side of Covington Court features a rolled curb Page 3 of 391 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2021 Page 2 that is ineffective in directing large amounts of runoff. Homes on the proposed lots must be constructed high enough to provide positive drainage away from the house. He added that currently the County has jurisdiction of the road however the city is negotiating to take over jurisdiction. The Public Hearing was opened Lisa Turner, 998 Covington Court. Ms. Turner said she was concerned about parking. She said there have been parking issues in the past. Mr. Gindlesperger answered the street would be widened, sidewalk would be constructed and that there would be parking on one side of the street. He added Public Works would make the decision regarding which side of the street would have parking at the time of the street improvements. Fire District 3 would be involved to assure a fire lane was adequate. The Commissioners discussed various parking scenarios. Ms. Turner asked if garbage pickup would be able to continue down the length of the street or if it would be too narrow. Mr. Gindlesperger said Rogue Disposal had been notified of the development and had not made any comments. The Pubic Hearing was closed. Kay Harrison made a motion to approve Resolution 845 approving a tentative plan for a 5 lot subdivision to be known as Covington Court subject to conditions of approval. Brad Cozza seconded the Motion. The Commissioners discussed the subdivision lots and driveway access. Mr. Samitore said each lot would have driveway access on Covington Court. The corner lot would be allowed one access on Covington and one on Pittview if the applicant requests it. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Brad Cozza, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Chris Richey, yes. Motion passed B. Public Hearing and consideration of a Major Modification to the White Hawk Master Plan concerning the Phasing Plan and the Site Plan and Housing Plan in Proposed Phase 1. The 18.91 acre project site is located on property identified by the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 03 Tax Lots 2700 and 2701. The Master Plan area includes land zoned Low Mix Residential (LMR) and Medium Mix Residential (MMR). Modifications to approved plans are subject to the requirements set forth in CPMC 17.09 and are limited in scope to the proposed changes. Applicant: White Hawk Properties/KDA Homes; Agent: Urban Development Services, LLC. Fine No. MOD — 20005. Principal planner Stephanie Holtey gave an overview of the original White Hawk Master Plan and the proposed modifications. She said the applicant proposes to build Phase 3 first and Phase 1 last. She reviewed correspondence received last night and this afternoon from residents in the area expressing concern regarding developmental impact on local wells and traffic. Ms. Holtey explained the original Master Plan. She stated the White Hawk Master Plan included a traffic impact analysis and an environmental assessment. Page 4 of 391 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2021 Page 3 She added the Master Plan was approved by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2015. The new owner of the property has requested modification of the Master Plan. She said the scope of this meeting is not to review the Master Plan itself, only the proposed changes. She said the applicant originally presented findings of fact for a minor modification however after review, staff recommended that due to the changes in alley access and housing design it should come before the Planning Commission. She added the changes amend the phasing plan, the site plan for proposed Phase 1 and the housing design. The proposed change to the phasing plan changes phase 3 to phase 1. To comply with the master plan requirements, the applicant proposes to realign the intersection of Gebhard and Beebe Road to provide a safe turning radius. Proposed phase 2 is the Park and Phase 3 includes the apartment development. Aside from timing, no changes are proposed to either Phase 2 or 3 at this time. There will also be frontage improvements along Beebe and Gebhard Road. The city has performed a realignment study for Gebhard Road. Beebe Park Drive and White Hawk Way will have roundabouts to accommodate the future Gebhard Road realignment. Ms. Holtey clarified that when the traffic impact analysis was prepared for the original master plan it identified an impact to the intersection of Beebe and Hamrick Roads. When 107 PM Peak Hour trips are generated it will trigger the installation of a signal The Planning commission imposed a 96 PM Peak hour Trip cap after which no additional development can occur until the signal is complete. The proposed change in the phasing plan provides for a 96 PM Peak Hour trip cap which will allow construction to continue without triggering the construction of a signal until the last phase of the project. She said the proposed changes to the building design represent a departure from the original Master Plan approval, including reduction in building materials and architectural details. The change to contemporary design reflects a more minimalist fagade. The proposal meets the residential fagade requirements for single family housing types by providing varied rooflines, vertical articulation, use of two primary building materials (i.e. horizontal lap siding and panel siding) adequate window and door area and use of alley loaded garages. She reviewed the master plan conditions of approval. Soil Mitigation. The approved Master Plan sets forth conditions approval relative to the timing of construction and mitigation of arsenic contamination in the soil. The prior owner of the property completed all soil mitigation actions per an approved mitigation plan. On August 14, 2019, the City the Department of Environmental Quality issued a No Further Action letter. The proposed modification requires no further action to remediate contaminated soils. Shallow Well Mitigation. To avoid potential impacts of the development process on the water table and shallow wells, the prior property owner was required to survey and sample identified wells in the vicinity of the project site. This work was completed between December 2015 and April 2016 and a report was prepared including recommended mitigation actions for the design and construction of underground utilities. Per the Public Works Staff Report dated January 4, 2021, the Applicant is required to address the Page 5 of 391 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2021 Page 4 shallow well mitigation requirements prior to Civil Improvement Plan approval and the start of construction. Staff recommends that the Planning commission approve Condition No. 2 that the Applicant satisfy all Public Works conditions of approval in the Staff Report dated January 4, 2021. Ms. Holtey stated that all existing conditions of approval still apply. She added Emergency services has requested renaming streets Park Street another street Beebe Park drive be renamed to not be similar to existing street names. She said block length complies with standards. The right of way dedication accommodates future roundabouts and the trips generated are 40.64 pm peak hour trips which is within the 96 PM peak hour trip cap. Ms. Holtey reviewed the issues raised in the two letters she had received. She said In general the concerns had to do with the impact of the underground utilities on the shallow local wells. When the original master plan was approved there was a condition of approval which required the applicant to send certified letters to all of the property owners within the East Side TOD area to request input so they could identify the shallow wells, survey their depth and verify that the mitigation action plan for the shallow wells was sufficient to minimize any potential impact on the shallow wells. Letters were sent between December 2015 and April 2016. The results were evaluated and a mitigation plan was created as a condition of approval. Both letters raised concerns about the location of the construction of storm drain line on Gebhard Road. It was noted that at some time the storm drain would be relocated from Gebhard Road to the east to White Hawk Way and Beebe Park Drive. Matt Samitore stated it appears the previous applicant had indicated the main line storm drain, instead of coming down Gebhard, could be diverted to Beebe Park Drive and White Hawk Way to connect with a new manhole near Beebe road intersection. When phases 2 & 3 occur that will still happen. He explained that because the ditch on Gebhard Drive was eliminated by the curb, gutter and sidewalk, it would be absolutely necessary to put in a storm drain line on Gebhard Dive to transmit the water from the streets during a major storm water event. This is necessary to allow for safe travel for vehicles. He said the storm drain line needs to exist. He added the city is certainly willing to work with the engineer and developer to limit that line. However should there be a downpour, streets will flood if there are not adequate storm drains. He stated the city's position would be that it adhere to the mitigations provided by the Apex report for all construction of storm drains. The storm drain line on Gebhard should be shallow about 3-4 feet and there is no way to eliminate it completely. Ms. Holtey said the second concern was that the revised phasing plan would route all traffic onto Gebhard Road in the initial phase of construction. She said that will be the case during phase one. There are no criteria in our municipal code that would prevent that from happening. The number of trips during PM Peak Hours is 40.64 which is considerably less that the 96 trip cap. Page 6 of 391 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2021 Page 5 Mr. Samitore stated the signal light at Hamrick and Beebe Road would not be required until the number of PM Peak Hour trips exceed the cap. He added there would be left turn lanes installed on Gebhard and Beebe Rd. Mr. Samitore explained the applicant was proposing less development in phase 1 than the original Master Plan so a new traffic study was not warranted. Mr. Samitore added the signal proposed for Hamrick Pine streets and for Hamrick and Beebe Roads were going out for bids within the next month so the design of both signals would begin. The commissioners clarified the improvements would include curb, gutter and sidewalk on the east side of Gebhard and improvements of half street plus 10 feet on the west side but not curb, gutter and sidewalks. That would happen as properties on the west side annexed into the city. On Beebe Road which is already completely in the city, improvements would be constructed on both sides of the street as development occurs. Ms. Holtey said there was a comment in one of the letters regarding the growth rate for the City of Central Point. She explained that the Portland State University Population forecast did indicate a high growth rate and was taken into consideration. She added that the distribution of growth did not occur equally over the entire city and the area in the Eastside TOD has not developed much. The existing traffic impact analysis takes this into account. Ms. Holtey reminded the Planning Commission the scope of this application is limited to the proposed changes to the original Master Plan which was approved in 2015. The appeal period for that approval expired in Nov. 16, 2015. She asked if anyone had questions about any issues in the correspondence. There were no questions The Public Hearing was opened. Mark Knox, Urban Development Services Mr. Knox stated he has asked Jim Higday, civil engineer, Amanda Spencer, hydrologist and Robb Mayers, the Applicant to help address any issues or questions. He said the modifications are straightforward. The Applicant will comply with the conditions of approval of the original master plan. Additionally there was no problem with the request from Emergency Services to change the street names. He reviewed the changes to the phasing plan as set forth in the staff report. Mr. Knox stated the proposed phase 1 would include 32 units and 16 accessory units above the garages. With this phase there would be significant improvements along Gebhard and Beebe Road. He said phase 2, which was the park, would probably be done at the same time as phase 1. He described the proposed units and architecture and said the architect, Ralph Tahran was available for questions as well. The proposed units would have solar access and significant open space. The alleys would be combined to one alley, 25 feet wide and it would have curb, gutter and sidewalk which would create a pedestrian friendly access to the park. He reviewed the parking accommodations for all units. And stressed the benefits and affordability of the accessory dwelling units. The commissioners expressed approval of the solar component and asked Ms. Spencer about the impact on shallow wells. Ms. Spencer stated she had done the original well study for the Master Plan. She stated it had not changed. The mitigation measures in the conditions of approval were still in place and should work to mitigate any impact on the wells. Page 7 of 391 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2021 Page 6 Matt Samitore said in 2005 the City had installed new water lines, laterals and boxes to the homes on Beebe and Gebhard Roads. The city will provide water free for a year to residents who want it and they can keep their wells for irrigation. That offer is still in effect to anyone who requests it. The commissioners asked about the timing of the second and third phases. Mr. Knox responded they intend to do the park at the same time as phase 1 if feasible. It will depend on the cost after the engineering has been completed. Amy Moore asked how wide the lots were. Most are 29 feet wide and would accommodate 3 cars parked across. Matt Samitore added the streets are full collector or full residential streets with parking on both sides with the exception of Gebhard Road. The commissioners discussed various options for guest parking noting it was especially difficult with no Parking on Gebhard Road. Mr. Samitore suggested that if the Left turn lane on Gebhard Road was shortened, that might leave enough room in the Right of Way to accommodate some parking on Gebhard. Mr. Knox agreed that might be a good option and said they would need to collaborate with the City to revise the plan. Public Hearing was closed. Chris Richey made a motion to approve resolution 885, consideration of a Major Modification to the White Hawk Master Plan concerning the Phasing Plan and the Site Plan and Housing Plan in Proposed Phase 1. The 18.91 acre project site is located on property identified by the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 03 Tax Lots 2700 and 2701. Amy More seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Brad Cozza, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Chris Richey, yes. Motion passed. B. Public Hearing and consideration of a 32 -lot Tentative Subdivision Plan for Phase 1 of the White Hawk Master Plan. The project site is located in a portion of property identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W03 Tax Lots 2700 and 2701. Phase 1 is within the MMR, Medium Mix Residential zone in the Eastside Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) District. Tentative Plans are subject to the requirements in CPMC 16.10 and the zoning standards for the MMR zone in CPMC 17.65. Tom Van Voorhees stated the rules would stand as previously read. The commissioners had no conflicts of interest, ex parte contact or bias to declare. Stephanie Holtey reviewed the Tentative Subdivision Plan for the revised Phase 1 of the Master Plan. She explained this was a Tentative Plan along with street improvements and Right of Way dedication and reserve acreage for phases 2 and 3. She said the site is located within both the LMR and MMR districts. Ms. Holtey outlined the process and approval criteria for a Tentative Plan. She said in this instance it will be necessary to insure the improvements comply not only with the Public Works Standards but with the mitigation measures in the shallow well report. Street frontage improvements will extend all the way down Gebhard and around the corner to Beebe Road. Page 8 of 391 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2021 Page 7 She said the Tentative Plan contained extensive information on existing and proposed conditions. The lots comply with zoning standards. Complies with TIA of 2014. This development does not trigger the signal at Beebe and Hamrick Roads. The environmental mitigation has been completed on the park. Removing the contaminated soil and capping it. DEQ has approved the mitigations. She said the civil improvements will need to comply with the mitigation items in the conditions of approval. Ms. Holtey said the Planning Commission could impose a condition that plan prior to civil improvement approval the applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Department to explore options for on -street parking on Gebhard Road. Public Hearing was opened. There were no comments or questions The Public Hearing Was Closed. Chris Richey made a motion to approve resolution 886, consideration of a 32 -lot Tentative Subdivision Plan for Phase 1 of the White Hawk Master Plan. With the added condition. The project site is located in a portion of property identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W03 Tax Lots 2700 and 2701 with the added condition. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. The commissioners discussed the parking issues and the traffic issues. They asked about the timeline and traffic controls when Gebhard Road was extended and the bridge over Bear Creek was constructed. Matt Samitore described the current plans for the project. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Brad Cozza, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Chris Richey, yes. Motion passed. VII. DISCUSSION Development Update • The UGB Amendment joint meeting with the County will be February 2, 2021. • Les Schwabb was beginning construction • The chiropractic office on Biddle continues construction • The Nelson Building on Freeman Road has begun construction • Mr. Humphrey took a tour of the Reed building today. • Dominos has opened Page 9 of 391 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2021 Page 8 VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Chris Richey moved to adjourn the meeting. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. All members said "aye". Meeting was adjourned at 8:31p.m. Planning Commission Chair Page 10 of 391 Page 11 of 391 w Community Development STAFF REPORT CENTRAL Tom Humphrey, AICP, Director POINT February 2, 2021 Proposal Summary Consideration of a Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment to provide a twenty-year land supply for forecast residential, non -industrial employment and parks and open space land. The proposed amendment would add approximately 444 acres to the City's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and provide general land use designations on the General Land Use Map in the Land Use Element that will be effective upon annexation. The proposal also includes an amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA). Applicant: City of Central Point; File No.: CPA -19001. Approval Criteria, Staff Source Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner Background The Oregon Land Use Planning System provides a framework for cities and counties to anticipate and proactively respond to growth in a manner that aims to minimize impacts to valuable farm, forest and natural resources. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is a key feature of this program in that it requires cities to establish a 20 -year land supply for its urban land needs. These are lands that are potentially eligible to be annexed into city limits. To amend the UGB, cities must demonstrate there is a need for the type of urban land being added, that needed land cannot be provided in the existing UGB and selected lands reflect priorities established in ORS 197.298. Alternative boundary locations must be compared based a variety of factors that are weighed and balanced. At the conclusion of the comparative analysis, the City and County must both approve amendments to their respective comprehensive plans for a UGB amendment to occur. At this time, the City is requesting a Major Amendment to the City of Central Point and Jackson County Comprehensive Plans to add residential, non -industrial employment, core parks and open space land needed for 20 -years of growth. Project Description: The City's UGB Amendment proposal is based on the most recent Portland State University Population Research Center (PRC) Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County and Urban Growth Boundaries and analysis of housing, employment and parkland needs (See Attachment I" — Land Need (pages 7-19). The proposed location is based on the state requirements summarized above, as well as performance indicators in the Regional Plan Element relative to minimum average density, land use and transportation concept plans, and mixed-use/pedestrian friendly areas (See Attachment 1 — Location (pages 20-25), Land Use (pages 26-31). Additionally, the proposal includes a text amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA). The UGBMA is part of the Regional Plan Element and sets forth policies and procedures related to the joint management of lands in the UGB. The purpose 140 South 3rd Street I Central Point, OR 97502 1 541.664.3321 1 www.centralpointoregon.gov Page 12 of 391 of the proposed amendment is to assure that prior to annexation, lands will remain rural and the potential of these lands to efficiently accommodate urban land needs remains intact. Issues There are five (5) issues relative to this application as follows: Regional Plan Compliance, Density. As Part of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, the City committed to providing for a minimum average gross density of 6.9 units per acre until 2035 and 7.9 units per acre from 2036-2060 for lands newly added to the UGB. At this time, the City's residential zone code has not been updated to meet the minimum average gross density standard in the areas newly added to the UGB. Comment: The minimum average density for the 2019-2039 planning period is 7.04 units per gross acre. Staff recommends Condition No. 1 requiring the City to update the residential zoning codes prior to annexation of lands from the newly added UGB lands. 2. Environmental Planning. The City does not have a complete inventory of all environmental resources for the proposed UGB expansion areas as required by Goal 5. Comment: Since the UGB land will remain rural and subject to County land use and zoning requirements, staff recommends that the Goal 5 planning be completed prior to annexation (See Condition No. 2). 3. Public Facilities Planning. The City's Public Facilities Element does not include the proposed UGB expansion areas. To complete the update to the Public Facilities Element consistent with Statewide Planning Goals 11 and 12, the City needs to update its public facility master plans for water, stormwater and transportation. Comment: The City is in the process of updating its Water System Master Plan and Stormwater Master Plans to include the proposed UGB expansion areas. Additionally funding has been secured to begin an update the Transportation System Plan beginning in July 2021. Staff recommends Condition No. 3 requiring completion of its Goal 11 and 12 planning prior to annexation. 4. Public Comments. The City and County have received written testimony in favor of and in opposition to the proposed UGB Amendment (Attachments 2-7). Testimony in favor of the proposal addresses the following: • Ability of the proposal to address shortage of residential land, which is much more pronounced for the region following the fires last summer; • Availability of consolidated acreage in CP -6A by an owner group that is eager to annex into the City and support urban development; • Extensive public process including robust participation by both city and county residents who may be impacted by the decision. Testimony in opposition of the proposal addresses the following: 140 South 3rd Street I Central Point, OR 97502 1 541.664.3321 1 www.centralpointoreaon.aov Page 13 of 391 • Concern regarding future construction of Boes Park adjacent to the Boes Subdivision in CP -4D due to concerns about traffic safety, homeless camps, and fire danger. • Concern that the proposed UGB Amendment misuses high quality farm land for development. It is recommended that the UGB Amendment not include land suited for farm use. • Concerns about traffic and pollution becoming more like California. • Concern about commercial and high density residential land being proposed and lack of parks and open space shown. • Opposition to cookie -cutter and unattractive development. • Concern that urban development will cause noise disturbing the quiet currently experienced in rural areas. • Impact of proposed high density residential and neighborhood commercial land in CP -6A use on mature native oaks and desire to see this area designated as parks and open space. • Traffic impacts at Haskell and Pine Street does not appear to have been considered in the Traffic Impact Analysis. • Concern about fire impacts and the need to consider lessons learned from recent wildfires in California and Southern Oregon. Comment: The City's UGB Amendment selects lands from Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) established following a decade long process to evaluate and select lands to accommodate future urban growth. The Regional Problem Solving process recognized that Central Point is surrounded by high value farmland. Eight (8) URAs were established for the City to consider as first priority lands when expanding the UGB. In recognition of the City's geography and the need to minimize further impacts to high value farm land, the City agreed to the highest average minimum gross density of all communities in the Greater Bear Creek Valley. This requires the need for some high density lands and an overall increase the City's minimum densities. To address livability, the City's Land Use Element requires that when land is zoned at annexation, the standards and criteria in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay be applied. The TOD zones require master plans that address provision of parks and open space, circulation and access, site planning and building design. Examples of TOD communities include Twin Creeks, Snowy Butte Station, and White Hawk (starting construction in Phase 1 soon). Although urban development will result in some impacts, these will be a function of the development process and not UGB expansion. The proposed inclusion of City -owned land for future construction of Boes Park is consistent with the Parks Element. At this time the park has not been designed; however, it is expected that the design process will invite public input and incorporate lessons learned from recent fires, concerns about homeless camps, and traffic mitigation. Other opens spaces are shown when under public ownership (i.e. City, County, Bear Creek Greenway). Parks and open space is not shown on private property to avoid Takings issues. The Traffic Impact Analysis studied 25 existing intersections, including Haskell at West Pine Street and 11 proposed intersections (See Attachment 1, Exhibit 5: Attachment "E"). 140 South 3,d Street I Central Point, OR 97502 1 541.664.3321 1 www.centralpointoreaon.aov Page 14 of 391 5. Agency Comments. The City notified affected governmental agencies of the proposed UGB Amendment and received letters from Rogue Valley Sewer Services (Attachment 8) and Jackson County Roads (Attachment 9). Comment: The agency comments received are consistent with feedback provided during the pre -application process. Jurisdictional transfer of roads and consideration of sewer construction needs are addressed in the City's application. No further action is needed. Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law The proposed Major Comprehensive Plan to the City's General Land Use Map and UGBMA has been evaluated against the applicable criteria below and found to comply as evidenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Attachment 1) as conditioned: • Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement. [See pages 32-371. Statewide Planning Goals: Goal 1, Citizen Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 3, Agricultural Lands; Goal 4, Forest Lands; Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces; Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality; Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters; Goal 8, Recreational needs; Goal 9, Economic Development; Goal 10, Housing; Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services; Goal 12, Transportation; Goal 13, Energy Conservation; and,Goal 14, Urbanization. [See pages 38-44]. • Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660 Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries. [See pages 45-54]. • OAR 660-012-0060, Transportation planning Rule Plan and Land Use Amendments. [See pages 55-581. • Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.298, Priority of land to be included in the UGB. [See pages 59-601. • City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan: General Policies; Citizen Involvement Element; Population Element; Economic Element; Parks Element; Land Use Element; Regional Plan Element; Public Facilities Element; Transportation System Plan; and, Urbanization Element. [See pages 68-1171. • City of Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) 17.76, Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments. [See pages 118-1191. Attachments Attachment 1 — Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Attachment 2 — Mallums Letter dated September 8, 2020 Attachment 3 — Mallums Letter dated October 13, 2020 Attachment 4 — Taylor Road Property Owner Group Letter dated January 5, 2021 Attachment 5 — Sakraida Letter dated January 19, 2021 Attachment 6 — Vickoren Email dated January 18, 2021 Attachment 7 — Pastorino Letter dated January 24, 2021 Attachment 8 — Rogue Valley Sewer Services Letter dated January 14, 2021 140 South 3rd Street I Central Point, OR 97502 1 541.664.3321 1 www.centralpointoregon.gov Page 15 of 391 Attachment 9 — Jackson County Roads Letter dated January 14, 2021 Attachment 10 — Recommended Resolution No. 887 Conditions of Approval Prior to annexation of lands newly added to the UGB, the City shall: 1. Amend its residential zoning codes to adopt minimum average gross densities as required by the Regional Plan; 2. Update the Environmental Element (Goal 5 and Goal 7) of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. Update the following public facility master plans as necessary to identify needed improvements and program them into the City's Capital Improvement Program: Transportation System Plan (Goal 12), Water system Master Plan and Stormwater Master Plan. Based on the updated master plans, the City will update its Public Facilities Element (Goal 11). Action Consider the Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment and forward a recommendation to the Central Point City Council to 1) Approve; 2) Approve with Modifications; or 3) Deny the application. Recommendation Approve Resolution No. 887 forwarding a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment application per the Staff Report dated February 2, 2021. 140 South 3rd Street I Central Point, OR 97502 1 541.664.3321 1 www.centralpointoregon.gov Page 16 of 391 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment City File No.: CPA -19001 County File No.: TBD Before the City of Central Point City Council and the Jackson County Board of Commissioners is consideration of an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan adding approximately 444 gross acres to the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to provide residential, employment, and parks and open space to accommodate forecast growth for the next 20 -years, 2019-2039. Applicant: City of Central Point 140 South 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 1. Introduction Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law The City of Central Point requests an amendment to the City and County Comprehensive Plans to add approximately 444 acres of land (51 tax lots) for residential, employment, parks and open space, and associated public facility uses. The proposed UGB amendment ("UGB Amendment") responds to the following: Forecast Growth. The City is expected to add 7,216 people to its population between 2019 and 2039 primarily as a result of net in -migration.' To accommodate growth Central Point will need housing, employment opportunities, parks and public facilities. Land Needs Exceed Buildable Land Supply. The City does not have a sufficient buildable land supply for housing2'3, commercial and other employment' 5, and parks6 to accommodate growth. Due to the City's efforts over the past 20 -years to increase land use efficiency through Transit Oriented Development (TOD), performance zoning, imposing maximum density and off-street parking standards, and adoption of a minimum average density over the next 50 -years', the City is now looking to expand its UGB. • Availability of Urban Reserve Areas (URAs). Adoption of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan as the City's Regional Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan (City Council Ordinance No. 1964) established eight (8) URAs that are first priority lands available for UGB expansion. ' Portland State University Population Research Center, "Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County and Urban Growth Boundaries." June 2018. 2 City of Central Point Residential Buildable Lands Inventory. Ordinance No. 2053, March 14, 2019. 3 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. Ordinance No. 2057, April 11, 2019. 4 City of Central Point Employment Buildable Lands Inventory. Ordinance No. 2058, June, 11, 2019. 5 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Economic Element. Ordinance No. 2059, July 11, 2019. 6 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Parks Element. Ordinance No. 2045, July 19, 2018. 7 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Regional Plan Element. Ordinance No. 1964, August 9, 2012. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 17 of 391 Page 1 of 119 The purpose of these findings is to demonstrate that the City's proposed UGB Amendment is consistent with the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA) between the City and County, and the goals and policies of the Statewide Planning Goals, Oregon Administrative Rules, Oregon Revised Statutes; the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Ordinance, and the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 1.1 Application The Central Point UGB Amendment application constitutes a Major Revision per the Central Point and Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA). In accordance with City Council Resolution No. 1599 (Exhibit 1), the City of Central Point requests the following land use approvals: 1. Amend the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Legislative) to add 444 gross acres and 51 tax lots to the Central Point UGB (Figure 1, Exhibits 2-3). The proposed amendment is to retain the County land use and zoning designations as "Urbanizable Area" until such time the properties are annexed into the City. 2. Amend the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Legislative) to add 444 acres to the Central Point UGB and designate land uses for the properties to be included (Figure 2). 3. Transfer jurisdiction of the following roadways from Jackson County to the City of Central Point per the Urban Reserve Area Management Agreement (URMA): • Beebe Road from Hamrick to Gebhard Road; • Gebhard from Beebe Road to Wilson Road; • Grant Road from the Twin Creeks Crossing to Beall Lane; and, • Taylor Road from Silver Creek Drive west to the proposed westerly UGB boundary. 4. Amend the UGBMA to add Urban Growth Policy 1(D) as follows, "Prior to annexation of urbanizable lands, no land division shall be approved by the County which creates lots less than forty (40) acres in size." (Exhibit 4) The following supportive actions will occur prior to annexation of lands added to the UGB: 1. Amend Central Point Municipal Code Title 17 to adopt gross density requirements and development standards consistent with the City's minimum average density commitment per the Regional Plan Performance Indicator 2.5.1 (County) /4.1.5.1 (City). 2. Amend the Public Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan including updated public facility master plans that include the adopted UGB expansion areas. 3. Amend the Environmental Element to complete Goal 5 planning for the UGB areas. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 18 of 391 Page 2 of 119 Figure 1, Proposed UGB Expansion Areas, City & County Comprehensive Plans r "Ir LP 4c •,r r.. .,y �•• i � L 41 i ca Pkv. uce %Taj�.hMw ur u,r. Com traI Point Urban Growth Boundary A-rnnndment CENTRAL Propo aed UG B Areas POINT City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 19 of 391 Page 3 of 119 Ie+N ccsc» J "T , r V4 Figure 2, Proposed City Land Use Designations, General Land Use Map AO%k CENTRAL POINT 9 Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Arnendmartt Proposed L -GB Le!id Lse City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 20 of 391 Page 4 of 119 1.2 Procedural Requirements The subject application is a major legislative UGB Amendment (Type IV) subject to joint city and county review in accordance legislative procedures in Jackson County Land Development Ordinance (LDO). Amendments to the UGB are governed by the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA) between Jackson County and the City of Central Point adopted per Ordinance No. 2001 (Exhibit 1). The proposed UGB Amendment is a Major Revision, which is subject to mutual City and County review. 1.3 Approval Criteria The above amendments are governed by the UGBMA between the City and Jackson County and additional state, county and local criteria as set forth below: 1.3.1 Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) ORS 197.298 — Priority of Land to be included in urban growth boundary 1.3.2 Statewide Planning Goals/OARS Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement Goal 2 — Land Use Planning Goal 3 — Agricultural Lands Goal 4 — Forest Lands Goal 5 — Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas and Open Spaces Goal 6 — Air, Water, Land Resources Quality Goal 7 — Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards Goal 8 — Recreational Needs Goal 9 — Economic Development Goal 10 —Housing Goal 11 — Public Facilities and Services Goal 12 — Transportation Goal 13 — Energy Conservation Goal 14 — Urbanization Goals 15-19 — Address Willamette Valley and Ocean and Coastal Resources, which do not apply to the City. 1.3.3 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) OAR 660-024 — Urban Growth Boundaries 1.3.4 Jackson County Comprehensive Plan Regional Plan Element: Performance Measures 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 2.17, 2.18, 2.20 Transportation System Plan: Policies 4.2.1-I, 4.2.1-P, 4.2.1-Q, 4.2.1-R, 4.2.1-S, 4.3.2-A, 4.3.2-B Urban Lands Element: Policy 1 Map Designations Element 1.3.5 Jackson County Land Development Ordinance (LDO) Section 3.7.3(E) City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 21 of 391 Page 5 of 119 1.3.6 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan General Policies Citizen Involvement Element Population Element Housing Element Economic Element Parks Element Land Use Element Regional Plan Element Public Facilities Element Transportation System Plan Urbanization Element 1.3.7 Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) 17.76 — Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments 1.4 Exhibits Exhibit 1 — City Council Resolution No. 1599 Exhibit 2 — Jackson County Application Form Exhibit 3 — Tax Lot Inventory Exhibit 4 — UGBMA with proposed revisions Exhibit 5 — Location Analysis Report Exhibit 6 — Maps Exhibit 7 — Regional Plan Progress Report Exhibit 8 — Mailing Labels City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 22 of 391 Page 6 of 119 2 Central Point UGB Amendment Background The City's UGB Amendment aims to provide a sufficient inventory of land that is both available and suitable for urbanization over a 20 -year planning period. The current UGB was first established in 1983 and amended in 2014 and 2015 to add roughly 50 acres of open space and industrial land. Aside from these minor amendments, no land for housing or commercial employment has been added to Central Point's UGB in 36 -years. Based on the most recent analysis of land needs, the City's forecast population growth for the 2019-2039 planning period requires more land for housing, jobs, and parks than is available in the current UGB. Given the City's efforts to increase land use efficiency over the years, there is little opportunity to further extend the life of the current UGB to accommodate the 20 -year land need. Consequently, the City is proposing a major UGB Amendment to add land for needed housing, jobs and parks. In 2012 the City adopted the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan as the City of Central Point Regional Plan Element ("Regional Plan"). The Regional Plan established eight (8) Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) that serve as first priority land for UGB amendments. The Regional Plan includes twenty (20) performance indicators, including but not limited to minimum average density commitment for lands newly added to the UGB from the URAs, and requirements to prepare conceptual land use and transportation plans and meet benchmarks for providing new housing and employment in mixed- use/pedestrian friendly areas. The performance indicators have influenced the determination of the City's land need for housing and the location of proposed UGB expansion areas. UGB Amendments are governed by state, county, and city criteria designed to minimize impacts to valuable agriculture and forest lands, while promoting compact and livable urban development. To accomplish this, the City evaluated its land need needs relative to forecast growth and considered opportunities to accommodate growth within the current urban area. Subsequently the City established a study area and evaluated lands based on priorities and criteria set for in the Oregon State Administrative Rules (OARs), Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan to identify the most suitable location for the Central Point UGB. 2.1 Land Need The City's land needs are set forth in Table 1 and the Central Point Comprehensive Plan, including the following Elements: • Population Element (Ordinance No. 2030) — Adopts the most recent Portland State University Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County and Urban Areas and sets forth the number of persons per household based on historic trends in Central Point. • Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), Land Use Element (Ordinance No 2053) — Adopts the updated inventory of available buildable lands for the 2019-2039 planning period. The Residential BLI finds that there are 105 acres of buildable lands available and likely to develop during the 2019-2039 planning period. • Housing Element (Ordinance No. 2057) — Adopts the City's analysis of housing needs based on the PRC Forecast and Residential BLI to determine the City's residential land needs. • Employment Buildable Lands Inventory, Land Use Element (Ordinance No. 2058) —Adopts the updated inventory of available buildable lands for employment use based on use and parcel size. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 23 of 391 Page 7 of 119 The Employment BLI finds that the City has 147 acres of buildable employment lands likely to develop over the 2019-2039 planning period. Most of the vacant lands that are available and likely to develop are for industrial and retail use. Economic Element (Ordinance No. 2059) — The Economic Element was prepared in accordance with Goal 9 and acknowledged by DLCD. It sets forth the City's gross employment land needs over the short- and long-term, identifies the needed site types by use, and the City's target markets for employment capture. Parks and Recreation Element (Ordinance No. 2045) - The Parks and Recreation Element sets forth the inventory of current parkland in the UGB and land in the URAs outside the UGB that are owned by the City, and identifies performance standards for core parks (i.e. community and neighborhood), and associated land needs to provide core park recreation opportunities for the 20 - year planning period. Table 1, Summary of 20 -year land need by land use category Housing Need Employment Parks Persons per Regional Job Level of 3.5 acres per Households 2.5 Growth 28,840 Service (LOS) 1,000 Residents (Total)' Standard Household 2 887 CCP Job 6.8% 2039 26,317 Increase Capture Rate Population Average Gross 7.04 Total CCP Job 1,948 Total Parkland 92.1 Density10 Growth Acres Needed Needed Gross Commercial: Existing Residential Needed Acres Parkland Acres 37.29 Acres 410 Buildable 83 61 Acres 21 Add'tl Acres Buildable Institutional Residential Needed Acres Acres" 105 Buildable 18 0 Acres 18 Add'tl Acres Other Needed Acres Additional Buildable 0 Core Parkland Additional Acres Acres Needed 55 34 Needed Gross Add'tl Acres 305 TOTAL Residential Acres EMPL. ACRES NEEDED: NET 74 GROSS 93 TOTAL ADDITIONAL LAND NEED: 453 8 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Population Element, 2019-2039. ' City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Economic Element, 2019-2039. 10 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Regional Plan Element, 2015-2035. 11 City of Central Point Residential Buildable Lands Inventory, 2019-2039. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 24 of 391 Page 8 of 119 To address the identified land needs and deficient available buildable land supply inside the current urban area, the City is amending its UGB (Table 2). Table 2, Proposed UGB by Location and Land Use Classification For the purposes of this UGB Amendment, the City discounted environmentally constrained lands and existing right-of-way to determine `reasonably developable' acreage as defined in the Regional Plan (Table 3 and Exhibit 5).12 When establishing the study area, the City eliminated SFHA lands with the exception of 3.4 acres in CP -2B. The SFHA land at this location is owned by Jackson County. Following the Pre -Application Conference, the City modified the proposed land use from Medium Density Residential to Parks and Open Space per the County's suggestion. Based on this land use adjustment, the SFHA discount was not necessary since open space and parks are generally compatible with floodplains. Table 3. Central Point UGB Proposal with Reasonably Developable Acreage Land Use Analysis C 1 CP -6A Total Residential Proposed UGB Land Use by Gross Acreage 1 235 366 Expansion 17 0 0 17 34 Gross Residential (Minus Parks) 113 Area by 1 218 332 Environmental Constraints: Bear Totals URA High Risk Flood Hazard Area Core N/A Creek Existing N/A Mapped Wetlands Residential Employment Parks Open Space Greenway ROW 3 0 0 0 3 Existing Right -of -Way 3 0 0 6 9 Reasonably Developable Residential Acreage 107 0 1 212 320 Employment Gross Acreage 13 20 0 5 38 Environmental Constraints: 0 High Risk Flood Hazard Area 0 0 0 0 For the purposes of this UGB Amendment, the City discounted environmentally constrained lands and existing right-of-way to determine `reasonably developable' acreage as defined in the Regional Plan (Table 3 and Exhibit 5).12 When establishing the study area, the City eliminated SFHA lands with the exception of 3.4 acres in CP -2B. The SFHA land at this location is owned by Jackson County. Following the Pre -Application Conference, the City modified the proposed land use from Medium Density Residential to Parks and Open Space per the County's suggestion. Based on this land use adjustment, the SFHA discount was not necessary since open space and parks are generally compatible with floodplains. Table 3. Central Point UGB Proposal with Reasonably Developable Acreage Land Use Analysis C 1 CP -6A Total Residential Gross Acreage 130 0 1 235 366 Parks Adjustment 17 0 0 17 34 Gross Residential (Minus Parks) 113 0 1 218 332 Environmental Constraints: High Risk Flood Hazard Area N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mapped Wetlands 3 N/A N/A 0 3 Total Environmental Constraints 3 0 0 0 3 Existing Right -of -Way 3 0 0 6 9 Reasonably Developable Residential Acreage 107 0 1 212 320 Employment Gross Acreage 13 20 0 5 38 Environmental Constraints: 0 High Risk Flood Hazard Area 0 0 0 0 0 Mapped Wetlands 0 1 0 0 0 0 Existing Right -of -Way 0 1 2 0 3 " Oregon Department of State Lands, Statewide Wetland Inventory Mapper. https://mgps.dsl.state.or.us/swi/ City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 25 of 391 Page 9 of 119 Total Adjustments 0 0 0 0 0 Reasonably Developable Employment Acreage 13 18 0 5 35 Parks & Open Space Total Buildable Residential Acres 105 Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres 305 Core Parks 17 0 21 17 55 Bear Creek Greenway 0 15 0 0 15 Open Space 4 1 0 0 1 Gross Parks and Open Space Acreage 21 16 21 17 71 TOTAL GROSS UGB ACREAGE 147 36 22 240 444 TOTAL REASONABLY DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE 136 18 22234 410 The following sections present evidence from the City's Comprehensive Plan Elements used to support this UGB Amendment application. 2.1.1 Residential Land Over the 2019-2039 planning period, the City's projected to add 7,216 people equivalent to 2,887 new households. Most of the growth in housing is expected to result from people moving to Central Point from in -migration. According to the Housing Element, single-family detached owner -occupied housing will continue to be the preferred housing type followed by multi -family housing. A summary of the City's residential land needs is provided in Table 4. Table 4, Projected Residential Buildable Land Need, 2019-2039 2018 Pop. 2032 Forecase 2039 Forecast' 19,101 23,662 26,317 Population Increase 7,216 Persons/HH 2.50 Household Increase 2,887 Average Gross Density 7.04 Needed Gross Residential Acres 410 Total Buildable Residential Acres 105 Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres 305 ' Portland State University Population Research Center, Preliminary Estimate, 2 2 Portland State University Population Research Center, Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2018-2068 3 Based on PSU Interprolation Worksheet ' City of Central Point Population Element, 2017 - 2037 5 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element, 2015 - 2035 6 City of Central Point Buildable Lands Report, 2019 - 2039, Table 5. Infill Availability Adjusted Buildable Vacant Land by Comprehensive Plan The City has not added any residential lands to its urban area since the UGB was established in 1983. Since that time, the City has implemented several efficiency measures that have contributed significantly to increased land use efficiency and longevity of the residential land supply (Table 5). City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 26 of 391 Page 10 of 119 Table 5, Residential efficiency measures summary No. Description I Increases in the permitted density on existing Increased in 2000 and 2013 in the TOD and ETOD: residential land min. density increased from 3.1 to 7.7 units per acre. 2 Financial incentives for higher density housing May be considered as part of the City's Housing Implementation Plan (HIP). 3 Provisions to allow density bonus in exchange for City has allowed PUDs since 1989. These allow amenities exceptions for amenities. 4 Removal or easing of approval standards or Per the HIP, the City is working on evaluating and procedures amending standards. 5 Minimum density ranges Minimum density standards were established in 2006. 6 Redevelopment and infill strategies The City approved a HIP, which includes looking at infill and redevelopment. Strategies. 7 Authorization of housing types not previously Per the HIP, the City is preparing text amendments to allowed allow Cottage Housing. 8 Adoption of an average residential density Per the Regional Plan, the City adopted an average standard density standard (6.9/7.9 u/ac, gross) 9 Rezoning or re -designation of nonresidential land The City has not proposed re -designating nonresidential land due to needs for employment. 10 Minimum/Maximum parking standard The City adopted a minimum/maximum parking standard in 2006 to increase efficiency. 11 Infill participation increase In the BLI/Housing Element, the City increased infill participation increase from 6% (historic) to 20% (next 20 -years). The proactive approach to increasing land use efficiency satisfies the criteria in ORS 197.296(9). The most significant of these include adopting Transit Oriented Development (TOD) regulations and minimum density standards in residential zones, and increasing forecast infill participation rates for the 2019-2039 planning period as compared to historic rates. 2.1.1.1 Transit Oriented Development The City adopted Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District and Corridor regulations in 2000, which were applied to 435 acres and later expanded in 2013 to include an additional 125 acres. This measure has increased density and more livable community areas by allowing more diverse housing types, providing minimum parks and open space requirements for each dwelling unit, allowing lots to be clustered around large common open spaces and parks, and providing opportunities for mixed uses and multi -modal transportation options. The result in an average density of 7.9 to 12.8 units per acre within master planned TOD developments (i.e. Twin Creeks, Snowy Butte Station and Cascade Meadows). Expansion of the TOD District in 2013 on the City's east side increased the planned minimum gross density for that area from 3.1 units per acre to 7.7 units per acre. 2.1.1.2 Minimum Density Prior to 2006 the City had a maximum density standard in its residential zones based on the assumption at the time that developers would favor larger numbers of units. This wasn't the case. As shown in the Housing Element, adoption of minimum density standards contributed significantly to increasing the City's average gross density from 3.77 units per gross acre (1889 - City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 27 of 391 Page 11 of 119 1979) to 8.42 units per gross acre (2006-2018).13 Although the increase for the time period is partly associated with increased demand for multifamily housing post -recession, it clearly shows that minimum density standards have been effective in increasing overall land use efficiency within the current UGB. Table 6, City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 1889 through 1979 Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI Table 7, City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 1980-2018 t Number and Type of Dwelling Units �lehil� Mill Mobile R,R "�L w Total M4y1LI� 11rstr %IIT+el I tr SFR SFR ;;ron I.ano 1 orr C IatuHemlae r5rrjrW Mobile Home Mixed Use Assisted Developed Gross Land Use Classification Detached Attached Duplex Triplex Apartment Home Park Residential Living Units Density VLRes 45 - - \11lr+ 1 •= 45 1.20 LRes 1,256 1 6 3 4 4 76 1,274 3.32 Mites 215 8 18 15 39 1 - !4l 15 296 4.29 HRes 167 53 20 15 232 5 53 1 60 493 7.12 Total Units 1,683 9 44 33 275 10 53 12 75 108 3.77 Percentage of Total 80% 0% 2% 2% 13% 0% 3% 0% % 0%1 100% Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI Table 7, City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 1980-2018 Source: City ofCentral Point 2019 Residential BII Table 8, City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 2006-2018 t Number and Type of Dwelling Units �lehil� Mill Mobile R,R "�L w Total M4y1LI� 11rstr %IIT+el I tr SFR SFR ;;ron I.ano 1 orr C IatuHemlae r5rrjrW Mobile Home Mixed Use Assisted Developed Gross Land Use Classification Detached Attached Duplex Triplex Apartment Home Park Residential Living Units Density VLRes 30 - \11lr+ 1 •= 30 1.51 LRes 2,573 49 8 5 76 2,711 4.14 MRes 603 27 70 n 130 - - !4l 15 845 7.85 HRes 358 53 171 12 439 114 287 11 60 1,505 9.56 Total Units 3,564 249 12 569 119 363 11 75 5 091 5. Percentage of Total 70% ;% 0% 11% 2% 7% 0% 1% 100° Source: City ofCentral Point 2019 Residential BII Table 8, City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 2006-2018 13 Tables 6-9, Housing Element. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 28 of 391 Page 12 of 119 t �'nntLfr . »1 T5' x4CTihwllit�S'rurt �lehil� Mill R,R "�L w M4y1LI� 11rstr %IIT+el I tr JLtbap' Pr■•hp{d ;;ron I.ano 1 orr C IatuHemlae r5rrjrW -�Ast4ul I IM Irr rritil.Lz Ar.3rrwiptd rlem VM* lirtl2 rtiriji I.Ir L's a1 rF rnd�r tiLP.rr \11lr+ 1 •= 7 i 1: SFS ++ •1 Ted Cai1e 495 M n 1 is !4l .21 Pawed evi7Ut'e1 41594 1&% 4% VKJ 34r&6 *9b DS4 Dye 2 1 13 Tables 6-9, Housing Element. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 28 of 391 Page 12 of 119 Table 9, City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 2010-2018 Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BU Prior to annexing lands newly added to the UGB, the City will be amending the minimum densities in residential zoning districts to achieve the minimum average density set forth in the Regional Plan. Recommended minimum densities for zones associated with the proposed land use designations are listed in Table 10. These zones support a variety of housing types needed to respond to market demands and provide options that include but are not limited to the preferred housing types identified in the Housing Element. Table 10, Residential Land Use Classifications Minimum Maximum District Density/Gross Acre Density/Gross Very Low Density Residential VLRes SuggestedZoning ' -- Maximum Lot Size Number and Type of Dwelling Units 4 9,000 s. ft. 35,000 s. ft. Low Density Residential (LRes) R-1-6 6 8 4,000 sq. ft. Mobile R-1-8 5 6 Total 7,000 sq. ft. R-1-10 4 5 SFR SFR Mobile Home Mixed Use Assisted Developed Net Gross Land Use Classification Detached Attached Duplex Triplex Apartment Home Park Residential Living Units Density Density VLRes - - - - - - - - - - - - LRes 144 21 4 - - - - - - 169 6.32 5.06 MRes 94 17 12 - 71 - - - 15 209 11.51 9.21 HRes 28 82 110 27.55 22.04 Total Units 238 66 16 153 15 488 9.98 7.99 Percentage of Total 49% 14% 3% 0% 31% 0% 0% 0% 3%1 100% Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BU Prior to annexing lands newly added to the UGB, the City will be amending the minimum densities in residential zoning districts to achieve the minimum average density set forth in the Regional Plan. Recommended minimum densities for zones associated with the proposed land use designations are listed in Table 10. These zones support a variety of housing types needed to respond to market demands and provide options that include but are not limited to the preferred housing types identified in the Housing Element. Table 10, Residential Land Use Classifications Minimum Maximum District Density/Gross Acre Density/Gross Very Low Density Residential VLRes SuggestedZoning ' -- Maximum Lot Size R -L 1 4 9,000 s. ft. 35,000 s. ft. Low Density Residential (LRes) R-1-6 6 8 4,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. R-1-8 5 6 6,000 sq. ft. 7,000 sq. ft. R-1-10 4 5 7,000 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. Medium Density Residential (MRes) 7 10 3,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 7 10 3,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. High Density Residential (HRes) R-3 15 20 N.A. N.A. MMR 15 20 N.A. N.A. HMR 20 50 N.A. N.A. Source: City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, 2018-2038. 2.1.1.3 Infill Participation Increase Historically, residential infill projects have accounted for a low percentage (6% of the land demand)14. Infill lots by their nature are more difficult to develop due to existing development constraints and cost. As part of the Residential Buildable Lands Inventory and Housing Element, the City committed to increasing the rate of infill participation in residential land use from 6% to 20%. This aligns with the City's housing policies and a recently approved Housing Implementation Plan (HIP) that establishes a 5 -year action plan to increase housing supply and encourage affordability. The City will be looking at regulatory changes to remove barriers and ease the approval process by enacting more clear and objective standards. The City recently updated its regulations to eliminate barriers to constructing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). 14 Residential Buildable Lands Inventory, 2019-2039. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 29 of 391 Page 13 of 119 Additional actions to be evaluated include incentives to promote housing infill projects through Urban Renewal and other programs. As a result of the actions taken to promote a more compact development form, there is limited capacity (i.e. 105 acres) to accommodate housing needs inside the current urban area. Consequently 305 gross additional acres are needed to meet the City's 20 -year housing needs. 2.1.2 Employment Lands The City evaluated its employment needs based on the requirements in OAR 660-009-0015.15 This requires reviewing national, state, regional and local economic trends, identifying types and numbers of sites needed to accommodate growth, inventorying vacant employment lands, and assessing the community's potential for growth. Over the 2019-2039 planning period, the City is expected to see a 38% increase in its population accounting for 7% of the County's forecast population growth. The City's analysis assumes that job growth over the planning period will be proportional to the population capture rate (Table 11). Table 11, City of Central Point Job Capture Rate, 2019-2039 Central Point's Capture Rate of Job Growth 1 1 6.2%1 7.3%1 6.8% Source: 2019 PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson and Josephine Counties According to the Employment Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), the City has 633 acres of employment lands in the urban area. 16 There are 61 commercial and 87 industrial acres available and suitable for development with most of the vacant acreage in the industrial category. Based on evaluation of parcel size by industry type, the Employment BLI shows that large, medium and small sites for office use, and large sites for retail use are deficient in the urban area. 15 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Economic Element, 2019-2039. Ordinance No. 5059. July 11, 2020. 16 The Employment BLI (Ordinance No. 2058) was prepared in accordance with OAR 660-024-0050(1) to inventory employment land available over a 20 -year planning period in accordance with OAR 660-009-0015. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 30 of 391 Page 14 of 119 Average Popualtion Share, City/County Estimated 2019 Estimated 2039 2019-2039215 Central Point's Population 17 19,101 26,317 Jackson County s Population 16 219,270 264,951 Josephine County's Population 86,423 97,377 Total Population of Both Counties 305,693 362,328 Central Point's Capture Rate of Job Growth 1 1 6.2%1 7.3%1 6.8% Source: 2019 PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson and Josephine Counties According to the Employment Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), the City has 633 acres of employment lands in the urban area. 16 There are 61 commercial and 87 industrial acres available and suitable for development with most of the vacant acreage in the industrial category. Based on evaluation of parcel size by industry type, the Employment BLI shows that large, medium and small sites for office use, and large sites for retail use are deficient in the urban area. 15 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Economic Element, 2019-2039. Ordinance No. 5059. July 11, 2020. 16 The Employment BLI (Ordinance No. 2058) was prepared in accordance with OAR 660-024-0050(1) to inventory employment land available over a 20 -year planning period in accordance with OAR 660-009-0015. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 30 of 391 Page 14 of 119 Figure 3, Vacant Acreage by Percentage Distribution and Parcel Size f _ Yom: . .laws tn-4 x= '%IUDW WRM The City is poised to experience growth across all sectors of the economy over the 20 -year planning period and is especially well suited to accommodate growth in specialty foods, trucking and transportation, healthcare and retail services. In total, this City is expected to add 1,948 new jobs by 2039 (Table 12). Table 12, Central Point's 20 -year Job Forecast by Industry Central Point's Total Job Southern Oregon's Growth Capture at 6.8% 20 -Year Job of Regional Forecast Industry Sector Forecast202 (2039) Construction & Natural Resources 4,280 289 Manufacturing 1,900 128 Transportation & Utlilities 660 45 Wholesale Trade 200 14 Subtotal Industrial Jobs 7,040 476 Retail Trade 1,960 132 Financial 640 43 Services (professional, business, health, private education, hospitality, infonmtion) 14,500 980 Subtotal Commereial/Services Jobs 17,100 1,155 InstitutionaUGovernment 1,640 111 Other 3,060 207 Total New Jobs 28,840 1,948 The City calculated land needs using the employee/acre ratio provided in the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Industrial and Other Lands Analysis Guidebook. t' Based on comparison of needed acres with the buildable acres by employment sector, the City identified a need to add 23 gross acres including commercial and institutional/government uses to accommodate short-term employment growth and 93 gross acres by 2039 (Table 13). 17 According to the DLCD Industrial & Other Employment Lands Guidebook, there are typically 8-12 industrial sector jobs per acre, 14-20 commercial and service sector jobs, 6-10 institutional and government jobs per acre, and 6-10 other employment jobs per acre. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 31 of 391 Page 15 of 119 Table 13, Central Point's Employment Land Needs As part of this UGB Amendment, the City is proposing 35 acres of employment land, including large and medium sites for retail and office, as well as spatially appropriate employment lands to serve mixed- use/pedestrian friendly neighborhoods in CP -2B and CP -6A. 2.1.3 Parks & Open Space Lands Parks and recreation provide many community benefits to health and wellbeing, the economy, environment and overall quality of life. Accordingly, the City has set forth several objectives to provide high quality, diverse parks and open spaces to assure equitable access for all residents. The Parks Element articulates Central Point's vision and objectives for parks and recreation, inventories the existing parks system, identifies gaps needed to attain parkland performance standards and sets forth policies needed to achieve the City's long-term parks and recreation objectives. The UGB Amendment proposal aims to include parkland and open spaces consistent with the City's identified land needs and policies to optimize parks and recreation benefits as the City grows over the 2019-2039 planning period. The Parks Element evaluates parkland needs within the current urban area and the City's URAs. The analysis evaluates the existing parks system relative to the City's preferred level of service standards as follows: • Core parks target level of service standard is 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Core parks include Community and Neighborhood Parks: o Community Parks provide diverse facilities are designed for organized or intensive active recreation use, such as organized sports or similar sport activities. They are generally 10-40 acres in size and serve residents within a 2 -mile drive, walk or bike ride. o Neighborhood Parks reflect traditional parks design concepts that provide for unstructured, unorganized play and limited active and passive recreation. They are typically 0.25 to 5 acres in size and serve residents within 'h mile. • Open Space lands have no numeric level of service standard. Land acquisition for open space is typically associated with preserving sensitive natural areas and providing connections between neighborhoods and regional trail networks, such as the Bear Creek Greenway. At this time, the City has roughly 18 acres each of Community Park and Neighborhood Parks and 82 acres of open space lands. The City also has pocket parks, special recreation facilities (e.g. Joel Tanzi Skate Park, Civic Field, and Skyrman Arboretum) and 4.9 miles of trails that offer both active and passive forms of recreation for Central Point residents and visitors. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 32 of 391 Page 16 of 119 Gross Employment New Buildable Acres Acres Needed, 2019- Short -Term Gross Acres Sector Needed by 2039 2039 Needed, 2019-2024 Industrial - - - Cormnercial/Service 21 27 7 Institutional/Government 18 23 6 Other/Uncovered Employment 34 43 11 Total Employment 74 93 23 As part of this UGB Amendment, the City is proposing 35 acres of employment land, including large and medium sites for retail and office, as well as spatially appropriate employment lands to serve mixed- use/pedestrian friendly neighborhoods in CP -2B and CP -6A. 2.1.3 Parks & Open Space Lands Parks and recreation provide many community benefits to health and wellbeing, the economy, environment and overall quality of life. Accordingly, the City has set forth several objectives to provide high quality, diverse parks and open spaces to assure equitable access for all residents. The Parks Element articulates Central Point's vision and objectives for parks and recreation, inventories the existing parks system, identifies gaps needed to attain parkland performance standards and sets forth policies needed to achieve the City's long-term parks and recreation objectives. The UGB Amendment proposal aims to include parkland and open spaces consistent with the City's identified land needs and policies to optimize parks and recreation benefits as the City grows over the 2019-2039 planning period. The Parks Element evaluates parkland needs within the current urban area and the City's URAs. The analysis evaluates the existing parks system relative to the City's preferred level of service standards as follows: • Core parks target level of service standard is 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Core parks include Community and Neighborhood Parks: o Community Parks provide diverse facilities are designed for organized or intensive active recreation use, such as organized sports or similar sport activities. They are generally 10-40 acres in size and serve residents within a 2 -mile drive, walk or bike ride. o Neighborhood Parks reflect traditional parks design concepts that provide for unstructured, unorganized play and limited active and passive recreation. They are typically 0.25 to 5 acres in size and serve residents within 'h mile. • Open Space lands have no numeric level of service standard. Land acquisition for open space is typically associated with preserving sensitive natural areas and providing connections between neighborhoods and regional trail networks, such as the Bear Creek Greenway. At this time, the City has roughly 18 acres each of Community Park and Neighborhood Parks and 82 acres of open space lands. The City also has pocket parks, special recreation facilities (e.g. Joel Tanzi Skate Park, Civic Field, and Skyrman Arboretum) and 4.9 miles of trails that offer both active and passive forms of recreation for Central Point residents and visitors. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 32 of 391 Page 16 of 119 Based on evaluation of forecast growth, the City needs approximately 55 acres of core parkland. Figure 4 shows the distribution of core park target acquisition areas including the CP -2B and CP -6A expansion areas. The City owns land in CP -4D planned to be developed as Boes Park. This will be a core park that must be brought into the UGB before funding and parks development can occur. Other core parks location will be generally consistent with the locations identified in Figure 4 with the exact location being determined as a function of development through the master planning process. Although no open space is identified as needed due to the absence of a numeric performance standard, the City proposes inclusion of open space parcels on Bear Creek in CP -2B and CP -3 to preserve sensitive natural areas and to take jurisdiction of Bear Creek Greenway lands that are currently surrounded by the City limits. Figure 4, Core Parkland Needs/Distribution Map � 1 ti•r nr .•ry 1 •r �I 1 A 7f P ff 4 �k f -L- _ - --- I I--- ----1 - "L� \ ti , �■� I 11� i, ti tiL r 1 14 I �r 71tiiY j _ F 9 3r �4 1 ti• ' -k�L+ I �� h --rte. - - `k . �� •---7 I --I I Ste•-' r, ,. ti- s =1 .A 4--' f *•ate `1 __* Ir.h�4 r7�' 4 i 7 i rya Lr'nd � a1La ltLiv■ ,n Lir- 66%1 �:r—rti• ti ti 1L� a aLT � r� •r -JJ4' L SL 5Y. �LLRI SL_• .Y' R1 •1 •'r r, r1a 7 — rygir, 4:M1i. YYL'}�r:' JfRfi it rmgr 71 a•.■ ��RfrtJ� • � ��..r.,i rs rt.. �, z1 rtl mL.1 ri�r4 ti �et�..ir.•.�L a+..� I.L.rn r i ■1-r IJ' 1 Source: Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 33 of 391 Page 17 of 119 2.1.4 Public Facility Land Needs Public Facilities and services are necessary to accommodate the City's growth in a timely, orderly and economic manner. The needs for water, stormwater, transportation and sewer services in terms of facility type, location, and capacity are defined in the City's Master Plans for water, stormwater and transportation, and by Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVSS) for sewer. For the purposes of this UGB Amendment, land needs are reported as gross acreage including up to 25% for public facilities such as streets and schools.18 To better understand capacity issues, improvement needs and cost, the City hired Brown and Caldwell to evaluate the proposed UGB expansion areas on the water system, and Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis. The UGB expansion areas do not include improved storm drainage systems, so it will be necessary to complete facility planning for stormwater prior to annexation. RVSS evaluated sewer and concluded that the proposed expansion areas can be served by existing sewer infrastructure with a mainline extensions in CP -6A and CP -2B. 2.1.4.1 Water System Master Plan Update The City is in the process of updating its Water System Master Plan, which evaluates the existing storage, piping and distribution system relative to growth and performance standards for municipal water systems. Early in the planning process for the UGB Amendment, the City requested evaluation of high priority areas for inclusion in the UGB as part of the alternative boundary scenario planning O. Following a public process, the City Council selected a preferred alternative and adjustments were made to incorporate public comments and add land for employment use in CP -3. A more extensive technical analysis was conducted to identify potential system deficiencies and capital improvements needed to accommodate growth over the 2019-2039 planning period. Results of this analysis are provided in Technical Memorandum No. 2, which is attached to the City's Location Analysis Report (Exhibit 5). The report found that when the City takes down the existing 1M Gallon water storage tank in town due to its age, its replacement will need to be upsized to 2M Gallons to accommodate growth inside the urban area and proposed UGB expansion areas. Additionally, piping and distribution improvements will be needed to maintain adequate fire flows. The improvements are being added to the Capital Improvement Project list and water financing plan, as necessary demonstrate that adequate water facilities and services are planned or available at the time of annexation. Expansion of the City's water system will occur as a function of development, including construction facilities to serve new subdivisions and site developments and System Development Charges (SDCs) pay for the impact of development on the larger water system. 2.1.4.2 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering was hired to evaluate the impacts of the proposed UGB Amendment on existing and planned infrastructure. Although the requirement to comply with the State Transportation Planning Rule does not apply to UGB Amendments that retain County zoning designations until annexation, the City's municipal code requires a TIA for any proposal that amends a comprehensive plan land use designation. Additionally, the TIA provides important information regarding the adequacy of state, county and some city facilities over the planning period and identifies mitigation that can be applied to assure the transportation network continues to meet applicable performance standards as the City grows. The TIA is provided as an attachment to the City's Location Analysis Report (Exhibit 5). " OAR 660-024-0040(10). City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 34 of 391 Page 18 of 119 The TIA studied 25 existing intersections and 11 new intersections based on planned improvements and feedback received from Jackson County Roads, the Oregon Department of Transportation and City of Central Point Public Works Department. Based on the Study Area, City staff submitted a request to the Transportation Demand Analysis Unit (TPAU) evaluate alternative growth scenarios using the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Organization (RVMPO) Travel Demand Model. Following selection of a preferred alternative with amendments, TPAU performed additional analysis that was utilized by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, along with updated traffic counts, to prepare the TIA. The TIA analyzed existing year 2019 conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and future year 2039 no build and build conditions during the p.m. peak hour to determine what impacts the proposed UGB expansion will have on transportation system. The findings of the analysis conclude that the proposed UGB amendment can be approved without creating adverse impacts to the transportation system with mitigation. Two intersections are shown to exceed their applicable performance standards under future year 2039 no build conditions. Three additional intersections exceed performance standards under future year build conditions. Traffic impacts and mitigation are summarized below: Future Year 2039 No -Build Mitigation 1) Gebhard Road/Pine Street. Addition of a third west bound through lane from Table Rock Road to Interstate 5 northbound ramps, and dual eastbound and south bound left turn lanes are recommended to help with corridor congestion. 2) Upton Road Scenic Avenue. Installation of a traffic signal or roundabout is recommended when warrants are met. Future Year 2039 Build Mitigation 3) Gebhard Road/Beebe Road. This new connection in the future is planned as a two-way, stop - controlled intersection in the City of Central Point Transportation System Plan (TSP). Beebe Road approaches stop and Gebhard approaches have free movement north and south. Eastbound movements on Beebe Road are shown to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "F" which exceeds the City's LOS "D" or better performance standard. Based on analysis of options, a roundabout is recommended to mitigate higher demand associated with increased traffic volumes and to blend with roundabouts planned to the north. 4) North Grant Road/Twin Creeks Crossing. This intersection is planned to become a 4 -way intersection in the future with increased traffic generated from eastbound traffic moving from CP -6A. It exceeds both City and County performance standards as a two-way stop controlled intersection but meets both when modeled as an all -way stop controlled intersection. When warranted, it is recommended that stop signs be installed on all approaches. 5) Gebhard Road/Wilson Road. This intersection is currently a two-way stop -controlled intersection with stop signs on the Gebhard Road approaches and free movements on Wilson. In the future year, it exceeds County performance standards due to increased traffic volume to/from Wilson Road. The TIA shows that performance standards can be met by installing stop signs on Wilson Road when warranted to make this an all -way stop controlled intersection. As shown, the proposed UGB Amendment is consistent with the UGBMA and, although not subject to the TPR, can meet performance standards consistent with the City and County TSPs with mitigation. City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 35 of 391 Page 19 of 119 2.2 Location The City of Central Point UGB Amendment encompasses an area of approximately 444 acres (Figure 1, Central Point UGB Amendment Area). It includes lands within four (4) URAs, including 240 acres in CP - 6A, 145 acres in CP -213, 23 acres in CP -4D, and 38 acres in CP -3 (Figure 3, Location Reference). There are 51 tax lots within the proposed UGB expansion areas with a total of 34 rural dwellings (Figure 6-9, Aerial Maps, Exhibit 3, Tax Lot Inventory). Figure 5, Proposed UGB Amendment Locational Reference N%kN L 4 lhTJ rgkp}L'y ?mnp�d JOE L � CzL* Li J. Uamii Riwiw All OPb Tole Pond x•17•7TW M C •M ri�ATb OP,i drNMI r Li -0 9r arL "UR-FIP-4 C*dV }rft*1 12M40 Lar � CENTRAL POINT N Go ntra I Pa int Llrba n Growth B oundaryr Amendment Proposed UGB Study Area Map City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 36 of 391 Page 20 of 119 Figure 6, CP -213 UGB Expansion Aerial Map Legend I _ a.N..q. i MP 71. Lw Jam-. rVM h teary Centra I Point U rban G rowth Sou nd a ry A me rldment CENTRAL Eastside LJGB POINT -C P-2EI City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 37 of 391 Page 21 of 119 Figure 7, CP -3 UGB Expansion Aerial Map �• F Legend PrzVoe d UGB Tai Laps Gdy Lands Fmgoe d UGBAnx dr nt UFbw GrawM Boundary Contra[ Poiret Urban Growth Boundary Arnendrnmt CENTRAL Eastside UGB POINT P-3 City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 38 of 391 Page 22 of 119 M Figure 8, CP -41) UGB Expansion Aerial Map L. Legend Pnopa o UG& Amn dme t = C Ry LiMs Pn Pp . UGB To.x Lai. Um n GrvMh 9Do d2Fy Centra[ Poiret Urban Growth Boundary Arnendr,nent CENTRAL Eastside UGB POINT CPAD City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 39 of 391 Page 23 of 119 Figur $ CP -6A UG B Expansion Aerial City o£Central P i GGa Amendment Findings oFact aConclusions Page 40 of 391 Page 24 011 Figure 10, Current County Zoning Map _3c:7 �`�`11!`■`■ Ertl 4GG F-'.,+�l[wnW tonin♦ R�.y lYmtiI1�IJ'L L�hriatii�m.osf !.r-r�f�nW ��i IF.I Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment o41111y Z011,bg CENTRAL AL POINT City of Central Point UGB Amendment Findings of Fact & Conclusions Page 41 of 391 Page 25 of 119