Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - August 2, 2011~„~s CENTItAi. POINT CITY OP` CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 2, 2011- 6:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 7$3 I. MEETING C1~LLEll TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Planning Commission: Connie Moczygemba, Chuck Piland, Pat Beck, Mike Oliver, Justin Hurley, Tim Schme~isser and Rick Samuelson III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES Review and approval of June 7, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS V1I, DISCUSSION Pte. 1- 4 A. Review of County Planning Commission RPS Recommendation to BOC a. Consideration of Proposed Amendments to Regional Plan b. Independent Recommendation to City Council Pga. 14-28 $, Urban Renewal Update P~.29-34 C. Liquid Natural Gas VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE Itl•;VIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. A.DJC)URNMENT City of Centra! Point Planning Commission & Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes June 7, 2011 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Connie Moczygemba, Chuck Piland, Tim Schmeusser, Justin Hurley and Rick Samuelson, Jr., were present. Mike Oliver and Pat Beck were absent. Citizens Advisory Committee members Ilerb I~`arber, David Painter, Sam Inkley, Jr., Larry Martin Fuld Vi~ade Six were in attendance. Eric Snyder and Jeff Pfeifer were absent. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director; Don Burt, Plaruiing Manager; Connie Clune, Community Planner; llavc Jacob, Community Planner; Simonich, Planning Intern; and Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary. III. CaIIRESYONllENCL - A copy of the East Pine Street Corridor Refinement Plan was distributed. IV. MINUTES `I'im Schmeusser made a motion to approve the minutes of the March I, 2011 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Chuck Piland seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Piland, yes; Hurley, abstained; Schmeusser, yes; Samuelson, yes; and Moczygemba, yes. Motion passed. David Painter made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 11, 2011 Citizens Advisory Committee meeting as submitted. Larry Martin seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Farber, yes; Painter, yes; Inkley, yes; and Martin, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLiC APPEARANCES-None. VL BUSINESS Planning Cornrnission Minutes June 7, 2011 Page .2 VII. llISCUSSIUIV Reaional Problem Solviinn Update Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, advised Commissioners that this evening staff would be providing an update on long range planning efforts. With the absence of current applications, staff has been focusing on comprehensive plan amendments and investing a lot of time on firturc planning for the City. Uptimisrn prevails about the county's approval of the regional plan. In anticipation of future approval of the regional plan, staff has been working on various elements of the comprehensive plan and has determined that the best way t~ incorporate the Regional Plan is by adapting a new clement entitled "Regional Plan Element - 2060" to the City's comprehensive plan. The proposed element for the Regional Plan has been condensed from a much larger document and each of the cities involved in the project are considering the same type of document for implementation of the Plan. It has been written as a somewhat generic dacurnenl so that all cities can use the format and maintain consistency. Bnsac Information Stephanie Simonich, Planning Intern, presented basic information on development periods, projected population growth from 2fl00-2U60, projected Land use needs, land use distributions from 20U?-2U60, and a proposed projected density of 7.4 by 2U60. The Twin Creeks development is the best example of what that density would look like in the future. Stephanie also explained the land use ratio comparison going forward. Tom Humphrey stated that the goals of the regional plan are to preserve agricultural land and enhance individual city identity. Vile would like to have larger tax lots with which to d~ more comprehensive planning. ITrb~cn ReserveArerrs Connie Clone, Community Planner, presczztcd a, review of each of the proposed urban reserve areas as follows: CP-lB -- Tolo road area -intended to be an industrial area with access t~ I-5 and the railroad -- a logical location for distribution ccn#ors; CP-1C - 7U acres proposed for residential. "There are currently 15 homes located in the area and a large water line to provide service to that area. CP-2B ~--Located nn the east side of Central Pairt with. Wilson Road as a north boundary. Services are available to this area with sewer, gas, and water already existing in close proximity. Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 3 CP-3 -North ol:' Pine Street and near the fairgrounds with access to the fairgrounds. A 12-inch water line is available along Pine Street with a 1 G-inch line in place on Gelohard Road. The City's Transportation System Plan deals with connectivity to this area and an Interchange Arca Management Program is currently underway to deal with some of the issues. CP-41~ -Parallel to the freeway -environmental constY•aints (wetlands and floodplain); Bear Creek Greenway makes up most of this urban reserve. A one acre dwelling adjacent to Boes Subdivision will be included. C:P-SA -Adjacent to the western city limits of C:cntral Point and containing 31 a~cres contains rural home sites at the present time -slated for residential and open space. Contains some environmental consh~aints. CP-5A -Largest of tl~e urban reserve areas. Adjacent to west city limits - designated for residential with services easy to provide to this area. CP-6B -Located south of Beall Lane and designated primarily fc~r residential. The Little Lcaguc baseball fields and Boy Scout headquarters are located in this area and have been given an "institutional" designation. ~VI©~titarinP 8c ~mytementntivxt Planning Manager -on Burt advised that the Regional Plan contained six requirements for monitoring and implementation. These requirements include: • Community Buffer Strategy -does not apply to the City of Central Yoint. • Regional Agricultural Buffering Standards -mandatory and the City will have to comply. • Performance Indicators - identifies eighteen performance indicators that will be used to monitor implementation of the Regional Plan to include Urban Reserve Management Agreements setting forth the agreement between the City and the County saying that we will consult with each other. An Urban Reserve Mfuiagement Agreement will clarify the conditions of development -what can and cannot be done, requiring attention to design standards. Provision for multi- use and pedestrian friendly areas; conceptual transportation plans and land use plans to create a framework fnr future development; agricultural buffering; regional land preservation strategies; housing strategies; UGB turban growth boundary} agreements; land division restrictions; population allocation and a greater coordination with the R~MPO and RVCQG. • Incentives and Disincentives -the City will agrccxncnt to abide by these. Planning Cvmmiesinn Nlinute.~• .June 7, 2(111 Page 4 • Monitoring and Plan Adj ustxnents -- the City will do this. RPS Implementation Techniques -- the City will comply. • Regional Plan F..lement Goals and Policies -- there are three {3) goals stated in the plan to sei forth the priorities and conditions, with emphasis on maintaining a small town environment. o Management of fi~turc growth in accordance with the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan 0 1~'or their important Economic, Cultural, and Livability Benefits, and in accordance with the Greater Dear Creek Valley Regional Plan, conserve resource and open space lands within the Urban Reserve Areas o Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique features, and relative competitive advantages and disadvantages of the City of Central Point in accordance with the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan Mr. Du~rt advised that it is growth that will affect land values. Cur job is to determine where we're going over the next SU years. ilrba~s Renewal Update Tom Humphrey advised that the City Coiuicil had farmed an Urban Renewal Agency that will be meeting on the 4t~' week of each month to discuss goals, objectives, and boundaries for a potential district. Once a plan is formulated, it will come to the Planning Commission for review prior to being adapted by the City Council. mast Pine Street Corridor Study Dave Jacob reported that the City had received a grant to do a study of design options far IJ. Pine Street. Stakeholders have been interviewed and concerns far pedeshian safety have been established as a priority. Mr. Jacob reviewed the project schedule and stated that it was hoped that the project would be near completion in January of 2012. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. 1~IISCELI.ANEQUS X. ADJOURNMENT Chuck Pitand made a motion to ad jaurn the meeting. Connie Mocxygemba sewnded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at ?:30 p.m. Planning Commission 1Ylinretes Jane 7, 2011 Page S The foregoing minutes of the June 7, 2011 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of ....._ ..---- --._ .........-_...._.__.._..._...~ 2011. Planning Coirunission Clair F~~C it~l`IAL., PR48L,~M ~C?LYINC City of Central Point, Oregon 74t15o.7hird5t.,CentralPolnt,or97502~ W ~~~ t~ENTRAL 541.&64.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 ~~~~~ www.cl.centrai • point.orus MEM©RANDUM T©: Planning Commission Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Director! Assista nt City Administrator Frain: Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Di~ctor Subject: Regional Pibblem Solving 1)ntc: August 2, 2U l 1 Baclcs7raund The Jackson C;ounty Planning Commission concluded its dclibc~ations on the Regional Plan and bozo made a reconunendation of approval to the Board of Commissioners (BOC) with 29 proposed amendments to the Regional Plan (see Attachment A}. Each city has an opportunity to review the ra;onnncnda(ion and the ~tmcnclments and we can either agree or obj eet and then develop our own recntmnendatiott to the 1300. The C;erttral Point Planning Commission is being asked to consider the recommended antettdtnents to the plan that are specific to Central faint. discussion The~•e are six amendments (#s 8, 10, 14 and 18-20) that deal with Agricultural Buffering, hrigation District analysis prior to LJGB amendment, reconsidering the E.,~PO as an Urban Reserve Area and adopting a management agreement with Jackson County for Gibbon Acres. The [b]lowing is a brie]' analysis of each amendment and is intended to initiate discussion among Commission members in order to formulate a recommendation to the City Council. Attteltdment #S, Agricultural Buffering Standart}s The Conunission added language that requires a developer to pay for the establislunent at:rt rs2aitrtettat~ce of an AG buiTcr and dcictcd language: that rnacle maintenance of the buffer area the responsibility of the fainter. Same of the language is confusing and implementing long term maintenflnce may be difficult Amendment # 10, Agricultural Buffering Standards The Conunission deleted `grazing use' as a met-ns of determining the lmtential (high or low} of agricultural land. Artteltdment # 14, Irrigation District Analysis The Comrrussion recommended that the BOC consider requiring an analysis of urbanization rnt an Irrigation Districts' ability to continue supplying water to users outside of a UGB each time an amendment occurs. It is Central Paizit's currc~t prae,-tice to resolve izrigation water delivery during master planning and at the time of subdivi4ion. Amendment # 18, Jackson County EXPO As an Urban ltegcrve The Cotx~mission recommctzcicd that. the BOC consider including the Jackson County EXPO area as another Urban Reserve Area for Central Noint. 'l'he >JXPO was originally included in the City's URAs until about 2405 when it was removed at the County's request. The new URA would not include 50 acres on the east side of Bear Creek formerly known as the Miller Egg stanch and which the RLRC determined was part of tha Commercial Agricultural base. Amendment # 14, Amendment of U1tA CY-4D 'l'he Commission recommended the inclusion of a ane acre residential lot to URA CP-4i). This was actually proposed by the City to correct an oversight in mapping, to `square off a boundazy and to enable an existing residence to obtain City water. Amendment # 2Q, Adoption of aCity-County Agreement to manage Gibbon Acres The Commission added language that would requite the City and Jackson County to adopt a management agrccznent I'or Gibbotz Acres tan Arca of Mutual Planning C~nc:crn} prior to the expansion of the UGB izzto any t.]rhan Reserve Area, This is something the C`.ity agreed to consider during public meetings at the request DLCD and 1000 Friends of Oregon. In sutnznary, the Jackson C`.ounl.y Planning Commission rcc;ommcnded approval of all the Central Point UILAs shown in the Regional Plan with only ane amendment being made to CP-4D as noted. Other amendments listed above resulted from requests andlor comments made during the County's public hearing process or at the discretion of the Commission. The Central Point Planning C`ommission's task is to discuss the County's proposal and then provide their input to the City Council. The Council in tuz~ will formulate a Ciry opinion about the Proposed Regional Plan and ifs amcncltncnts and then forward that opinion to the BOC in the: form of a resolution. The Council meeting will be scheduled for late August nr early September so t}jat the BOC will have it in dine for their public hearings. A County decisirn~ on the plan is expected before the ezid of the year. Action Recommend approval to the City Council with whatever changes the Cozzunission wishes to make regarding the County Planning Commission amendments. Attncltments A. Regional Problcrrz Solving: Amr„ndnv~ts Proposed during Deliberations (to date) ~~ Regional Problem Soling: Amendments Proposed during Deliberations (to date) The Jackson County Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Greater Bear Creels Valley Regional Plan including adoption of the Regional Plan Element as a new element of the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan; amendment to the Land Development Ordinance Sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.3 and Official Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to designate the Regional Plan Boundary and Urban Reserve Areas; Urban Reserve Management Agreements between Jackson County and the cities of Central Paint, Eagle paint, Medford, Phoenix, and Talent; and amendment to the Population Allocations of Rural Unincorporated Jackson County and the City of Ashland in the Population Element of the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, includine the amendments found on aaees 173D-2059 and includine the following additional amendments: 1. The Findings and Conclusions accompanying the Planning Commission recommendation to the BOC should state that the RPS process differed from Urban Reserve Rule process (page 1799- 1807 of record) but the outcome of the process is consistent, on the whale, with the purposes of the statewide planning goals. Any conflicting language in Chapter 3 should be amended. 2. Add language to Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 3.1 {page 1736 of record} as follows: Finally, in 2009, preceding the initiation of the j•<nal, major stage of this Regional Problem Solving process, the City o€Jacksonville elected not to propose the comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendment required to effectuate the R_ealanal Plan. Wh!!e Jackson vrite's involvementln the process was desirable, the reason determined that them involvement was not necessa or critical to the remainin seven Iurisdtcttons belna able to address there,, i~problems identifled,in,rhe Greater Bear Creek Va!!ev Realona! Pro61em Solvlna Process. Thus. the region decided to move forward with seven of the orlglnaJ eight jurlsdlctlons (lacksor~ County, Fagle Po/nt, Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, Talent, and Ashland} by focusing the project's original problems and their solutions on the jurisdictions bisected by the Greater Bear Creek Valley's two major transportation corridors,.1-S/Nwy 99 and Nwy 62, These corridors, and the cities they impact so slgnljicantly, represent the major fault lines of the issues influencing the regional effort (future population growth, agricultural activity, and likely urban expansion) and therefore share the highest need for regional collaboration and long-term regional planning. June 29, 2014 Jackson County Planning Commission Page 1 of 7 Regional Problem Solving (LRP2009-QO©1U) __ 3. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 2.10 (page 1770 of record) and Chapter 5, Section 2.5 (page 1986 of record) as follows* to add a commitment to a staggered density and also to appiy a density commitment to the City of Ashland for its existing UGB ,Amend Volume 2, Appendix IX, "Regional Land Needs Simulator" and land need tables and text throughout Regional Plan accordingly. Chapter 2, Table 2.1(? .. .. .. .. : ~r... •. :°: ;. s.-: r ,. .;; Aihland " _° Cen ri3 polnf ` E l Pcdi7t : IfAetifoYd ;.Ph'SeniX.: Ti~len '", ;,~Xr9tlll~ ~Ci~Bj.;: ..... p~oi~te Per Household onnnlfted Densiiv tDUI(3ross Auab 2.15 - -5 2.6J --- ~ Z.$Z - _s 2.A7 - ~ 2.30 - ,,~ Z.Z5 -- ~, People Per Household nla 2.50 ry.~2 2.41 2.30 2.30 ;;:`' s.:: `,.::.' ....,'':: `: .: :':, :.: ~ommlited DeE~s{1v .; ° C :.::: :::. Pro o d s 1UUlGrass Acas4 n1a 9 t3 ~ § ~ Stiff ~ 5z ,. p se . ye : ...::. 28'tfl~2436 _ , . . .": Committed density (C1ulGrass.4ae) nta 7.9 7.6 7.5 7 6 7.6 2U 6-20 4 -' - . - - *Language will also need to be added to the paragraphs following Table 2.10 to explain the change. Chapter 5, Section 2.5 3I S ? ' ii ! -bwelllh Uhits '~ ~ b ~~ ellid ' ,,* ~` ~ r ~ < < f '~ < < Pet ~rdss Abii>~ _ r Per G o , ; c ~ Y , i E , ~, N,: 2410"-24$ 5 .~ : 2036~,~, ~4 ~ ,..~ ....~~ . ~ .. .,. s . .. -. Central Point 6.9 7.9 Eaele Point 6_5 7.5 Medford 6.5 7.5 Phoenix 6.fi 7.G Talent 6.f 7.6 4. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 2.7.1 {page 1987 of retard) as follows: Transportation infrastructare. The Conceptual Transpartatlon Plan shall Jdentify a genera! network of regionally significant arterials under local Jurisdiction, transit corr_idors~ bike and pedestrian oaths, and associatedpro%ects to provide mobfllty throughout the Region (incJUdina intracity and Intercity. if applicable?. 5. Add language to Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 6.1 as follows: The primary purpose of the Community Buffers was to assist the clues !n !orating theft proposed Urban Reserve Areas. The Community Buffer areas were areas that were largely avoided by cities during the Urban Reserve Area selection process, A notable June 29, 2019 Jackson County Planning GammissJon Regional Problem Solving (tRP2009-Q0010) Page 2 of 7 exce Tian Is and in the area between the Cit a Med ord and Phoenix on fine East side o NI hwa 99 as described in more detail in Cha ter 4 o this Plan. 6. Amend Volume 2, Appendix IX, "Regional Land Needs Simulator" to correct a buildable lands inventory error- to change the amount of residentially developable land for the Clty of Eagle Point from 232 acres to 309 acres {Page 21{l7 of record}. Amend land need tables and text thraughout Regivnal Plan accordingly. 7. Amend Volume 2, Appendix Ix, "Regivnal Land iYeeds Simulator" to change the Persons per Household rate {PPH) far the City of Medford from 2.41 to 2.A7 {page 2014 of retard). Amend land need tables and text thraughout Regional Plan accordingly. 8. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 6.3, item fi (page 1747 of record) and Volume 2, Appendix III, Agricultural Buffering Standards as follows: Buffering mechanisms should be provldedJfunded by the proponent of the urban development. The buffering mechanisms will be physically located entirely on the urbanized property, unless: • there is a publicly awned right of way that could be Incorporated as part of the buffer; there is a naturally occurring area on the rurai agricultural land That is permanently incapable of being farmed (rock formation, riparian area, etc.J, is of sufflcleni depth, and !s contiguous with the border of the urbanizing land or a publicly awned right of way; the proponent of development purchases from the wi1_ ina farm owner an easement on agricultural land of the appropriate length and depth, and pays for the establishment and maintenance of whatever vegetative buffer, fencing or irrigation system that would have been required an the urbanizing land or as aareed upon. This mechanism is allowed autriaht as a mid-term buffer and may 6e allowed ds a tone-term buffer subiect to a recommendation by the Agricultural Buffers Committee; ar title to the area providing the physical portion of the buffer Is tnrnsferred wlllin 1 to Lire farm being buffered. !f a vegetative buffer or other mltictation is required i~dissrtc~, it shall be is Installed and maintained by the developer or as aareed upon. , ere le,w.r .re ft... e.rt.e ..d F 9. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Figure 5.1 (page 1994 of record) to make notification for RVTO "routine" instead of "as needed". 10. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section G.3, Item 10 (page 1747 of retard} and Volume 2, Appendix III, Agricultural Buffering Standards as follows: June 29, X011 Jackson County Planning Commission Regional Prvblern Solving (tRF2Q09-0©tt1CtJ Page 3 of 7 Class ! -1V rurrxl agriculturalland is presumed to be of "high potential impact"due to the fact that !t can be and often is used for a wide variety of different rural agricultural uses, and because new acrd as yet unforeseen uses and practices are likely tv surface in the future. Therefore, these rural agricultural lands are assumed to require buffering mechanisms that mitigate the most likely high Impact rural agricultural land use, regardless of present use. The only exception to this would be those Class I -1V rural agricultural lands that have a tong and essentially unbroken history of rural agricultural Inactivity ^Y MYMyIM,...~~. These, as well as all Class VI rural agricultural lands, would be tonsldered of "low poi~ntla! impact". When is Rural Agricultural land Considerred of "LD~+srPotentiellmpact"? Rural agricultural lands can be considered of low potential impact if they.- QR UR 1) are composed ofgreater than 5090 Class i!/Spils, can demonstrate an unbroken or essentially unbroken 25-year history of rural agricultural inactivity tfal/ow land) ~ra~ arse, and which have one armors of the following (as determined by a certified soil scientist). - greater than 509b hydric soils; - greater than 50% shallow lolls (surfaces tr1 bedrock or permanent cemented hardpan) of less than 2 R in depth. ~) are composed ofgreater than 5Q9o Class i!I or worse soil. 3) are outside ofan irrigation districts zone of influence (defined as the area within an irrigation distrlcYs present boundary, as well as areas presently lying outside, which cannot be considered ineligible on reasonable technical,grounds -- as determined by the most appropriate irrigation district - far a future expansion ofan existing !n•Igatlan district}, 11. Amend Volume 2, Appendix III (Agricultural Buffering Standards) to remove the use of bamboo as an allowable buffer. 12. Amend Volume 2, Appendix Ix, "Regional Land Needs Simulator" t;page 2022 0# record} to include a 12% residential infill rate for the cities of Talent and Phoenix. Amend land need tables and text throughout Regional Plan accordingly. 7.3. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 2.fi as follows to apply the mixed-use/pedestrian-friendly area commitment to the Clty of Ashland (page 1987 of record): Mixed-VsefPedestNan-FHeadly Areas. Far land within a URA and for land currently within a UGB but outside of the existing City limit, each tlty shat! achieve the x020 benchmark targets far the number of dwelling units (Alternative Measure #5J and employment (Alternative Measure #6) in mixed-usejpedestrian friendly areas as established in the 2L~09 Regional Transportation Plan (RTPf or mast recently adapted RTP. Beyond the year 202p, titles shat! continue to achieve the 2020 benchmark targets, ar if additional benchmark years are established, cities shall achieve the targets corresponding with the applicable benchmarks. Measurement and definition June 29, 2Q21 Jackson County Planning Comrnisslon Page 4 of 7 Regional Problem Salving (LRP2Q09-QOR.iO) ,~~ of qualified development steal! be in accordance with adopted RTP methodology. The requirement is considered met if the city or the region overall is achieving the targets or minimum qualifications, whichever is greater. This requirement can be offset by increasing the percentage of dwelling units andfor employment in the City Limit. This requirement is a~anlicable to a!1 participating cities. 14. Add to the Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of Commissioners {BOC} that the Planning Commission is concerned about the future ability of Irrigation Districts to serve water for agricultural purposes and the BOC should consider requiring an analysis, at the time of UGB amendment, to determine the affects of urbanization on the applicable irrigation district's ability to supply water fnr agricultural purposes. 15. Add item to Chapter 5, Section 2.9 (page 1988 of record} as follows: 7A-ROW. fJeuelopment of TA-R(?W is restricted to transportation uses and shalt be a maximum of 120' in width. 16. Amend proposed URA TA-2 to reduce down to the size shown on page 488 of retard based upon the ma}ority of the URA being considered part of the commercial agricultural base by the RLRC and the availability of ether proposed residential land. Amend land use distribution and supply tables and text throughout Regional Plan accordingly. Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly. 17. Amend proposed URA TA-4 #o eliminate the land west of railroad tracks. Findings and conclusions should state that the railroad and rural residential land act as a natural agricultural buffer from the high-quality active agricul#ural on the west side of the railroad and there is vacant and/or redevelvpable land currently available within the UGB for employment which is located adjacent to the railroad. Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly. 18. Add tv the Planning Commission recommendation to Board of Commissioners (BOC} that the BOC should consider including the Jackson Coun#y EXPO land as a proposed Urban Reserve Area for the City of Central Paint. 19. Amend proposed URA CP-4D to include the one acre residential lot proposed by the City of Central Point. Amend land use distribution and supply tables and text throughout Regional Plan accordingly. Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly. Z4. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 2.9 (page 1988 of record} to add the fallowing; CP-28, CP-1C, CP-28, CP-3, CP-4D, CP-6A, CP-68. Prior to the expansion of the Central Paint Urban Growth Boundary into any Urban Reserve Area, the City and Jackson County shat! adapt an agreement (Area of Mutua! Planning Concern) far the management of Gibbon Acres. 21. Remove URA PH-2 as requested by the City of Phoenix. Amend Chapter 5 to Include findings and conclusions consistent with those found on pages 1292-1332 of record. Amend land use distribution and supply tables and text throughout Regional Plan accordingly. Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly. lone 29, X011 lacksvn County Planning Commission Page 5 of 7 Regional Problem Solving {LRP2409-A0010J -°~ 22. Add URA PH-1A as requested by the City of Phoenix. Amend Chapter 5 to include findings and conclusions consistent with those found on pages 1292-1332 of record; however the land use distribution far PH-1A shall be 1{7d% employment. Amend supply tables and text throughout Regional Plan accordingly. Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly. M l J ~~ 24. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 2.9 (page 1988 of record) to add the following: PH-5. Prior to the expansion of the Phoenix Urban Growth Boundary into PH-S, the Crty shalt adopt standards to create visual distinction between the City of Phoenix and the City of Medford. 25. Amend proposed URA PH-S to remove an approximately 25 acre parcel located north of Campbell Road (Tax Lot 38-1W-43-103). Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly based upon Goal 14 locational factors and need to provide physical buffer between Phoenix and Medford to meet Problem Statement #3 and Goal #3 of the Regional Plan. .~ 27. Amend proposed URA MD-1 to add all Tax Lots located south of the East Gregory Road latitude. (Total addition of approximately 493 gross acres or approximately 405 "reasonably developable" acres). Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly based upon Urban Reserve Rule prioritization and Goal 14 locational factors. 28. Amend proposed URA MD-6 #a remove all Tax Lots besides the Rural Residential Tax Lots located immediately south of Myers Lane. {Total removal of approximately 131 gross acres or approximately 121 "reasonably developable" acres). Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly based upon RLRC designation, Urban Reserve Rule, and Goal 14 locational factors. 29. Remove URA MD-7mid. (Total removal of approximately 143 gross acres or approximately 140 "reasonably developable" acres). Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly based upon RLRC designation, Urban Reserve Rule, and Goal 14 locational factors. 30. Amend proposed URA MU-9 to remove the parcels located north of Finley Road {Tax Lots 37- 2W-23-4700 and 37-2W-26AB-100). (Total removal of approximately 10 gross acres or approximately 10 "reasonably developable" acres}. Amend maps in Volume 3 acevrdingly based upon RLRC designation, Urban Reserve Rule, and Goal 14 locational factors. June.29, .201 Jackson County Planning Commission Page 6 of 7 Regiorra! Problem Solving (LRP20t79-dOD20J 31. Amend proposed URA MD-9 to add property south of Highway 238 (Tax Lats 37-2W-23Bd-2100, 2200 and 2300, and 37-2W-23-1502), property west of the current UGB on West Main Street (Tax Lots 37-2W-266-102 and 103, 37-2W-270A-800, 801, 802, and 803) and property zoned Urban Residential which lies adjacent to those aforementioned properties. (Total addition of approximately 17S gross acres or approximately 89 "reasonably developable" acres). Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly based upon RLRC designation, Urban Reserve Rule, and Goal 14 locatianal factors. Amend Community Buffer maps in Volume 2 to remove area from Community Buffer. Lune 29, 2011 Jackson County Planning Commission RegfonaJ Problem Solving {LRP2Q09-Q©010J Page 7 of 7 i2 URBAN F~.~~~~r~~ City of Central Point, Qregon Planning Department 140 So.7hird St.,Central Point,Or 97502 ~~~~"~~ Tom Fsumphrey,AICP, 541.b64.3321 Fax 541.6G4.G384 ~~~~~ Community Development Director www.tl.central-point.or.us MEM~RANI3UM To: Planning Commission From: Don Durt, Planning Manager Subject: August 2, 2011, Plan~~ing Cornrnission Meeting, Urban renewal Update Date: July 28, 2fl11 The Central Point Development Commission (Urban Renewal agency) recently discussed draft district boundaries and projects. At the August 2, 2011 Planning Commission meeting staff will update the Planning Commission ofthe discussions that have taken place. Attached is a copy of the memo provided to the Development Commission. Page 1 of 1 City of Central Point, Oregon Planning Department 140 So.Third St.,Central Point,4r 97502 ~~NTI\!AL Tom Humphrey, AtCP, Sk1.66A.3321 Fax 541.66A.6384 ~~~~~ Community Dcvelopmen. ~ircctor! www,ci,central-po3nt.orus ~nistrator MEMORANDUM DISCUSSION ITEMS July 28, 2011 Agenda To: Central Yoint Development Commission Chris Clayton, Assistant City Administrator From: l7oix Burt, Planning Manager Subject: City of Central Point Urban Renewal Plan llate: July 28, 2011 At the July 2Sa` meeting the Commission will be discussing potential urban renewal projects (see attached redrafted Section 800). The meeting will begin with a brief discussion of the draft boundaries, and then proceed to Section 800. It is not expected that all projcets will be discussed at the July 28`~ meeting and that discussion on the remaining projects will be continued to the August meeting. At this time it is appropriate to uatroduee the draft boundaries, both to provide a geographic context to the projet~t discussions, as well as to experience the interplay betweem projects and the boundary, The projects list is derived from past and current studieslplans completed by the City and summarised in Section 804. In Section 800 the project descriptions are kept general to endure changes over tune and additional planningldesigplengineering. The project list is open to discussion acid modification by the Connnission. The term "Downtown Corc Arca" is described in the Map entitled Downtown Strticturc Diagram. There are 15 projects listed in Section 800 with a total cost of approximately $47,000,000 (Table 1}. At this time no costs were identified for the Ewnomic Incentives Program. The cost of the projects is based on prior studies and adjusted to today's values. Before completion of the project list the costs will be adjusted based on ptmbahle future increases in cost based on when it is estimated of each projects estimated completion date. Also, it is expected that other sources of revenue, other than tax increment financing, will be available to assist in the costs of each project. A more precise understanding of what constitutes each Section 800 project is presented in Tables 1 a through 1 d. Maps 1 a through 1 d identify the location of each project relative to the draft urban renewal boundary. You will note that there are areas adjacent to the draft boundary representing Page 1 of 18 possible areas far consideration for inclusion in the boundary. These areas will be discussed at the mcciing. Table 2 i1lusEraics l.hc. percentage relationships of the clrafl boundary vs. the City as a whole relative to area and asfiesseci value. The following materials on pages 3 -18 will be the fiocus of discussion. Page 2 of 18 ~g SECTION $OU URBAN RENEWAL ACTIVITIES To achieve the goals and objectives of this Plan the following activities ~i'ay be undertaken by the Commission, or caused to be undertaken by others, in accordance with applicable Federal, State, County and City laws, policies and procedures and in compliance with the provisions of this Plan. The Commission's responsibility for ail activities identified in the Plan is sibj~c~~ta~l~eaYailabiltj~'of-appr~j~?atie`°f~n:drig• The fallowing projects and activities are deemed necessary to: 1. eliminate knighting conditions and influences; 2. Reverse presently depreciating property values; 3. Make the Area attractive for the stabilization, expansion, rehabilitation or redevelopment of existing businesses; industries and housing; 4. Create a physical, Visual and economic environment that will attract new, job producing development within the Area; and to 5. Further the objectives of the Urban Renewal Plan as set forth in Section 400. S. Ail public improvements herein prnposed shall be complete with all required appurtenances and sl~all he constructed and implemented in conformance with the app~•oved standards and policies of the City of Central Point. C. With fiends available to it, the Central Paint Development Commission may fund in full, in part, a proportionate share, or cause to be funded, the following numbered projeLts and activities: DOWNTOWN CORE AREA STREETSCAPF. IMPROVEMENTS. Within Downtnwn Care Area (Figure 1) improve streetscapes on the primary pedestrian streets. Streetscape improvements shall include curb and gutter, sidewalks, crosswalks, street trees, tree grates, street lights, plazas, gateways, and street furniture. All Streetscape improvements shall be made in accordanoc with an approved Streetscape master plan for the area illustrated in Figure 1. 2. EAST PINE STREET IMPROVEMENTS. ~V'idening of East Pine Street between Penninger Rd. and Hamrick Rd. to arterial street standards in accordance with an approved master street plan fc~r >/. Pine, including, but Wert limited to; additions! travel lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lights, pedestrian lights, traffic signals, street trees, crosswalks, and landscaping. 3. N1LrIGIiBORHOOD SIDEWALKS, S'1'R)L:1~;'1' LIGH'T`ING, AND ALLEYS. Install sidewalks and street lights on all residential streets, and Page3of18 ~~ pave all alleys adjacent to the Downtown Core. AlI sidewalk and alley improvements shall be made in accordance with city standards and may include street lighting, and street trees. 4. I~WY. 99 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS. Improve Front Street from the proposed Twin Creeks railroad crossing south to Bush Street to arterial street standards in accordance with an approved master street plan for Hwy. ~9, including, but not limited to additional travel lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lights, traffic signals, pedestrian Iights, street. trees and tree grates, traffic signals, gateways, plazas, crosswalks, and landscaping. 5. INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION. InstalUupgradelmodifiedtroffic signals at the following intersection: a, Twin Creeks Dr. install new railroad crossing and signalize intersection at IIwy. 99 and Twin Creeks Dr. and new railroad crossing at Twin Creeks Dr. Lnprovements shall include, bu# not be limited to easement acquisition, curb and gutter, street surface improvement, xailroad crossing signalization, Hwy. 99 signalization, sidewalks, street lights, and landscaping. b. Pine St. and Second St. add new signals c. Pine St. and Sixth St. add new signals d. Pine St. and Fourth St. remove existing signal; e, Pine St. and Gebhard Road extension add a new signal; and f. Pine St. a~~d Penninger Rd. modify/remove signal 6. OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES. All public parking constr+.ic#eci under the provisions of this Section shall comply with the objectives and policies of the City of Central Point 'Transportation System Plan as applies to the Downtown and with the applicable standards as set Earth in the Land Development Code. The construction of the parking lots shall be consistent with an approve plan for downtown parking. During the planning and design phase of the parking facility the Commission will have prepared a written parking analysis to define tl~e service area, determine the demand for parking within the service area, the parking mix (leased vs. free), operating costs, and parking duration {long-term vs. short-term). a. Oak Street Facility. Design and construct a parking facility on the southeast corner of Qak Street and Third St.rcct. Page 4 of 18 ~ 4 b. Manzanita Street Facility, Design and construct a parking facility on the southeast corner of Manzanita Street and first St. 7. UNDERGROUND EXISTING POLE MOUNTED UTILITY SYSTEIVIS. t7~ithin the Downtown Core area, and along Ilwy. 99 underground existing overhead utilities. 8. GF.RARD RD. EXTENSION. Extend Gcbard Rd. from E. Pine St. north to the City limits as a collector street. 9. PFAI{la PAKK KEN{)NATION. Renovate Pfaff Park including new landscaping, restraom facilities, playground equipment, and lighting. 10. ~ ~ EMAN ROAD UPGRADE TO COLLECTOR STREET STANDARDS. Between Oak St. and Hopkins Rd. rebuild nreeman Rd. to Collector Street standards, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lights, traffic control devices, and street trees. 11. PENNINGER ROAD SOUTHERLY EXTENSION. Extend Penninger Road south across Bear Creek to intersect with Hamrick Road to collector street standards; including bridge crossing and bike lanes. L 2. MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC WORKS. I'luougllout the life of this Urban Renewal Program, the Coinlnission, consistent with their priorities and financial resources, may assume the casts, or share of the costs, of engineering and constructing public works projects within the Urban Renewal Area to further the objectives of this Urban Renewal Plan. Such projects nrlay include the installation or reconstruction of the following: a. Starm Drains b. Sanitary Sewers c. Water Mains and sire Hydrants d. Curbs or Curbs and Gutters ~, Sidewalks, including Irrigated Tree Plantings f. Strcct Mork g. Alley Paving 13. COMMUNl'1'Y CEN'1'EK. Assist in the design and development within the downtown of a eammunity center that includes a gym and senior CCllter. Page 5 of 18 i 14. SOUTH HAMRICK ROAD EXTENSION, Extend Hamrick Rd, to collector street standards south of E. Pine St. to intersect with new Penninger Rd. extension. 15. .ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. The Commission may establish incentive programs to encourage commercial and residential development within the urban renewal area. Prior to the establishment of any economic incentive program the Commission shall prepare and adopt an economic development incentive plan establishing: a, Criteria for eligibility; b. Terms and conditions of the program; c. Procedures for recycling the funds as loan obligations are paid; d. Procedures where loan payments are trot paid or paid i~a an untimely manner; e. Procedures and conditions for which deferred payment loans may be offered; f. Procedures for administering grid servicing the program; and l;. Such other procedures and conditions which the Commission deems necessary. Page 6 of 18 CENTRAL POINT ~e~~nd •t)raN Urban RanevralArea ~.~Froemen RdAroa ~~~~~ & Haske~181rYe1 Area qH OmvNaxnArea Central Paint urban Renewal boundary Options Page 7 of 18 Table 1 - SECTION 8Q0 PROTECTS ANb ESTIMATED COSTS . .. CENTRAL POINT URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY 1 2 3 4 5 6 ..... 8 9 10 11 12 E 1~.... f.. 1A ... nroown Core AreaStreetscape Improvements ;. S 7,197,511' '• ! i I Stree Improvements, east of 10th St, I. $ 5,564,984 hhorhood Sidewalk, Street lighting, and Alleys ~ $ 2,121,071 j I 99Carridor Improvements , $ 1,939,104. .. ~ _ section Signalixation I $ 5,104,818 ~ ~ i ItreetParking Factlltles $ 555,617 s I - i ..................... ................... ............ ......., I , !rground Existing Pale Mounted UtllitySystems $ 4,000,000 , } ' ..... ird Rd. Extension $ 2,500,000 ! ~ j Park Renovation $ .206,464 i _ .............. ........ ... .. ................._............_. I ...... I m Rdoad Upgrade to Collector Street Standards $ 1,474,271 I linger Road,Southern Extension $ 11,741,423 .:. . ellaneaus Public Works $ 2 234 648 ~ _ munity Center .............. , S. 745 564. '•... .. f _. .... h Wamrick Road Extension ~ $ 1,333,481 ~ ~ i ~abie 2 i ...... ; . .......... .... I .. ;......... City of Central Point Urban Renewal Boundary Options ~ `:. Area..... ~.....31.17i............ 1.5%. >... .....$713,820:... ...... 0.: Area__ • ; 8.67 0.496 $~,700,67Q! 0.: Page 8 of 18 Urban Renewal District Dgwrrtown StrunEure Diagram ~-!~;=~5 Downtown QoreAre& ~u~" VX(pt Wj~INrr(PI IUItItKYi l4Yep VltyrtaGAn Reru~atPu}Yrt Page9oflS ~~ Table 1a SPARKS PROJECTS ANp ESTIMATEp COSTS I ...... .. .. }CENTRAL POINT URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY - .. Cflr<~munity Center - ConstruCtipn of anevrcommunitycenterthatwo~ld P-1 $ 745,564 restrooms, new IP-2 $ 206,464 d, landssaping, and I Nnge l C) of 18 ~ V Urban Rewai District proposed Park Irnprovement Plan Page 11 of 18 ~~ Legend ..:~. UrhanRanewa4BcvnBery ~ GtyPakc -r}r•s ProAosedPerklmprovernent ~~?~'"~~`~ Oyenspoas ~Sr~F Bear Greek Greenrioy Table ib TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS :CENTRAL POINT URBAN R i ENEWAL I AGENCY i i I i Hwy. 99 - Construe[ Twfn Greeks Dr. •. RR-;(ingand Twin Creeks Dr. 202 $ 3,Ob7,429 x Intersection E, Plne St, & Hamrick Rd. Intersection -widen westand south approaches 216 $ 646 758 x to add a second eastbound leftturn , . lane and re-stripe. EastPlneSt.-Addnewsignalat2"d "' o' 217 $ 2037388 ' x and6 andremovesi nalatA , 3rd St.-Add bicycle lane and 222 $ 269 151 x sidewalks from E. Pine St. to Haael St. , E,PineSt.-Addrightturnlanewith 226 $ 139 918 x sidewalks from I-5 to Penns er Rd. , 2nd St.-Sou4hof Pine St. addblke 229 S 27Y 809 x lanes &sidewalks , E. Pine5t. -Widen for decl faccel lanes and add blkeianes and 233 $ 888 988 x sidewalks from Hamrlck Rd. to Bear , Creek Brl d Hamrlck Rd,- 8xtend Hamrlck Rd. to collector street standards south of E. 234 $ 1 333 481 x Pine tointersectwllh new Penninger , , Rd. extension. 101h5t.• E. Pine St. to Haael St. widen to add continuous turn lane, bike 238 $ 452,018 x lanes andsldewalks. 3rd St. - F. Pineto Ash St construct 247 $ 277 849 x sidewalks, , Maple St.-t:onstruclsidewalks Hwy. ~ $ 55p 673 x 99 to 10ffi St. , 4th St. •Ash St. to CedarSt. construct 249 $ 142 036 x sidewalks , Ash St. - Hwy.99 to Freeman Rd. 250 $ 52A 947 x eonsvuetsidewalks , Dak St. -Hwy.99 to Freeman Rd. ~c1 s 6211 607 construct s idewalks. , x E. Pine St. - I-5 SB oif-ramp to Hamrick Rd. widen to add third 255 $ 3,889,$21 x westbounddlrou Lane Alleys-pave alleys in downtown 2©8 $ 241 138 x core area , Gebhard Rd. • Extend as a collector street from E. Pine Street north to xxr. $ 2,540,000 x Cil Hmi1s. Parking-improve lots at 3rd/Oak 708 $ 555 G17 r and Manzanlta at , r• . Freeman Rd. - Rebuild M coflectnr ctonderdc from Oak St. tnltorrkh+c 237 S~`„_$,279.$DS x F>r~mme Rd. ~DUICItl_~ jiilr~lLi, ti off ` 2Q6 15[4.4!:6 S x Ppdnfnper Rd. - Fxipn~J Pennfn perRd. north from F, P7nefo SrebeRd, and $ 33, 742423 x S~uJh ZA fIItPCSP~ wUh 5. I famrick Rd Remove sipnof of Penninoet/f. Yrne. 245 Page I2 of 18 6j- LapenA '4 "~V:ban Renaxvl8aundary w i Q9 ner t . ghat Term PfoJstls r ri~ t:~13311.MP ~ Tler1-NeSumYermYro~ecls ~iiiruS}reeflnrproremontProJcW ~ Tiert-LatgTermProlsCro r~rr Prvpaced Sldewaik ~ 7rer 2 Proleclc 11 Urban Renewal District 'franspartation Improvement Projects v,~rc~twprx+rtFl<inwr: ~3~ W Ca Pp(~SgNma1PY'1Y1+TyPFK{h r Page 13 of 18 ~~ Table is ~ 'BEAUTIFICATION. PROJECTS ANO ESTIMATED COSTS .CENTRAL POINT URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY ~ I ~ •. iiNh~.99, Fhase 1 - 203 $ 388,93? j I ` F _ . I lwy.99, Phase 2 - 206 $ 438,938 Hwy 99, Phase 3 - 215 $ 694,522 Hwy.99, Phase 4 • Cupp St gateway 212 $ 416,713 E.P1neSt.-StreelscapetromHaskell St.to lpth 5t. 228 $ 4,167,129 Downtown Cpre Alleys $ 165,588 Downtown Plaaas $ 1,204,277 3rdst.streetscape $ 436,550 3rd St.-HlghSchoolE~xry $ 22$,$02 Downtown Gateways _ $ 158,051 underground Utilities $ 4,fl00,000 Page 14 of 18 Urban Rettewai Qistrict Beautification and Improvement Projects l'.CV(llgl W~W{lgf~,qllltlp'gf$vlppl0Na{P110y1RM0Aa~{'ro~(K Page 15 of 18 tLegend 1~Urden aegawsl BOUptlnty ~+«Mvy99 Ptlase I »KeE. PNIeStreelsCapa 96aVIAkAlIOn TSP PtOjea~Hwy88 PhaS6 II ®3rdSttA0lScay0 ?~,?; p0v/tllowd Plan ProjaCt ~IIvry99 PUaOII) ~•iMvyBgUndafgroUnd Utititlas ~Cu0P5tree1 QAlaway w'•~Oowntown Undeipround Ulllillas i t auie sta ~ I i ; INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ANO ESTIMATED COSTS ~ .. ~ I I CENTRAL POINT URBAN RENEUttAL AGENCY 1 ~. ~ i ~ , ~ ~- Hwy. 99 - F1 re flow Improvement M-2 $ 554,767 Laurel 5t. - Flre flaw Improvement M-3 $ 253,D98 Hwy. 99 (bust St.~ • Firefiow M-4 $ 114,283 f mprovement MaplcSt.-Firefiowimprovement M-5 $ 179,185 CltyShops -Fire flow improvement M-6 $ 108,01$ Oak St. -Fire flow improvement M-7 $ 286,675 Hazel St. - Flre flow t mprovement M-8 $ 33,472 Hazel St. -Install storm drain from Sp_1 $ 71,500 9th to 10th Laurel St. -Extend storm drain SD-g $ ~`~0 between 1st and 2nd Cedar St. and Rostel St.-Extend SD-3 $ 32,500 storm drain Ash St. And FreemanRd.-Extend SD-4 $ 37,500 storm drain 2nd and OakSt.-Replace inlets and SD-8 $ 9882 ' lateras Manzanita St.-Replace inlets and SD-9 $ 18,650 laterals Bush St. - Betweena 2nd and 3rd SQ-11 and install manhole and Install new $ 4,50Q curb inlet SU-~ 3rd and OakSt. -Install new curb SD-14 $ 1,000 inlet 2nd and 3rd -Replace inlets and laterals between Ashh St. and Alder SD-17 $ 23,635 St. 4th St.-Replace inlets and laterals SD 1$ $ 4,000 between Oa k St. a nd Alder St. General Storm Drain Replacement, SD 1J $ 300,000 Qowntown Core • t ~ Page 16 of 18 CE#~TRAL POINT Legend j urban Rensv~al eoundery P~o~ed Listed w~.w Added Linea Urban Renewal Distric# Storm Drain Pro]ects v4g4..w oumieu+w rrruv a u ro v~«u wma~ sra.auwo:. Page 17 of 18 i~i ~~ CENTRAL PQII~lT Water Syst@rn Master Plan Capllal improvernerts ec ran+esatnw.wvaexanrtrva~GCtxya+,yw7Lw~ ve.,~.vun.~ Nage 18 of 1$ ~ ~'~ Lesend ,..i ~~ViwnRMt~RN aeYxY+r Wetet M4Glet Pkn „ vrajeat ~GMn~TeNM ~F Nq 7Mm esc -tIM7~IM~T . FYY RYn QliX:lwloa , Urban Renewal District A.L«T~RNATIY~'~'~HI~L.~E FUELII`IC ~7'A'`l~It7-N~ City of Central Point. Oregon Communit~r Development 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 9TSQ2 C~~~~~ Tom Humphrey, AICP 541.664.3321 Fax 541.bb4.b384 ~~~ ~~ Community Development Dircttaor vrww.centra! poi ntoregon.gov p i-egc~n 14•TEMORANDUIYi Tv: Planning Commission and Citizen Advisory Committee !From: Connie f:lune, Conotnunily Planricr Subject: Alternative Vehicle Fueling Stations Date: August 2, 2011 Baclcgrou~d The Commiuiity Development Department has received an inquixy regarding zoning and application requirements relative to the siting of alternative vehicle fueling stations {AVFS. The AVFS wuld be proposed as an added fuel source to an existing gas station or established as an independent station, Fuel alternatives to gasoline and clicsel include liquefied natural gas (LNG} and compressed natural gas (CNG). The interest in natural gas as an alternative transpot•tation fuel stems mainly from its domestic resource base and its growing comrncrcial viability. t';urt•e~~tl - ; ,r r ;:;:..: LI\ i • _ G 5 rnainl , Y ~. ,. - : F - ~_ used as a fuel , , ..: - .. ; ...:' S for long-haul ' . '~ ' ~:` ~ , ~ ,. [. (,Z trucks or other ',,;. ~ ... ~~- heavy-duty ~ - 1 ~~~ ~ .,, ,~ ~~ vehicles. The _. , , , ; Y,`w . ~'.~ u:., , ~..,. ~,.. , .. `' 1 ~ ~<~ ..~~.~ , photo is an ~:` ~ example of an ~~ z ~~,. AVrS for ~ , LNG, The storage facility includes ~.....,,.. - - . , ,. .. G, ~~r:>s._ ,._.. freestanding verticle storage tanks of approximately 5th-feet in l~.eight, which is the E~ritn.ary concer~a. w Cityai 140 South Third Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • 541.664.3321 • 541.b64.b384 P~•ocess As defined by CPMC, a gas station or automal~ile service sttttion rraean,s a building or lot laavi~zfi purraps a~ad storage tanks wlacfe• fuels, vils, ur accessories for motor vehicles are,dispensed, sold or nffeyed• foy sale, and whew repair .service is secondary (Section 17.08.E 10}. Within the 'TUD district service stations axe defined as Quick Vehicle Service, which includes full service gas stations. Based otz the cuarent use definitions AVFSs are iistcd as a permitted use in the C-4, C- 5, M-1, M-2, GC, and EG zoning districts, and as a conditional use in the CN zoning district. The question to the Commission is one of aesthetics (visual aeeeptablity of tall exposed tanks). The issue of safety is regulated through the building code. CPMC Section 17.72, Site Plan dnd Architectural Review, provides the process far the aesthetic review of a proposed AVFS, lout offers no criteria oar screening, etc. An application can be adminstrativc or reviewed by the Planning Commission should the director determine a project will significantly alter the character, appefuance or use of a site. Discussion AVFSs and the infrastructure to store and deliver the fuel is anticipated to become more prevalent as fleets transfer to alternative fuels. As demand increases fox LNG fueling stations so will the request to situate or locate these facilities. As a courtesy to the Planning Commission this is being brought to your attention for discussion and continent. Question: ~'he izzstadlation of AYp`S.r is acceptable and adequately regulated within CPMC as currently written; yr llae inslallalivra qj'.4 i~FSs within thc~ cunanaercial zoning districts was not the original intent and shoa~ld l7e regulated.. The Planning Commission might consider forwarding a reco~n~ncndation to the City Council for farther discussion and direction. Page2of2 ~~