Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - September 6, 2011C~N~R~ f 1. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA September 6, 201I - 6:00 p.n~. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. ?83 I. MEETING CALLED '1'O 4lRDER lI. ROLL CALL Planning Commission: Connie Moczygemba, Chuck Piland, Pat Beck, Mike Oliver, Justin Hurley, Tim Schmeusser and Rick Samuelson III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES Review and approval of August 2, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS VII. DISCUSSION pss. i - i y A. Review of County Planning Coznmissian RPS Recommendation to BOC a. Independent Recommendation to City Council Pg, ~~ B. Agricultural Buffering Standards per. ~~ _ ~~ C. Urisan lteriewal Update --Boundaries and Financial Feasibility VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS . IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJQURI~.MENT City of Centz~al Point ]Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 2011 I. MEETING CALLED T(D ()BOER AT 6:ilU P.M. Il[. ROLL CALL Commissioners Connie Moc~ygerrzba, Chuck Piland, 'a'im Schmcusscr, Ivlikc Oliver, Ju5t111 Hurley and Rick Samuelson, Jr., were present. Pat Beck was absent. Also in attendance were: Tozn Humpluey, C:onununity Development Director.; Don Burt, Planning 1Vlanager; Connie Clone, Community Planner; and Didi 'Thomas, P1lzuiing Secretary. III. C`t ~l~It ~;,4PQNIlENC'.E -None I~. MIl\ UTE~ Justin Hurley made a nn~otion to approve the nn~inutes of the .lone 7, 20].1 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Tim Schmeusser seconded the znotioi~. R(~T.T, CAT.T,: Piland, yes; Oliver, abstained; Hurley, yes; Schnieusser, yes; anal Samuelson, yes. Mt~lion passed. 'V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES -None. ~><. Bi3SINESS 'VIl', 1)TSCIISSI4Itit R.ce.iortal Pa•oblcan Salving Undatc Tom Ilumphrey, Community Development Director, reviewed his staff report with C:oznniissioners advising them that in September the City Council would prepare a resolution for the Jackson County Board of Commissioners recommending approval of the proposed plaza with amendments. Mr. Huznpl~zey rcvievaed the proposed amendments including the agricultural buffering standards and irrigation district analysis: Amendment #8, Agricultural Buffering Standards -language added requiring a developer to pay for the establislunent and maintenance of a~i AG buffer and deleted language that made maintenance of the buffer area the responsibility of the farmer; Planning C:otnn~ission 1Vlinutes .~uga~cst 2, 2011 Pugs 2 Amendment #10, Agnicultural.Buffering Standards - deleted "grazing use" as a means of determining the potential of agricultural lands; Amendment #14, Irrigation District Analysis - consideration of a requirement for analysis of urbanization on an irrigation district's ability to continue supplying water to users outside of a UGB each time an anretrdnrent occurs; Amendment # 18, Jackson County Expo as an Urban ltcscrvc - Mr. H«rnphrey distributed a handout to Commissioners, advising that in 2045, the bulYs eye map was considered as a conceptual plan for proposed urb~ur reserve areas ar~d at that time, the County elected to rcxnovc the Expo from wnsideration. 1Vow, Jackson County Pla~rnitrg Commissiax has suggested that the Expo be added back in. Planning Manager Don Burt added that he tllougl~:t it would be a great idea to add the F,xpo back into the City of Central Point but no[ now. Ame~rdn~,ent #19, Amendtucnt of Urban Reserve Area CP-4D to include a one acre residential parcel to correct an oversight in mapping; Amendment #20, Adoption of aCity-County Agreement to rnana~;c ('ribbon Acres -enter into an agreement to designate (ribbon Acres as an area of mutual concern. T}on F3urt recomxended that language be added to this an~.endment. stating that neither the City nox the County should unreasonably withhold approval. We would want to be sure that this is in place at the time of an uxban growth boundary amendme~~t. "i'hc Planning Commission then reviewed each of the ameaa.dnrelrts presented and Larry Martin, Citizens Advisory Comtnittce nicxnbcr, came forward to comment on the issues. Mr. Martin suggested that the Agricultural Buffering Standards presented on page 5 of the packet be amended to add the word "or" between bullet points and recommended that the last sentence under bullet point three be stricken. Commissioners agreed to amend the sentence to add a pcxiod {.) after `~nid-term buffer" and delete "Agricultural Buffers Committee". Mr. Martin then added that he did not Dave n. problem with striking ",grazing use" under Amendment 1 ~. Mr. Ma~•tin also stated that it xnadc sonse to exclude bamboo for rise in buffering due to ifs invdsivezaess. Mr. HL~rnphrey reminded the group that each Xlrbaxr Reseiwe area will have a conceptual plan, aa~d Don Burt said that it would be addressed as part of the conceptual plan to identify and determine what you're going to do. Staff will xcdraf~ the arnendnnents and bring them back for consideration. `t'om Humphrey explained that in order to move the Regional Plan through the State, the county and cities would adopt it as an element of their crn»prehez~sive plans. Pdannitag Commission Minutes August 2, 2071 Page 3 June Brock carne forward and asked why the Expt~ should be included as arI Urban Reserve a~•ea. for Central Point. Mr.. Humphrey responded that it. could ultimately Znnex to the City of Central Point, becoming sub}ect to Central Point zoning which might be IIloI'8 ad'Vtllltttgeous for the Expo. U rba~n Renewal Uadate lion 13uct stated That financial matters being considered by the Development Coznznissic~n would be presented at the ~~ext meeting. A draft of the proposed iu~ban renetivt~l boundary was presented far review along with a list oi' potential projects and estilnated vests. The sources of the projects were derived from the Transportation system Plan, tiVater Master Plan., Parks & ltee P1r1n acid llowlrtown Revitalization 1'lali. Specific designs, ranking of projects and the timing involved are not in question at this tune. The committee will be investigating the return on investlnent, economic incentives and f nancial projections, and Mr. Burt will keep the Planning Colnmission posted. Alternative Vehicle Fueling,Stations Connie Clune, Community Planner, presented an overview of liquefied natural gas and compressed nt~tura.l gas as alternative fl~cls to gasoline and clicsel and discussed their addition to existing gas stations. A review of Central Point Municipal Code reveals that such alternative fuels would be a peimittcd use in several zoning districts. The question to Commissioners involves aesthetics. Does the Planning Cominission wish to review any applications presented to deterllrine whether various sites would be acceptable for the installation of sforage facilities tar these alternative fuels. Following deliberation, the Planning Commission Inembers agreed made the deternunation that they did in fact wish to review such applications. 1Ta.rious possible screening mechanisms were discussed. VIII. ADIYIINIS'1'RATiVE RRVIEV4~S I%. NIISCFLLANEQiTS %. ADJ4IJRi~MF,l!`I' Chuck Piland made a motion to adjourn the meeting. TiIrI Schl~~eusser seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned al 8:UU p.nl. The foi~egding minutes of the August 2, 2U 11 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting an the day of ...?2U11• Cornmission Chair R~~iOI'~IAi, P~oBC,~~ SOL.~~TII~IC R~~C.)1~1I14~~1`IL1A'T'~O F'C)F~ APPI~t'~YAL. CAF' P~Arii ~t~'T'~ A~~~t~~vt~~`t'~ Planning Departments STAFF REPO RT ~EI'~TRAL ~ -- -- nom Hurnphrey,AiCP, ~~~~'~' C:omrr-unity DeveEopmen# Director! Assistant City Admi-tiiskralor STAFF REPORT September b, 201 l AGENDA ITEM: Idle No. x9017 Consideration of the Greater Bear Creek galley Regional Plan (Plan) rccom;nendation for approval by the Jackson County Planning Commission with Amendments. Applicant: Jackson County STAFF SOURCE: 'T'orn Hiunphrey, AICP, Community Development Director On August 2, 2011, the Planning Cazmxnission considered the 3ackson County Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the Plan. The recommendation included 29 proposed anrrendixrents ,six of which the City Planning Coxnzxaission reviewed specifically. The Cornmissi~n directed staff to make modifications to Amendments 8,14, 18 and 20 and to prepare a final resolution Tor consideration at the September b, 2011 meeting before presenting it to the City Council for approval. The resolution and exhibit vl-ith proposed modifications to amendments are included in #his report as Attachment A. riNDINGS: Lxlaibit "B" of the resolution contains the findings supporting the Plaruting Commission's recommendation. It should be noted that the City's consideration of the Plan at this time is advisory prioY to its consideration by the Jackson County Board of Coraxnissioncrs. As a land use decision the County is responsible far preparing findings addressing consistency with all applicable state land use laws. DISCUSSION POINTS: The Commission's recommendation will. be considered by the Ciry Council who will in turn forward a_ Resolution of support with or without changes to the County Board of Commissioners. Three of the Amendments offered by the County Planning Commission directly affect Central Point while others are mare general to County policy or apply to oilier jurisdictions. The Commission has recommended modifications to two amendments specific to Central Paint (#s l 8 & 20) and to two others that are more general but may have ramifications upon Central Point (#s 8 &14). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" -Punning Commission Resolution No. Attachment "B" -Regional Problem Solving: Amendments Proposed During Deliberations (to date) ACTION: Consideration of Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. Page 1 of 1 ATTA~HMEN7 " PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PLAN AS PROPOSED BY THE JACI~50N COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the 3ackson County Planu~sng Commission has completed their review of the Greater Bear Creek Regional Plan and forwarded to the Jackson County Board of Co~mnissioners a recommendation to approve subject to the conditions as set forth in Regional Problem Solvfng: rlnaendrnents Pra~~osed duri~ag Pedibetations (to dale} (the "Amendments") and attached hereto as Exhibit "A -Amendments"; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2011 the City of Central Point Planning Commission reviewed and discussed modifications to the Amends»e~~ts affecting the City of Central Point; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds acceptable all proposed amendments with the exception of Amendments 8, 14, 18 and 20 (the "Exceptions"); and WHEREAS, after discussion of the Exceptions the Planning Commission proposes modification to the Exceptions as set forth in attached Exhibit "B -Proposed Modifications to Amendments"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Central Point Planning Commission by Resolution No. does hereby forwaxd to the City of Central Point City Council a favorable recommendation to approve the Regional Plan with the Amendments subject to modifications and comments as set forth in Exhibit "B". PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this G°i day of September, 2011. Planning Commission Chair A'I"I'EST: City Representative Approved by me this day of , 2011. Planning Commission Chair K'~ ti Planning Co~nrnission Resolution No. (09/0b12011) EXHIBIT "B" Proposed Modifications to Amendments 8. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 6.3, Item fi (page 1747 of records and Volume 2, Appendix III, Agricultural Buffering Standards as follows: Buffering mechanisms should be provided/funded 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-af-way thpt could be incorporated as part of the buffer; or ~ There is a naturally occurring area on the rural agricultural land that is permanently Incapable of being farmed (rock formation, riparian area, etc.), is of sufficient depth, and is contiguous with the border of the urbanizing land or a publicly owned right-vf--way;Q • The proponent of development purchases from the wlllina 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, yr irrigation system that would have been required vn the urbanizing land or as agreed upon. This mechanism is a!lawed autri ht as a mid-term buffer and maybe Uilowed as a long-term bu,~~__ __; n.. .Jr. ..! n..CF .. ~.~ ; Or ~ Title to the area providing the physical portion of the buffer is transferred will- inply to the farm use being buffered. If a vegetative buffer yr other rnitiaation is required indicated, it shalt be is installed and maintained by the developer or as aareed upon. ~~ 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 that this ct~ncern should be included aspart,of #he_Conceptual Plan re uirement includin coordination with the a#fected irri ation district 18. Add to the Planning Commission recommendation to Board of Commissioners (BOC}that the BOC should consider durin the first RPS Periodic Review including the Jackson County EXPO land as a proposed Urban Reserve Area for the City of Central Paint. e~ Cit Comment: The Cit of Central Point realizes that inclusion of the Jackson Count EXPO Mantis into the Cit 's future Urban Reserve Area is a reasonable future ex ectation and is o en to dis u ion of the future of the Jackson County EXPO lands and its role as a potential Urban„ Reserve Area. The City reco nixes that an consideration of the incl s' n of the Jackson Count EXPO lands as an Urban Reserve Area is best accom lished based on a clear understandin of ions for the future use and develo ment of the Jackson Count EXPO lands the re oration of which will take time for the Count to develop and evaluate, It is therefore the position of the City of Central, Point to encouraee discussion between the Count and the Cit re ardin th f ture use and develo ment of the Jackson Count EXPO lands and that an further consideration of inclusion of the Jackson Coun EXP Ind as an Urban Reserve Area be addressed at the first RPS Periodic Review.) 20. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Sect'son 2.9 (page 1988 of record} to add the following: rn_ z n rn_ a.. ro ~a ro ~ rn nn /'o c.. ~a ra, prior to completion of the first RPS Periodic Review ,the City and Jackson County shat! adopt an agreement {Area of Mutaal Planning Concern) for management of Gibbons Acres. J~TTAGHN~~NT " ~ " ~egianal Pr~blen~ Sabring: Amendl<nen~~ ~'rc~pos~d dux°~ng n~l~be~-a~ions ~~~Q dated The Jackson County Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Greater Bear Creek 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. anti Urban Reserve Areas; Urban Reserve Management Agreements between Jackson County and the cities of Central Point, Eagle Pain#, Medford, Phoenix, and Talent; and amendment to the Population Allocations of Rural Unincorporated Jacksan County and the City of Ashland in the Population Element of the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, including the amendments found on paiiies 1730-2059 and including the following additional amendmerts: 1. The Findings and Conclusions accompanying the Planning Commission recommendation to the BOC should state that the RFS 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 recard~ as follows: Finally, !n 21109, preceding the !n![id[ian of the final, major stage of this Regional Problem Solving process, the City ofJoct~sonvlge elected not to nronose the tom rehensive !an and land use re ulatlon amendment re aired to c t t e Realana! Plan. While Jacksonv!!!g's involve ,en[ in the rp Dress, was desirable, the rectlon ~etermined that their 1nvalvemen[.was no[ necessar~or criic~rf to the remaining seven it_+rlsd(cttons being able to address the regional problems iclentl,~led in the Greater Bear Creek_Va!!ey Regional Problem Solving Process. Thus, the region decided to move forward with seven of the original eight Jurlsdlctlons (Jacksan County, Eagle Point, Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, 7aleni, and Ashland} by focusing the project's original problems and their solutions vn the jurisdictions bisected by the Greater Bear Creek Valley's two major transportation corridors, t-SjHwy 99 and Nwy 62. These corrlclars, and the cities they impact so significantly, represent the major fault !lees of the Issues influencing the regional effort (future population growth, agricultural activity, and likely urban expansion) and therefore share the hlghes[ need for regional cvllaboratlon and long-term regional plonning. June ,~9, 2d21 Jackson County.Planning Commission Page 1 of 7 Regional Problem Solving (lfiP2049-OpU10l 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 apply 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 Z.10 . ... . . ~ ~ elf #•Io1~i ~ammmra nnnstt~• C 2.1.. x'.47 K IDI!l~ron~ AtY4!} ~$ $+~ ~ ~ ~ HR1f8Rhnld ~ ~ ~ ~''~ ~~ - ; '; '' ` :: . Cptstimitt~t~l ~~ns11y . ' • . : = :.;, ;r:. tC~UlGrnre.~ At~41! n1a ~ ~ ~ ~f i~ ' • ` ~ i~~9~Ap~neitK ; :,`:,~ -,...: . - ,'` >>.'`; .~°;~ (i?~t4iC~tH~llcrey ~+ 7 9 7 5 ? •~ 7 8 3 8 ,'-_ : . _ ,,:. ,_ _ *language will also need to be added to the paragraphs following Table 2.10 to explain the change. Chapter 5, Section 2.5 4. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 2.7.1 (page 1987 0# record) as follows: Transportation Infrastructure. The Conceptual Transportation Plan shah iderrlify a general network of regionally significant arterials under local Jurisdiction, transit corridors. bike and pedestrian Laths and assr~ciated projects tv provide mobility thraugitout the Region tinciudina intracity and intercitu if apolicable~. 5. Add language to Volume ], Chapter 1, Section 6.1 as follows: The primary purpose of the Community Buffers was tv assist the cities in locating their proposed Urban Reserve Areas. The Community Buffer areas were areas that were largely avoided by cities during the Urban Reserve Area selection process. A rrotuble June 29, 2U11 Jackson County Planning Cnmmissia» Page 2 of 7 Regional Problem Solving rLRP2009-00030) 0* exception is found in the area,becween the Ciiy of Medford and Phoenix on the ,East side e F!i hwa 99 as described in mare deiai! in Cha ter ~ o this Plan. 6. Amend Volume 2, Appendix IX, "Regional land Needs Simulator' to correct a buHdable lands inventory error- to change the amount of residentially developable land for the Gity of Eagle Paint from 232 acres to 309 acres (Page 2107 of record}. Amend land need tables and text throughout Regional Plan accordingly. 7. Amend Volume 2, Appendix IX, "Regional Land Needs Simulator" to Change the Persons per Household rate {Ppi-E) fvrthe City of Medford from 2.43. to 2.47 (page 2014 of record). Amend land need tables and text throughout Regional Plan accordingly. 8. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 6.3, Item 6 (page ]747 of record) and Volume 2, Appendix III, Agricultural buffering Standards as follows: Buffering mechanlsms should be provldedjfunded bythe proponent of the urban development. The buffering mechanlsms will be physicpliy located entirely on the urbanized property, unless: • there is a publicly owned right of way that could be incorporated as part of the buffer; there is a naturally occurring area on the rural agricultural land thpt is permanently incappble of being farmed frock formation, riparian area, etc.J, is of suffrciertt depth, and Is contiguous wish the border of the urbanizing land or a publicly owned right of way; the proponent of development purchases from the willin farm owner an easement on agricultural land of the appropriate length and depth, and pays far the estabJlshment and maintenance of whatever vegetative buffer, fencing, or irrigation system that woald have been required on the urbanizing land or as agreed anon. This mechanism is allowed oucriaht as amid-term bu,~{er and may be allowed as a Lana-term buffersublect to a recommendotion @~- the Aaricultura! Buffers Committee: or title to the area providing the physical portion of the buf fer Js transferred with to the farm being buffered. if a vegetative buffer or other mitic~atian is re u ed ittstic, it shall be is ins[alled and maintained by the developer or as agreed anon. 9. Amend Volume 1, Chapter S, Figure 5.1(page 1994 of record) to make notification for RWTD "routine" instead of "as needed". 10. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 6.3; Item 10 (page 1747 pf record) and Volume 2, Appendix 111, Agricultural Buffering Standards as follows: June 29, 2011 Jackson County Planning Commission Page 3 of 7 Reglona! Problem Solving (lRP20t79-000301 Class i - IV rural agricultural land is presumed ra be of "high potential impact" due io the fact that it can be ant! often is used for a wide variety of different rural agricultural uses, and because new and as yet unforeseen uses and practices are likely [o surface in the future. Therefore, these rural agricultural lands are assumed to require buffering mechanisms that mitigate the moss likely high impact rural agricultural land use, regardless of present use. The only exception to this would be those Class 1 _ tV rural agricultural lands that have a long and essentially unbroken history of rural agricultural inaciivity~i~tg~se. These, as well as al! Class V! rura! agricultural lands, would be considered of "low potential impac[". arYhen is Rural Agricultural land Considered of "tat3r Potential Impact"? Rural agricultural lands can be considered aflow potential impact If they.' 1) are composed ofgreater than 50% Class 1V sons, can demonstrate an unbroken or essentially unbroken 25-year history of rura! agricultural Inactivity (fallow land) sr~a ~ and which have one or more of the following (as determined by a certifred soil sc/entist): - greater than 51?°.o hydricsoils; - gneat~er than 5t7 % shallow soils (surface ro bedrock or permanent cemented hardpan) of less than .2 ~; in depth. QR C~J.~ 2) are composed ofgreater than SO % Class VI or wotse soil. 3J are outside of an irrigation district's zone oflnAuence (defJned as the area within an IrNgatlon districts present boundary, as well as areas presently lying outside, which cannot be considered Inellg/b/e on reasronable technical grounds -- as determined by the most appropriate irrigation district - for a futut~e expansion ofan existing ltrfgatfon district). 11. Amend Volume 2, Appendix Ili (Agricultural Buffering Standards) to remove the use of bamboo as an aNowable buffer. 92. Amend Volume 2, Appendix IX, "Regional Land Needs Simulator" (page 2022 of 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. 33. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 2.6 as follows to apply the mixed-useJpedestrian-friendly area commitment to the City of Ashland (page X987 of record?: Mixed-tiseJPedestrian•Friendty Areas. Far land within a URA and for land currently within a UG8 but outside of the existing City limit, each city shalt achieve the 2Q20 benchmark targets for the number of dwelling units (Alternatil~e Measure #5J and employment (Alternative Measure #6J !n mixed-use/pedescrlan friendly areas as established in the 2009 Regional transportation Platt (RTPJ ar most recently adopted RTP. Beyond the year 2020, cities shall continue to achieve the 2020 benchmark iarge[s, or if additional benchmark years are established, cities shall achieve the targets corresponding with the applicable benchmarks. Measurement and definition Lune 29, 201! Jackson Cauttiy Planning Commission Regional Problem Solving (LRP2009-QD010J Page 4 of 7 of qualified development shat! be in accordance wish adopted RTP methodology. The requirement is considered met if the city or the region overall is achieving the targets yr minimum qualifications, whichever is greater. This requirement can be offset by increasing the percentage of dwelling units and/or employment in the City limit. Thrs requirement is applicable to all oorticipatin~ cities. 14. Add to the Planning Commission recommendation to the 8vard of Commissioners tBOC~ that the Planning Commission is concerned about the future ability of Irrigation Districts to serve water far agricultural purposes and the 80C should consider requiring an analysis, at the time of UGB amendment, to determine the affects of urbanization vn the applicable irrigation district's ability to supply water for agricultural purposes. 15. Add item tQ Chapter 5, Section 2.9 (page 1988 of retard} as follows: TA-RQw. Development of TA-ROW is restricted tv transportation uses and shall be a maximum of 120` in width. 16. Amend proposed URA TA-2 to reduce down to the size spawn an page 488 of record based upon the majority of the URA being considered part of the commercial agricultural base by the RLRC and the availability of other 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 to 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 agricultural on the west side of the railroad and there is vacant andJor redevelopable land currently available within the UGS for employment which is located adjacent to the railroad. Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly. 18. Add.to the Planning Commission recommendation to Board of Commissioners (BOC) that the BOC should consider including the Jackson County EXPO land as a proposed Urban Reserve Area for the Clty of Central Point. 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. 20. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 2.9 (page 1988 of record) to add the following: CP-3B, CP-1C, CP-2B, CP-3, CP-40, CP-6~, CP-6B. Prior. to the expansion of the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary into any Urban Reserve Area, the City and lacksan County shall adopt an agreement Area of Mutual Planning Concern) for 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. tune 29, 2013 Jackson County Planning Commission Page 5 of 7 Regiottai Problem Solving {LRP2009-00010) [~ i~ 22. Add URA PN-1A as requested by the City of Phoenix. Amend Chapter 5 to include findings and conclusions consistent wi#h those found on pages 1292-1332 of record; however the sand use distribution far PH-1A shall be 100% employment. Amend supply tables and text throughout Regional plan accordingly. Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly. N I / / sac-t'}y:' 24. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 2.9 (page 7.988 of record} to add the following: PH-5. Prior !o the expansion of the Phoenix Urban Growth Boundary into PH-5, the Clty sfraN adopt standards to create visas! distinction between the City of Phoenix and the City a~Medford. 25. Amend proposed URA PW-S to remove an approximately 25 acre parcel located north of Campbell Raad (Tax Lot 38-1W-03-103}. 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 141acatianal factors. 28. Amend proposed URA MD-6 to remove all Tax Lots besides the Rural Residential7ax Lots located immediately south of Myers Lane. (Total removal of approximately 131 gross acres or approximately 1Z1 "reasonably developable" acres). Amend maps in Volume 3 accardingly 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" acresa. Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly based upon RLRC designation, Urban Reserve Rule, and Goal 14 Iocativnal factors. 30. Amend proposed URA MD-9 #o 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 accordingly based upon RLRO designation, Urban Resen+e Rule, and Goal 14 locational factors. lure Z9, Z011 Jackson County Planning Commission Regional Prablern Sawing (LRP2tJtJ9-©t7DIUJ Page 6 of 7 ~l 31. Amend proposed URA MD-9 to add property south of Highway 238 {Tax Lots 3?-2W-23BD-210x, 2200 and 2300, and 37-2W-23-1502), property west of the current UGB on West Main Street (Tax tots 37-2W-26B-102 and 103, 37-2W-27DA-800, 801, 802, and 803} and property zortied Urban Residential which lies adjacent tv those aforementioned properties. (Total addition of approximately 17S gross acres or approximately 89 "reasonably developable" acres}. Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly based upon Ri.RC designation, Urban Reserve Rule, and Goal 14 locational factors. Amend Community Buffer maps in Volume 2 to remove area from Community Buffer. June 29, 2031 - Jackson County Planning Commission Page 7 of 7 Regional Problem SoivinQ (1RP2009-00©.20) AC R.ICUL,TURAL, BC1F'F'~RiI~C ~'T'~.~ I~ARD~ .`'°> .rte . Planr~ang De~artn~ent INTERQFI^ICE ME~'10 ~~~~`'~'~~ TbmHumphrey,A1CP, ~~ ~ ~"'~" Community Development Director/ Assistant C9ry Administrator TO: Planning Commission FROM: Stephanie Sixnonich, Planning Intern DATE: September 6, 2011 RB: Agricultural Buffering Standards BACKGRC1UNll: Adoption of the Greater 13ear Creek Valley Regianal Plan (the "Regional flan"} will ineiudc the adaptian of Agricultural Buffering Standards in the Urban Reserve Areas (URAs}. Upon adoption it is the respansibility of each individual city to implement an Ordinance far agricultural buffering between urban dcvcloprnent and adjacent EF[T lands. These standards aim to reduce the conflict between farming activities and urban development. ~}~~S~USS>CON ; Protection occurs at different levels for residential, institutional, commercial and industrial urban uses. The strictest buffering standards are far residential and institutional urban development, while cornrriercial and industrial urban uses have less strict buffering standards. The type of agticttltural land arad the intensity of farming also impact the type of buffer that is applied between an urban development and EFU land. The City of Central Point is surrounded by Ilig~-Impact Agricultural Land, meaning that all of the EFU land within and around the URAs is Class 1-1V soils. The intensity o#' farming activities is measured primarily by the type of crops ,grown on the land, with crops such as orchards nr• vineyards being high intensity agricultural use and hay field or row crops being considered low intensity agricultural use. There are both mid-term buffers and long-term buffers. Mid-term buffers occur within the URA and are planned so that they can be converted to urban uses in the planning horizon of the "Regional Plan." These buffers are difficult to predict in how they will affect development, where they will be placed and how mum land will be needed for adequate buffering. However, in the long-term, they will eventually be converted to urban uses and can be calculated as developable land. The long-term buffers are more predictable in where they will occur and how much land they will require for adequate buffering. Despite the difference in longevity, bath buffers fallow the same standards and require the same amount of land for buffering against the elctnents of ehemicai spray drift, noise, se<lixrtcnt and stormwater runoff; trespass and vandalism, odor, dust, smoke and ash. SUMMARY: In summary, the issues below will present the most challenges for impl.e7rrentation. • Long-Terns buffers will need 68 to 1 SO acres, or 4% to 8%, of total URA land. • Mid-1'ercn buffers will require a design. interface illustrating how to wnvert buffer to urban use at a later date. • Unknown additional costs for development. ~. URBAItii F~~~~'~AL UPDA'T'E F~OU~`~IDAR.I~S Al`~ID F`II~.AhI~IAL F`~ASIBIL.I'T`Y City of Ccnt!-al point, Oregan Planning Department - -- .... 140 S~.Third St„ Central Point, Or 97502. "~~~"L Tom ! {umphrey, AICP, SA1.664.3321 Fax 541.6b4.5384 ~~~~~ Community [?evelopment C]irec#or www.ci.cantra!-poi nt.~ r. us ~El~IOItANDUM To: Planning Commission From: Don Burt, Planning Manager Subject: September 6, 2011, Planning Co~nrfrissian Meeting, Urban Renewal Update Date: August 31, 2011 The Cen#xal Point Development Commission {Urban Renewal Agency) recently discussed district boundaries and financial feasibility of the draft urban renewal plan. At the September 6, 2011 Planning Commission meeting staff will update the Planning Commission of the discussions that have taken place. Attached (Attachment "A") is a copy of the memo provided to t11e Devclopmcnt Crnnmissiorr. The Development Co~runission has set September 19"' at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers as the date and time for a study session to further discuss the draft urban reaaewal plan. The Developxlnent Commission has requested that the Planning Commission participate in study session. Page ~ of ~ s°t t~' ATTACHIVIENT "A" City of Central Paint, Oregon 140 So.Third 5t., Central Point,Or 97502 fi41.664.3321 fax 541.&6A.G38A www.ci.cent ra I--poi nt.ar. u s MEIv1012ANDUIVI DISCUSSION ITEMS August 18, 2011 Agcncia Planning Department ~Efi'~TRAL nom I-lurtiphrey, AiC~f', ~~~~~ Community t)evplopmen )ireclor/ nistrator To: Central Point T3evelopment Commission Chris Clayton, Assistant City Administrator Prom: Don Burt, Planning Manager Subject: City of Central Point Urban Renewal Plan Date: August 25, 20l l DISCUSSION ITEM 1-URBAN RENIG~VAL BOUNDARY. Since our last discussion, and based on the financial feasibility calculations, the boundary has moved westerly to include pari of the Twin L'reeks commercial area near the proposed Twin Creeks RR-Xing, and has eliminated the High School property. The inclusion of the Twin Cxeeks area {cross-hatched an:a pn map) was based on those properties bcncSilitrg from t11e urban renewal rr-xing project. If the rr-xing is not improved the properties will have limited, if any, development potential due to traffic limitations. 'fhe High School property was removed bo reducelaff--set the urban renewal district's acreage pexeentage. Attached is a map of the modified boundary. The percentage distributions (acreage and Assessed Value) are 18,2°~o and 13.1 % respectively, A maximum of 25% is allowed bylaw. As part of the boundary crn~sideration it should be no#ed that not all of the Ilwy. 99 and railroad right-of-way are within the City limits. To avoid confusion in the Suture it is recommended drat the City initiate annexation of the appropriate rights-of way. Before leaving this discussion item it is appropriate that there be a general conseiasus to move forward usiri$ the latest boundaries. DISCUSSION ITEM 2 -MAXIMUM IN117F.A'I'EUNESS AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY'. As we discussed at the last meeting the estimated total project cost fox the urban renewal program, measured in today's dollars, is approxirlaately $56,000,000'. Urban Renewal's share is approximately $45,000,000, with other organizations responsible lbr t}re balance, i.e. SDC fees, grant's developer participation, elc. These amounts are based nn 2011 dollars. It is estimated that by ~ At the July mee#ing the Bconornic Incentive Project was wnfunded and has now bec.~n funded to the extent of $6,tI00,0U0 per Table 1. Page 1 of 5 ~ ~~ the end of the program the cost to complete the projects will be $60,0OO,OQU vs. the original $45,000,000. The $60,000,000 is what will be used as the maximum indebtedness. Based on past construction activity and assessed value increases a projection was prepared for to FY2037-38 of the urban renewal programs incremental assessed value. An overview of the methodology used far the assessed value projections will be presented at the meeting. Based on the assessed value projections it appears that the urban renewal program will generate an estimated $6$,000,000 measured in future value. Given a maximum indebtedness of $40,000,000 (expenditures} and $48,OOU,000 (revenue} the urban renewal program's appears to be financially feasible (revenue exceeds expenditures). Attached to this memo are draft Sectiosts 1100 and 1200 addressing the financial limitations of the urban renewal plan. Table 1 SECTION 800 PROJECTS ANC3 ESTIMATED COSTS CENTRAL POINT URBAN RENEWAI. AGENCY 1 Downtown Core Area Streetscape improvements $ 7,197,511 $ 719,751 $ 6,477,7611 2 Pine Stree Improvements, east of 10th St. $ 5,564,984 $ 2,225,994 $ 3,338,991 3 Neighborhood Sidewalk, Street Lighting, and Alleys $ 2,121,071 S 848,428 $ 1,272,643 4 Hwy. 93Corridor Improvements $ 1,939,104 $ 775,642 $ 1,163,462 5 Intersection Signalization $ 5,104,81$ $ 2,552,409 $ 2,552,409 6 Off-Street Parking Facilities $ 555,617 $ 222,247 $ 333,370 7 Underground Existing Pole Mounted Utility Systems $ 4,000,000 $ - $ 4,000,000 8 Gebard Rd. Extension $ 2,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 2,000,000 9 Pfaff Park Renovation $ 206,464 $ 103,232 $ 103,232 10 Freeman Road upgrade io Collector Street Standards $ 1,474,271 $ 442,281 $ 1,031,990 11 Penninger Road Southern Extension $ 11,741,423 $ 2,348,285 $ 9,393,138 12 Miscellaneous Public Works $ 2,234,648 $ 670,394 $ 1,564,253 13 Community Center $ 4,305,303 $ 3,228,978 $ 1,076,326 14 South Hamrick Road Extension $ 1,333,481 $ 400,044 $ 933,437 Vllith regard to a general public meeting (not a hearing) it is probably best to schedule such a meeting late September (after school starts) or later in October. The purpose of the public meeting is to open discussion to the public, introduce urban renewal's purpose, and gather support, concerns, obj eetions. Page 2 of 5 1 DISCUSSIQN ITEM 3 -STUDY SESSION AND PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULING. At the last mee#ing the Commission indicated an interest in having a study session with the Planning Commission to discussion the pi~ajects, maximum indebtedness, and financial feasibility.l[f it is the Commission's intent to have such a study session, it should be scheduled far two hours minimum. ~"`" CENTP,AL, PC~~NT a.. :.r, `s ...: ~-~ . 5$- 4. ..~ tU: ~. r v . .. ~. J _= w, 1 ~... . ~ ~I • ~~ .. ~" 1 '~ J~!£71N 1 ~~ fc pxSytAH. £T .~-.. .. -`~.... IIIILCOGYGI . }~ i ~ ~ `. -' ~1 V 7AYA.C K j' I FW ~ c' I ~~'. ;~p»IAq ~~zl ~ ~~ Central point z e `ya ~-• E~ r ,£ . ,~._,~~ _ Urban. Renewal Boundary icpwt/beq~In11A1MXNR101TS May lioVeblupa~ XIIq'7HO110di(XY~54WroD1tl1~f6a1Cgiofl~l/ri79ti` ilf Page 3 of 5 ti ~$ Section IIUO. MAXIMi1M AMUiIiV'I' OF INDEBTEDNESS AND FINANCING QF URBAN RENEVt~AL MAYIMUM AMUUNT OF INDEBTEDNESS Tn accordance with ORS 457.190{3)(a) the maximum amount of indebtedness that may be incurred throughout the remaining duration of this Plan, commencing with fiscal year 2012-13 through fiscal year 2037-2038, shall not exceed $60,000,0(1(). The Board of the Urban Renewal Agency may barrow mozu:y and accept advances, grants and any other legal form of furancial assistance from the federal government, State, City, County, or other public body, or from any legal source, pubic or private, far purposes of undcxtaking and carrying out this Plan, or may otherwise obtain financing as authorized by ORS Chapter 457. 1101.. SELF' LI UIDATIO OF C05'1'3 OF URBAN RENEWAL INDEBTEDNESS {TAI~,INCREMEN`I', FllVANCING}.9 The projects may be financed, in whole or in part, by self-liquidation of the costs of urban renewal activities as provided in ORS 457.420 through 457.460. The ad valorezn taxes, levied by a taxing body upon the fixable real and personal property situated in the Urlaan Renewal Axea, shall be divided as provided in DRS 457.440. That portion of the taxes representing the levy against the increase, in the assessed value of property located in. the urban renewal areas, or part thereof, over the assessed value specified in the cerli~cate filed under ORS 457.430, shall, after collection by the tax wllector, be paid into a special fund of the Commission of Directors of the Urban Renewal Agency and shall be used to pay the principal and interest. on any indebtedness incurred by the Commission to finance or refinance this Plan and any projects or activities authorized and undertaken pursuant to the provisions of this Plan. The tax increment financing process, pursuant to ORS 457.42(} through 457.460, shall be terminated no later #han riscal Year 2037-38. However, the tax increment collection. process may be termizratcd prior to Fiscal Year 2037-38 should debts of the Agency be retired earlier. Based an the mist accurate estimates of Commission costs and ineorne which are passible to make during the preparation pf this flan, the tax increment process commencing in Fiscal Year 2012-13 may be terminated in Fiscal Year 2037-38, fallowing twenty-five (2S) years of tax increment collection of $6(),000,000 which rcprescn#s the maximum amount of indebtedness of this Plan as approved by the City Council in Ur~dinance No. Xxx on xxxx xx,xxxx. Should the #erminal year of tax increment proceeds collection be greatrx than the amount of debt to be retired, the surplus amount of such tax increment proceeds shall be prorated back to the affected taxing bodies as required by ORS 457.450(3). 1102. PRIOR INDEDTEDNLSS Any indebtedness pezxnitted by law and incurred by the Camnsission, or the (:ity oi' Central Point in connection with preplanning fox this Urban Renewal Plan maybe repaid finrn Commission funds when and if such funds are available. Page 4 of 5 t 1103. ANNIJAJ BUDGE' '1'he Agency shall adopt and use a fiscal year ending June 3fl accounting period. F..acl~ year, by July 1, the Commission shah adapt. a budget in confozxnanee with the provisions of {)RS 294 and ORS 457.460 which shall describe it.s source of revenue, proposed expenditures and activities. The Agency shall submit i#s proposed budget to the Urban Renewal Agency's Budget Committee for its review and approval and the Commission shall not undertake any activities nor expend any funds except as provided in the approved budget. SECTION 12QQ _ ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT REQIIIRFD 1201. RBQUIltED FINANCIAL STATEMENT ORS Section 457A60 required that the Commission, by Jam~ary 31 o£eaeh year, prepare a statement. containing: a. The amount of money actually received during the preceding fiscal year under subsection (4) of {}RS 457.420 to 457.460 and from indebtedness incun~ed under ORS 457.420 to 457.460; b. The purpose and amounts for which any money received under 457.420 to 457.460 and from indebtedness incurred under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 were expanded during the preceding fiscal year; c. An estimate of monies to be received during the current fiscal year under ORS 457.420 rv 457.460 and from indebtedness incun~ed under ORS 457.420 to 457.460; d. A budget setting iorlh the purposes and estimated abaounts for which the monies which have been or will be received under ORS 457.420 to 457.4G0 and from indebtedness incurred under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 are to be expended during tlae current fiscal year; and e. Att analysis of the impact, if any, of carrying out the urban renewal plan on the tax collections for the preceding year for all taxing bodies included under ORS 457.430. 1: If tl-c August 1 deadline to xrzeet the provisions of ORS Section 4,57.460 is changed by the legislature, the Agency will conform to the new date to prepare the required statement. Page 5 of S - 1