Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 783 - Recommend approval of amendments to RPS planPLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~~ A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PLAN AS PROPOSED BY THE .IACItSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Jackson County Planning Conunission has completed their review of the Greater Bear Creek Regional Plan and forwarded to the Jackson County Board of Commissioners a recommendation to approve subject to the conditions as set forth in Regional P~~oblena Solving: ,gtriendnaents A~'oposed during Deliher•ations (to date) (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 Amendments affecting tl~e City of Central Point; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission bas elected not to comment an Urban Reserve Area Amendments relative to the cities of Medford, Phoenix and Talent; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds acceptable all other Anc~endrnents 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 Plarming Commission by Resolution No. ~'~ does hereby forward 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 6~~' day of September, 2011. / ~ ~ ~- Plannirig C'(ommYSSio ~ '` ATTEST: l ~~~ City Representative ^ Approved by me this ~~ day of ~.~.wtt~~, 2011. ~ ~c Planniri~Coi Zis~ i air Planning Commission Resolution No. ~ g-~ (09/06/2D11) EXHIBIT A Regional Problem Solving: Amendments Proposed during Deliberations (to date 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 and Urban Reserve Areas; Urban Reserve Management Agreements between Jackson County and the cities of Central Paint, Eagle Point, 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, including the amendments found on a es 1730-2059 and includin the followin additional amendments: 1. The Findings and Conclusions accompanying the Planning Commission recommendation to the BQC 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 whole, 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 final, rnajorstage of this Regionp! Problem Solving process, the City of.lacksonville elected not to propose the comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendment required to effectuate the Re ions! Plan. While lacksanvllle's involvement in the rocess was desirable there ion determined that their involvement was not necessa or critics! to the remainin seven jurisdictions being able to address the repiona! problems identified in the Greater Beat Creek Va!!ey Repiona! Problem Solving Process. Thus, the region decided to move forward with seven of the origins! eight jurisdictions (lackson County, Eagle Point, Centro! 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 Va!!ey's two major transportation corridors, !-5/Hwy 99 and Hwy 62. These corridors, and the cities they impact so significantly, represent the major fault lines of the issues influencing the regions! 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, 2011 Jackson County Planning Commission Page 1 of 7 Regional Problem Solving (LRP2009-00010) 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 2,10 AsFtEend remre! fawn! F e Prins .~ i:,r~ ~hr=en+x Talenl Fe~~o3s ref ~KdS47n0 ~f65 ° TTff iv,,__..~,..~~ .IJL~lYjI1~JS .'"Y,IL~ r =~y _ r~ J c 'Lt ~ •~ is ~5 ~ 5 _~E~ 15 Fir t~~~~senc~~~~ _ - G_:rr~r~i~sc [Tensib. 2C 1 G-2035 C~7n'~niltt~~ Der~siis ~~i~+~_ras ~•--~ r ~ 7 9 5 5 7 7 6 7 6 ~~~s-zms© _ ^ ~ _ _ _ *Language will also need to be added to the paragraphs following Table 2.10 to explain the change. Chapter 5, Section 2.5 Dwelling Units Dwellllne Unlts Per Gross Acre Per Gross Acre 2010-2035 2036-2060 Central Point 6.9 7.9 Eaele Point 6.5 7.5 Medford 6.5 7.5 Phoenix 6.6 7.6 Talent 6.6 7.6 4. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 2.7.1 page 1987 of record) as follows: Transportation Infrastructure. The Conceptual Transportation Plan shall identify a general network of regionally significant arterials under Iota! jurisdiction, transit corridors bike and pedestrian paths, and associated projects to provide mobility throughout the Region (including inteacity and intercity, !f 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 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 notable June 29, 2011 Jackson County Planning Commission Page 2 of 7 Regional Problem Solving (LRP2009-00010) exce Lion is ound in the area between the Ci o Med ord and Phoenix on the East side of NlahwaY 99, as described in more detail in Chapter 4 of 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 City of Eagle Point from 23~ 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 {PPH) far the City of Medford from 2.41 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 1747 of record} 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 owned right of way that could be incorporated as pert of the buffer; • there is a naturally occurring area on the rural agricultural land that is permanently incapable of being farmed {rock formation, riparian area, etc. J, is of sufficient depth, and is contiguous with the border of the urbanizing land or a publicly owned right of woy; the proponent of development purchases from the wil 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 on the urbanizing land or as aareed upon. This mechanism is allowed outright as a mid-term buffer and may be allowed as a Iona-term buffer subiect to a recommendation by the Agricultural Buffers Committee; or • title to the area providing the physical portion of the buffer is transferred wiltinaly to the farm being buffered. If a vegetative buffer or other mitigation is reauired ~~, it shat! be is installed and maintained by the developer or as aareed upon. ~~.ti,,.~,,,. ,. „ ,.,,t~f,,,,, ~..,~a~ .~ .,~t,.,rea,,.....« ~:.,. ~...~,._ :,. 1~~~ ~~ •~~ ~ ~~~~~ nay F r r 9. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Figure 5.1 {page 1994 of record) to make notification for RVTD "routine" instead of "as needed". 10. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 6.3, Item 10 {page 1747 of record} and Volume 2, Appendix III, Agricultural Buffering Standards as follows: June 29, 2011 Jackson County Planning Commission Page 3 of 7 Regional Problem Solving (LRP2009-00(110) Class 1- lV rural dgrlcultural land is presumed to be of "high potential impact" due to the fact that it can be and often is used for a wide variety of different rural agricultural uses, and because new and as yet unforeseen uses and practices are likely to surface in the future. Therefore, these rural agricultural farads 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 Closs ! - lV turd! dgriculturaf lands that have a Lang and essentially unbroken history of rural agricultural inactivity~r-gg~se. These, as well as all Class VI rural agricultural lands, would be considered of "low potential impact". When is Rural Agricultural Land Cansider~ed of "Cow Pot~enifa! Lnpact~i' Rural agricultural lands can be considered of low potential impact if they.• OR OR 1) are composed ofgreater than 50% Class IV soils, can demonstrate an unbroken or essentially unbroken 25-year history of rural agricultural inactivity (fallow land) -ttse, and which have one or more of the h~Jlo wing (as determined by a certY'fred soi! saentrst). - ,greater than SO % hydric soils; - greater byan SO% shallow soils (surface to bedrock or permanent cemented hardpan) of less than 2 ft; in depth. 2) are composed ofgreater than SD % Glass VI or worse soi/, 3) are outside of an irrigation districCs zone of influence (defined as the area within an irrigation district's present boundary, as well as areas presently lying outside, which cannot be considered inelig/ble on reasonable technical grounds - as determined by the most appropriate irrigation district - for a future expansion of an existing irrigation district). li. 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" (page 2022 of record) to include a 12~o residential infill rate for the cities of Talent and Phoenix. Amend land need tables and text throughout Regional Plan accordingly. 13. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 2.6 as follows to apply the mixed-use/pedestrian-friendly area commitment to the City of Ashland (page 1987 of record): Mixed-Use/Pedestrian-Friendly Areas. For land within a URA and for land currently within a UGB but outside of the existing City Limit, each city shall achieve the 2020 benchmark targets for the number of dwelling units (Alternative Measure #5J and employment (Alternative Measure #6J in mixed-use/pedestrian friendly areas as established in the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan (RTPJ or most recently adopted RTP. Seyand the year 2020, cities shall continue to achieve the 2020 benchmark targets, or if additional benchmark years are established, cities shall achieve the targets corresponding with the applicable benchmarks. Measurement and definition 1 un a 23, 2011 Jackson County Planning Commission Page 4 of 7 Regional Problem Solving (LRP~009-00010) of qualified development shall be in accordance with adopted RTP methodology. The requirement !s considered met if the city or the region Duero!! is achieving the targets ar minimum qualifications, whichever !s greater. This requirement can be offset by increasing the percentage of dwelling units and/or employment in the City Limit. This requirement is applicable to a!I 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 for agricultural purposes, 15. Add item to Chapter 5, Section 2.9 (page 1988 of record} as follows: 7A-ROW. Development ofTA-ROW is restricted to transportation uses and shall be a maXimUm of 17p' fn width. 16. Amend proposed URA TA-2 to reduce down to the size shown on 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 URATA-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 UGB 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 City of Central Point. 19. Amend proposed URA CP-0D 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-1B, CP-1 C, CP-28, CP-3, CP-~4D, CP-6A, CP-68. Prior to the expansion of the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Into dny Urban Reserve Area, the City and Jackson County steal! adopt an agreement (Area of Mutua! 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 supplytables and textthroughout Regional Plan accordingly. Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly. June 29, 2011 Jackson County Planning Commission Page 5 of 7 Regional Problem Solving (LRP2009-OOQIOJ 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 for PH-1A shall be 100% employment. Amend supply tables and text throughout Regional Plan accordingly. Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly. ~~ 24. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 2.9 {page 1988 of retard) to add the fallowing: PN-5. Prior to the expansion of the Phoenix Urban Growth Boundary into PN-5, the City shall adopt standards to create visas! distinction between the City of Phoenix prod the City of Medford, 25. Amend proposed URA PH-5 to remove an approximately 25 acre parcel located north of Campbell Road {Tax Lot 38-1W-03-103). Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly based upon Goai 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-8 to 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 ar 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 MD-9 to remove the parcels located north of Finley Road {lax 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 RLRC designation, Urban Reserve Rule, and Goal 14 locational factors. June 29, 2011 Jackson Caunfy Planning Commission Page 6 of 7 Regions! Problem Solving (~RP2009-00010) 31. Amend proposed URA MD-9 to add property south of Highway 238 (Tax Lots 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-26B-102 and 103, 37-2W-27DA-800, 801, 802, and 803) and property zoned Urban Residential which lies adjacent to those aforementioned properties. (Total addition of approximately 175 grass acres or approximately 89 "reasonably developable" acres). Amend maps in Volume 3 accordingly based upon RLRC designation, Urban Reserve Rule, and Goal 14 locational factors. Amend Community Buffer maps in Volume 2 to remove area from Community Buffer. June 29, 2012 Jackson County Plonning Commission Page 7 of 7 Regions! Problem Solving (LRP2009-00010) EXHIBIT "B" Proposed Modifications to Amendments 8. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 6.3, Item 6 (page 1747 of record} 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 wil! be physically located entirely on the urbanized property, unless: +- There is a publicly owned right-af--way that 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 frock formation, riparian area, etc. J, is of sufficient depth, and is contiguous with the border of the urbanizing land or a publicly owned right-of-way; or • The proponent of development purchases from the willing farm owner an easement orr 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 on the urbanizing land or as agreed upon. Ts.:~ ._, ~-,~n;~m : ..r,^.••^,~ ^.,+..,.a,+ • Title to the area providing the physical portion of the buffer is transferred wiIlin J to the farm use being buffered. If a vegetative buffer or other miti ativn is required indicated, it shall be +s installed and maintained by the developer or as agreed 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 far agricultural purposes and that this concern should be included as part of the Conceptual Plan reauirernent. including coordination with the affected irrigation district 18, Add to the Planning Commission recommendation to Board of Commissioners (BOC}that the BOC should consider Burin the first RPS Periodic Review including the Jackson County EXPO land as a proposed Urban Reserve Area for the City of Central Paint. {City Comment: The City of Central Point realizes that inclusion of the Jackson County EXPO lands into the Cites future Urban Reserve Area is a reasonable future expectation, and is open to discussion of the future of the Jackson County. EXPO lands and its role as a potential Urban Reserve Area. The City recognizes that any consideration of the inclusion of the Jackson Caunty EXPO lands as an Urban Reserve Area is best accomplished based on a clear understanding of plans for the future use and development of the Jackson County EXPO lands, the preparation of which will take time_for the County to develop and evaluate, It is therefore the position of the City of Central Point to encourage discussion between the Caunty and the City regarding the future use and development of the Jackson Caunty EXPO lands, and that any further consideration of inclusion of the Jackson County EXPO lands as an Urban Reserve Area be addressed at the first RPS Periodic Review.] 20. Amend Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 2.9 (page 1988 of record) to add the following: EIS-g~, C~1s, ~"~, EJ~-,, C.°--T;T~°~~C.=-oo~ Prior to com~oletion of the first RPS Periodk Review ,the City and Jackson County shall adopt an agreement (Area of Mutual Planning Concern) for management of Gibbons Acres,