Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02022021 Planning Commission minutesCity of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 2021 Meeting Held Via Zoom and in person Joint Meeting with Jackson County I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:10 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Tom Van Voorhees (chair), Kay Harrison, Amy Moore, Chris Richey, Pat Smith 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, Planning Director (in person) and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary (in person). Jackson County Planning Commission was in attendance. III. CORESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES (Approval after introductions) V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. 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 -41) 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 6:00 P.M. Community Development Director Tom Humphrey announced the joint meeting welcoming the Jackson County Planning Commission. Introductions were made. The Meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. Kay Harrison made a motion to approve the January 19, 2021 minutes. Chris Richey seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Brad Cozza, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Chris Richey, yes, Pat Smith, yes. Motion passed. Charles Bennet of Jackson County read an admonishment outlining the rules for the public hearing. The Commissioners had no conflicts of interest, ex parte contact or bias to declare. Planning Commission Meeting February Z 2021 Page 2 Planning Director Stephanie Holtey stated the purpose of the Urban Growth Boundary Amendment was to add land to the UGB for housing, non -industrial employment, core parks and open space. She said the City is required 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. She said to amend the UGB, cities must demonstrate there is a need for the type of urban land being added, and that needed land cannot be provided within the existing UGB. Alternative boundary locations must be compared based a variety of factors. 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. She stressed that the last time the City of Central Point added land to its Urban Growth Boundary was in 1983. She said the City has been active in encouraging infill development and ADU construction which has helped to postpone the need to expand its UGB. Ms. Holtey said she has spoken with many people who have questions and concerns regarding the UGB Amendment. She wanted to clarify some common misconceptions. She stated the UGB Amendment will not bring any property into the City. If a property owner wants to annex into the City, they will need to meet specific criteria and submit an application and application fee. There is a process in place to evaluate and approve an annexation request. Until such time as an annexation application is approved, all property will remain under Jackson County jurisdiction and subject to the County's taxes and zoning. Also, the City will not force annexation. Ms. Holtey stated the UGB Amendment proposal is based on the most recent Portland State University Population Research Center Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County. The proposed location is based on state requirements 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. 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 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. The first policy states the County will not approve land divisions that create parcels less than 40 acres in size. The second policy restricts any re zoning of properties in the UGB. 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. The minimum average density for the 2019-2039 planning period is 7.04 units per gross acre. Ms. Holtey explained the City's UGB Amendment selects lands from Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) which were established following a decade long process to evaluate and select lands to accommodate future urban growth. Eight 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. Although urban development will result in some impacts, these will be a function of the development process and not UGB expansion. Planning Commission Meeting February 2, 2021 Page 3 The commissioners clarified that the process of identifying the URAs and planning for future population growth has been a complicated and long term project over quite a number of years. Additionally they discussed the pace of the population growth and the impact the recession had on the City's growth. They agreed the need for additional urban lands was significant. Ms. Holtey reviewed the conceptual plans which were created for each URA. She said there have been over 40 public meetings held In addition to updating the City's Population Element, Housing Element, Economic Element, Parks Element, Residential Buildable Lands Inventory, and Employment Buildable Lands Inventory. A Traffic Impact Analysis studied 25 existing intersections and 11 proposed intersections. The Commissioners discussed the importance of designing new development with a mind toward mitigating the impacts of natural disasters such as the recent fires. Ms. Holtey stated that at the time an application for annexation was received, there would be public hearings where those issues could be addressed Ms. Holtey said the City and County have received written testimony in favor of and in opposition to the proposed UGB Amendment. Testimony in favor of the proposal addresses: 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: • Concern regarding future construction of Boes Park adjacent to the Boes Subdivision in CP -41) 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. Planning Commission Meeting February 2, 2021 Page 4 Charles Bennett of Jackson County expressed appreciation of the work that has gone into the preparation of the application for the UGB Amendment. Mr. Bennet stated the current UGB was established in 1983 and no residential land has been added in 36 years. The City has submitted substantial findings which adequately address all the criteria required by both City and County. He said in 2011 - 2012 the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan was adopted & established the 8 URAs. He stressed the proposed amendment includes lands that are within the established URAs. The lands were identified in the locational analysis presented by the City. The amount of land needed is sufficiently assessed by the updated Elements of the Comprehensive plan. He noted there were over 40 public hearings over the last 4 years in regard to the UGB amendment. In addition the Regional Problem Solving Process took over 10 years. He stated the City's location analysis report establishes the rational for the City's selected boundary location and is consistent with goal 14. He said that until the UGB is amended and until an annexation request is submitted and approved, the current County zoning will remain in effect. He stated multiple elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan have been updated to reflect the need to provide for future population growth. The Regional Plan set performance measures which are required to be met by the City. Those measures have been addressed in detail. The UGBMA will be updated in compliance with the Regional Plan. Mr. Bennet said the County Staff finds the City of Central Point has provided sufficient evidence showing the applicable approval criteria has been satisfied. It is recommended that the Jackson County Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed UGB Amendment to the Jackson County Board of Commissioners. (7:25 p.m.) A short break was announced. (7:35 p.m.) The meeting resumed. The Public Hearing was opened Katy Mallams, 2855 Heritage Rd. Ms. Mallams stated she is opposed to the Urban Growth Boundary Amendment. She said the City of Central Point has been excellent in communicating with residents and obtaining public input. She said her property is located in the County and she is very disappointed that no one from the County has ever reached out to any residents of the UGB area for their input. She said she opposes the Master Plan that has been proposed for portions of CP -6A and feels there is more concern for future residents than for the impacts of development upon current residents. She said the impacts will be significant. Ms. Mallams stated she felt the County should have some input in the approval of a proposed Master Plan. She added the location of parks and open space should be decided by City staff and not developers. She said the parks and open space could be used to create a buffer between existing homes in her area and the proposed Master Plan development. Planning Commission Meeting February 2, 2021 Page 5 Additionally she referenced the conceptual plan for CP -6A and said the area shown as high mix residential contained a lot of mature oak trees and she did not feel this was an appropriate location for commercial or high mix residential zoning. Judy Ryden s 5646 Gebhard Rd. Ms. Ryden stated she owns 10 rental units and 6 of them are occupied by single tenants. She thinks the City needs to address more housing for single people, such as accessory dwelling units and apartments. Dan O'Connor,670 G St., suite B,_ Jacksonville Mr. O'Connor said he represents Naumes Inc. who holds property in CP -3 and is in favor of the UGB Amendment. He said the City made an excellent and thorough presentation. Larry Martin, 2673 Taylor Rd. Mr. Martin said he is in favor of the UGB Amendment. He is one of 6 contiguous land owners in CP -6A who are interested in annexing into the City. He said with regard to the concern expressed over the agricultural lands included in the UGB Amendment, during the Regional Problem Solving Process much of the agricultural lands were evaluated and quite a lot of them were excluded from the URAs. During this process there had been a Resource Land Review Committee which helped to make the recommendations regarding impact on agricultural lands. Also the City was required to provide buffers between the Urban Reserve Areas and agricultural lands. He added there had also been an Agricultural Task Force that reviewed the impacts of development on farmlands. Mr. Martin said the Regional Problem Solving committee reviewed agricultural lands for inclusion in the UGB and the entire process had been intentional with extensive research and sensitivity to agricultural lands. Jessica Doddington, 3523 Grant Road. Ms. Doddington said she did not know if her property was included within the UGB amendment area. Ms. Holtey said she would look that up and let her know. Erica DeKorte, 2874 Taylor Rd. Ms. DeKorte said this is the first time she has heard about the UGB Amendment. She was surprised to hear there have been so many meetings and notices. She is opposed to the amendment specifically at the corner of Grant and Taylor where there appears to be commercial property zoning. She expressed appreciation of the rural atmosphere and did not want it to change. Planning Commission Meeting February 2, 2021 Page 6 Russell Ko(L"_,_4419 Grant Rd. Mr. Kockx indicated he was in favor of the UGB Amendment. Ms. Holtey said she has looked up Ms. Doddington's address and it does not appear to be included in the tax lot inventory so she would not be included in the UGB Amendment. Ms. Holtey stated the notification area included all tax lots within the UGB Amendment and lots within 750 feet of the area. Copies of notices were posted online on the City's website and there was a notice published in the Newspaper. These notices were joint notices for both the City and Jackson County. Annamarie Noon 5646 Gebhard Rd. Ms. Noon said this was the first time she had heard of this also. Ms. Holtey said there was no additional correspondence via email received since the beginning of the meeting. Jackson County Exhibits 1-43 were entered into the record. Chris Richey of Central Point made a motion to accept the City's exhibits 11 — 18 into the record. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Chris Richey, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Brad Cozza, yes; motion passed. The Public Hearing -was -dosed. The two Planning Commissions discussed the UGB Amendment. Jackson County expressed their appreciation of the work involved in the City's presentation and the detailed supporting documentation. Additionally they appreciated the City's efforts to encourage infill and higher density development in order to utilize the current inventory as effectively and efficiently as possible. The City expressed their desire to provide various types of housing in order to accommodate a diverse population. Ms. Holtey clarified that the City and the Developers of annexed properties would work together to identify park locations. The land use Element of the Comprehensive Plan will govern the park and open space standards and that would be addressed at the time of a Master Planning Process. This would include an extensive public process. The commissioners confirmed the notification conformed to State Requirements. The commissioners clarified the Regional Problem Solving process to identify the URAs had been extensive. They acknowledged the City of Central Point was surrounded by excellent farmland and everything that could be done to minimize impact on agricultural lands had been considered. Planning Commission Meeting February 2, 2021 Page 7 Chris Richey of Central Point made a motion to approve Resolution 887 recommending the City Council approve the Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment adding 444 acres to the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary located within the portions of Urban Reserve Areas CP -2b, CP -3, CP -4d and CP 6-A and amending the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement per the staff report dated February 2, 2021. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. Chris Richey mentioned there has been a lack of housing for quite some time. He said he has witnessed many people who have not been able to purchase homes due to the lack of available housing. He expressed appreciation of the City's concerns regarding the balance of providing housing and preserving valuable agricultural lands. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Chris Richey, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Brad Cozza, yes; motion passed. Jackson County deliberated on their motion to recommend approval of the UGB Amendment to the board of Commissioners. Motion approved. VII. DISCUSSION VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:31p.m. Q�r . Planning Commission Chair