Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - September 4, 2012CENTRAL POINT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA September 4, 2012 - 6:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 789 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Tim Schmeusser, Rick Samuelson, Jr.,Tom Van Voorhees, Susan Szczesniak, Craig Nelson, Sr. III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES Review and approval of August 7, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS VII. DISCUSSION A. East Pine Street Master Plan — Consideration of the creation of an Eastside Transit Oriented Development District B. East Pine Street Corridor Refinement Plan — Discuss streetscape design alternatives VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2012 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Susan Szczesniak, Tim Schmeusser, Tom Van Voorhees, Craig Nelson, Sr., and Rick Samuelson, Jr. were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director; Don Burt, Planning Manager; Connie Clune, Community Planner; and Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE - None IV. MINUTES Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 3, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Craig Nelson, Sr. seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Oliver, yes; Szczesniak, yes; Samuelson, abstained; Schmeusser, yes; Van Voorhees, yes; Nelson, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - None VI. BUSINESS A. Tree Removal Application. Application to remove a Flowering Plum (Prunus cerasifera) located in the public right -of -way at 708 Isherwood Drive in the Low Mix Residential (LMR) Transit Oriented District (TOD). Applicant: Lana Grosenbach Recreation Coordination Dave Jacob presented a staff report concerning the removal of a Flowering Plum tree located in the public right -of -way in Cascade Meadows subdivision. Mr. Jacob advised Commissioners that the request for removal was based upon a concern that the tree was in poor condition and was creating a nuisance by dropping fruit. Community Development Director Tom Humphrey pointed out that the street trees in the subdivision were part of a master plan and had been installed originally by the developer. All of the street trees in this vicinity are of the same variety. Mr. Jacob stated that the tree doesn't meet the criteria in code for removal as it is in good health at this time, the dropping of fruit does not justify removal, and replacement with a different tree would result in non - compliance with design standards as set out in code. Mr. Jacob recommends denial of the request. Commissioners agreed with Mr. Jacob. Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2012 Page 2 Chuck Piland, Chairman of the Planning Commission, asked Mr. Jacob to contact the applicant and thank her for being a good citizen and for going through channels with her request for the tree's removal. Tim Schmeusser made a motion to deny the application to remove the Flowering Plum tree located at 708 Isherwood Drive. Craig Nelson, Sr. seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Oliver, no; Szczesniak, yes; Samuelson, yes; Schmeusser, yes; Van Voorhees, yes; and Nelson, yes. Motion carried. B. File No. 5076. Approval of extension and application for the proposed Type III Minor Modification pursuant to Section 17.09 of the Central Point Municipal Code. The modification is limited to re- evaluation of the tentative plan for the North Village subdivision as necessary to address CPMC Chapter 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention. The project site is located west of Hwy 99, north of North Haskell Street and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 0313C, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300, 400 and 37 2W 03B, Tax Lots 1601, 1602,1800. Applicant: Twin Creeks Development Co., LLC; Agent: Herb Farber Planning Manager Don Burt presented a request for extension of tentative plan for the North Village subdivision, stating that the request was timely. Extensions can be approved annually, he advised, provided that there are no changes to the municipal code that would affect approval. In this particular instance, the request arrived while FEMA maps were in the process of being changed and adopted. Also being requested is a modification of the tentative plan with changes in phasing and compliance with Section 8.24 of the municipal code, Flood Damage Prevention. Original approval of the tentative plan was based on earlier flood hazard maps. Mr. Burt reviewed two different flood maps, one showing the subdivision at the time it was first platted and its relationship to the flood plain; the second map demonstrated the current impact of the new flood plain location on the tentative plan. Because of the flood hazard implication of the proposed modification, it was determined that the application should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Burt explained that the development could not cause an increase in the flood plain base elevation or increase the boundaries of the floodway. If the applicant can successfully demonstrate through engineered studies that there will be no impact, a final plat can be approved. If the applicant is unable to prove compliance with Chapter 8.24, the final plat will not be approved for Phases 2 and 3. Phase 1 is subject to a conditional letter of map revision demonstrating that there is no adverse impact to the special flood hazard area (SFHA), the base flood elevation (BFE), or floodway boundary. Approval of a Flood Development Permit by the City of Central Point will be required prior to final plat approval. Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2012 Page 3 Mr. Burt stated that due to prior grading activities in the area of the proposed subdivision, the developer will need to come back with engineered plans and demonstrate compliance with the BFE. Chuck Piland asked for an update on the proposed railroad crossing. Mr. Humphrey said that plans are currently being reviewed and once completed, work will commence on a public /private partnership for financing to build the crossing. Mr. Burt reviewed the proposed conditions of approval that the applicant will need to meet prior to final plat approval. The applicant, he said, will be required to pay all costs incurred by the City in order to complete the review as they would need to hire someone with the expertise to review the reports submitted by the applicant. Herb Farber, applicant's agent, came forward and stated that Mr. Burt had explained the requested modification very well and was confident that construction could happen within one foot of BFE. Mr. Farber added that the culverts in the proposed Twin Creeks Crossing would be sized properly to deal with flood water. Ultimately, he said, water would go down into bioswales along the railroad. This would remove the flood hazard from the property in the floodway and not spread it out into the development. The revised conditions of approval are acceptable to the applicant. The results of mitigation will provide improvement for all properties in the development so that it doesn't impact the master planned area. Bioswales should be adequate to handle a flood event. Warren Horton, a neighbor, came forward and added that the ODOT and Jackson County culverts along Jackson Creek are plugged and that there is trash in the creeks that blocks the water flow. He stated that with maintenance, these culverts wouldn't be a problem. Mr. Humphrey said that he would contact the county roads department as they are responsible for the channel remaining serviceable. Creek water is also used for irrigation, he said. Mike Oliver made a motion to approve Resolution 788 granting approval of an extension and minor modification to the North Village tentative plan Phases 1 and 2 based upon the revised staff report dated August 7, 2012, including attachments A through C, resetting the approval date of the modified tentative plan to August 7, 2012, with an expiration date of August 7, 2013. Tim Schmeusser seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Oliver, yes; Szczesniak, yes; Samuelson, yes; Schineusser, yes; Van Voorhees, yes; and Nelson, yes. Motion carried. VII. DISCUSSION — East Pine Street Master Plan Don Burt advised that the planning department had been studying the area north of Beebe Road and west of Hamrick Road, including the proposed CP -3 urban reserve area to create an eastside transit oriented development (TOD) district. Services to this property, approximately 106.24 acres, are adequate and the facilities are there to realize this area's urban potential. A master plan is being proposed addressing future density. One of the Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2012 Page 4 criteria for determining maximum density will be planned trip capacity of the adjacent arterial and collector street system. This evening, Mr. Burt was looking to the commissioners for feedback on density. The proposed density requirements set forth in the Regional Plan establish maximum new development density of 7.4 units per acre over current volumes over the next 50 years. Mr. Burt is proposing a maximum density of approximately 11.5 in the East Pine TOD. Because of its location, it would be well suited for urban development. The infrastructure is available to the property and the City would like to try to create a walkable environment with design standards. Mr. Burt advised the group that this area would be comprised of mixed uses. In response to questions raised about increased traffic in the area, Mr. Burt said that the streets, with improvements would be able to handle approximately a maximum of 25,000 additional average daily trips (ADT). Mr. Burt said that he would bring the transportation system plan to the September meeting in response to a question regarding current trips. Commissioners were generally in agreement that staff should pursue planning this area for urban development with mixed uses at a higher density. Tom Humphrey pointed out that the bulk of this land is already within the urban growth boundary and can be developed before we expand to bring in other land. The City can still accommodate higher densities in the downtown core. Don Burt stated that it would be easier to start with a higher density master plan than a lower one. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS — None IX. MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey distributed a handout on the East Pine Street corridor refinement plan streetscape design alternatives for Commissioners to review. This will be reviewed and discussed at a later date. X. ADJOURNMENT Mike Oliver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Tom Van Voorhees seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the August 7, 2012 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on 2012. Planning Commission Chair EAST PINE STREET MASTER PLAN STAFF REPORT 0 M-- AOW%lk CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT September 4, 2012 Community Development tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director ITEM: Consideration and discussion of the East Pine Street Master Plan. Applicant: City of Central Point STAFF SOURCE: Don Burt, AICP, EDFP, Planning Manager BACKGROUND: Over a year ago the City Council directed staff to prepare a master plan for the vacant acreage (Study Area) north of East Pine Street and west of Hamrick Road. The Study Area consists of 160 acres of predominantly vacant land. Preparation of a master plan has been dependent on adoption of the Regional Plan Element establishing final residential density standards. On August 7, 2012 the Planning Commission was introduced to alternative density targets for the Study Area. The Planning Commission requested that the density discussion be continued and that Staff provide additional information addressing transportation concerns. DISCUSSION: At the September 4, 2012 Planning Commission meeting the density discussion will continue, supplemented by information on transportation and land use. The background information for the discussion is presented in the attached draft memorandum. The draft memorandum addresses: Density — The Regional Plan Element establishes a minimum density standard applicable to all new residential development. Between 2010 and 2035 the minimum average density must be 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre, or greater. By 2036 the minimum density must be increased to 7.9 dwelling units per gross acre. Land Use — To achieve the minimum density standard it will be necessary to modify the current land use mix, particularly within the residential category. The Regional Plan Element contains a policy statement directing the use of mixed -use zoning as an alternative to conventional zoning. In response to this policy directive the residential zoning districts in Section 17.65, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District of the City's Zoning Ordinance, have been used as the source of land use for the Study Area. A recommended land use plan will be presented at the meeting. Transportation — The City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) addresses the full development of the Study Area, including the street system improvements needed to maintain a level of service (LOS) D. Changes in land use /density must not exceed those allotted in the TSP, without having to amend the TSP. Additional transportation information addressing the latest available traffic generation will be presented at the meeting. Page 1 of 2 ISSUES: Throughout the discussion the primary issue will be the magnitude of change required as a result of the new Regional Plan Element's density standard. Fortunately, the City already has development standards in place that provide a broad range of residential densities sufficient to meet the Regional Plan Element's minimum requirement. With respect to the transportation impact question discussion will address the City's TSP and the impact of various densities on the TSP's project list. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A ": Draft Memorandum, East Pine Street Master Plan ACTION: Discussion and direction. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare a final master plan for the Study Area using the current TOD District standards with a density not to exceed 7.4 units per gross acre and the land use distribution as presented at the meeting. Page 2 of 2 Draft Memorandum East Pine Street Master Plan To: Planning Commission From: Don Burt, Planning Manager Date: September 4, 2012 I. INTRODUCTION Within the City's current Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) there is an area (Figure 1) of approximately 160 acres at the northeast corner of 1 -5 and East Pine Street (Study Area). The Study Area accounts for a large percentage of the City's vacant acreage, both residential (28 %) and commercial (37 %). Over a year ago the City Council directed staff to prepare a master plan for this area. The purpose of the master planning effort was to facilitate the efficiency and quality of the area's development as a mixed -use neighborhood. The success of the master planning process is heavily dependent on the adoption of the Regional Plan Element. The Regional Plan Element establishes minimum residential density requirements, and reinforces the continued and expanded use of mixed -use development in Central Point. With respect to mixed -use development the City currently has standards (Section 17.65, TOD District) that support mixed -use. The standards in Section 17.65 address: • Density; • Use; • Site development (coverage, landscaping, set backs, etc.); and • Building design For master planning purposes it is proposed that the area be rezoned as a TOD District. In applying the TOD designation the first task and focus of this memorandum, will be to re- evaluate the current land use, and the necessary changes to achieve the minimum i.....................' ...., density requirements in the Regional Plan i Element. ....... II. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY In addressing the master planning of the Study Area, density will be the primary point of discussion followed by a brief discussion of the TOD District density standards and finally a review of three Study Area development scenarios. These will illustrate changes in land use on density and transportation. The three development scenarios are: w Fr "; .. OAK: i Legend r �SludyArea Central Point Zoning CP 3 Urban Reserve Area - ^•° Cily Limits R -L Low Density Residential County Zone —•••• Urban Growth Boundary R -1 -8 SF Resdentia18.000 Resource R -1 -6 SF Residential 6,000 Rural Residential -5 Ac R -2 Two - Family Reeldent:al - C -4 Tourist and Office Figure 1 Zone Districts Eastside TOD Development Plan 1. Current Zoning Build -Out; 2. TOD Overlay on Current Zoning; and 3. TOD Overlay to meet Minimum Density Requirements. The Regional Plan Element The recently adopted Regional Plan Element set mandatory minimum density requirements for new residential development. These density standards apply to all residential lands within the UGB and URA. They are not applicable to lands within the City, but if applied within the City limits can be used to offset the required minimum density in the UGB and URA. Figure 2 illustrates the Study Area's City Limits, UGB and URA boundaries. The minimum density standards are divided into two time periods: • 2010 and 2035 a minimum density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre; and • 2036 to 2060 a minimum density of 7.9 dwelling units per gross acre For purposes of this memorandum a minimum density of 7.4 (average of the two densities) will be used. Ew :i1 �• - L.g.rd ....... Study Area Urban Growth Boundary Within City Limits Urban Reserve Area CP -3 City Limit, UGB and URA Eastside TOD Development Plan The Regional Plan Element also restates the City's Transportation System Plan policy regarding the use of mixed -use development; specifically: • 26% of all new residential development will be located in mixed - use /pedestrian - friendly areas; and • 17% of all new employment will be located in mixed- use /pedestrian- friendly areas. Section 17.65 TOD Standards The most sensible approach to master planning the Study Area is to first consider use of the existing tools available to the City. In the City's current zoning ordinance the TOD standards (Section 17.65) effectively address the objectives of the Regional 3 Plan Element, for both density, and mixed -use requirements. The advantage of using the TOD standards over conventional zoning is the advantage of the site development standards. Not only does the TOD District provide for greater range of density, it also includes site development standards that promote a walkable neighborhood environment. The Twin Creeks Development is an example of the application of Section 17.65, and will be used in this memorandum as an example for comparison purposes. Twin Creeks TOD The Twin Creeks Development (230 acres) is an example of the successful application of the City's existing TOD standards. Twin Creeks will be used not only as an illustration, but also as a benchmark for the three development scenarios prepared for the Study Area. Because density is the primary consideration at this time we will restrict the Twin Creeks data to its residential component. As illustrated in Table 1 the Twin Creeks TOD residential component is represented by three TOD zoning districts: • Low Density Mixed Residential (LMR); • Medium Density Mixed Residential (MMR); and • High Density Mixed Residential (HMR). Together these three districts account for 134.75 acres, with LMR accounting for 56% of the total residential acreage, followed by MMR (25 %), and HMR (18 %). Within each residential zoning district the TOD ordinance sets a minimum and a maximum density standard. When applied to each of the residential zoning districts the minimum average density for the Twin Creeks Development is 9.8 units per gross acre, with a maximum not to exceed a density of 18.9 units per gross acre. The Twin Creeks master plan was ultimately approved at a density of 11.10 units per net acre (1,475 units). At a density of 11.10 units the Twin Creeks TOD meets the Regional Plan Element's minimum density requirement. The advantage of the TOD development standards is that they permit considerable flexibility in allowing developers to respond to changing market conditions through a mix of housing densities and types. The TOD development standards assure that the quality of development, regardless of the density, is maintained. 11 Table 1. TWIN CREEK TOD, Residential Density Zoning Gross Acres Min. Density Max. Density Min. Build- Out Max. Build - Out LMR 24.01 4.7 9.4 352 704 MMR 33.67 10.9 25.0 367 842 HMR 24.16 24.0 40.0 580 966 TOTAL 132.74 9.8 18.9 1,299 2,512 Master Plan 132.74 11.10 - 1,475 - Approved III. DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS For purposes of discussing density the following three scenarios have been developed. The intent of the scenarios is not to provide a final solution, but to illustrate the density options. All scenarios are based on build -out of the Study Area. The assumptions used in developing the scenarios are presented at the end of this memorandum. With the exception of transportation the Study Area has access to infrastructure sufficient in capacity to accommodate each density scenario. The City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) identifies the improvements needed to support the Study Area's build -out. The TSP's ability to adequately service the Study Area is based on a P.M. Peak Hour trip count at build -out of not more than 2,135 trips. If the P.M. Peak Hour trip limitation is exceeded then the TSP needs to be re- evaluated. To address this limitation each scenario includes P.M. Peak hour trips based on the land use at build -out. Scenario 1 - Current Land Use Scenario 1 represents build -out of the Study Area based on current minimum and maximum residential densities as identified in the Zoning Ordinance. Included in Scenario 1 is an estimate of the P.M. Peak hour trip generation to be expected at build -out. Table 2 illustrates build -out under current zoning. To maximize the Study Area's build -out density the church site (Shepherd of the Valley) is evaluated as R -1 -6 residential land. 5 Table 2. Scenario 1 - Current Zoning Build -Out Zoning Gross Min. Density Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Acres Density Build- Build- P.M. P.M. Out Out Peak Peak Traffic Traffic R -L 9.23 .8 9.4 7 17 2 4 R -1 -6 55.16 3.2 25.0 177 259 92 135 R -1 -8 20.02 2.4 3.9 48 78 30 48 R -2 16.96 4.7 9.4 50 150 16 32 R -3 - 11.0 19.5 - - - - Total 101.37 3.07 5.86 312 512 140 220 Residential Open 21.33 - - - - 12.58 12.58 Space Commercial 37.54 - - - - 1,525 1,525 TOTAL 160.24 - - - - 1,677 1,744 Compliance with Minimum Density Requirement — Scenario 1, at a minimum density of 3.07, does not meet the minimum density requirement of the Regional Plan Element. At maximum density (5.84) this scenario still does not meet minimum density requirements. Compliance with Maximum Peak Hour Trips — Based on maximum density build -out the Study Area will generate a maximum 1, 744 P.M. Peak Hour trips. This is below the 2,135 trips used in the TSP, and therefore consistent with the TSP. Scenario 2 - TOD Overlay on Current Zoning Scenario 2 represents the application of equivalent TOD zoning in lieu of current zoning. As an example, if the current zoning is R -1 then TOD LMR is applied. If the current zoning is R -2 the MMR TOD zoning is applied, etc. The acreage, density and trip generation are presented in Table 3. To maximize the Study Area's build -out density the church site (Shepherd of the Valley) is evaluated on the basis of residential build -out at its R -1 -6 density range. 6 Table 3. Scenario 2 — TOD OVERLAY ON CURRENT ZONING Zoning Gross Min. Density Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Acres Density Build- Build- P.M. P.M. Out Out Peak Peak Traffic Traffic R -L (LMR) 9.23 .8 9.4 7 17 11.7 23 R -1 -6 (LMR) 55.16 3.2 25.0 177 259 135 270 R -1 -8 (LMR) 20.02 2.4 3.9 48 78 58 117 R -2 (M M R) 16.96 4.7 9.4 50 150 37 85 R -3 (HMR) - 11.0 19.5 - - - - Total 101.37 5.74 12.0 582 1,217 242 495 Residential open 11.JJ - - - - 12.58 12.58 Space Commercial 37.54 - - - - 1,525 1,525 TOTAL 160.24 - - - - 1,779 2,032 Compliance with Minimum Density Requirement — Scenario 2, at a minimum density of 5.74, does not meet the minimum density requirement of the Regional Plan Element. The residential mix needs to be increased in the MMR and/or HMR districts. Compliance with Maximum Peak Hour Trips — At 2,032 trips the maximum P.M. Peak Hour trip generation of Scenario 2 is within the 2,135 trips used in the TSP, and is therefore consistent with the TSP. Scenario 3 — TOD Zoning Option In Scenario 3 land use is modified and TOD zoning applied as necessary to achieve the minimum density requirement of the Regional Plan Element. As illustrated in Table 4 the maximum P.M. Peak Hour trip generation (1,854) does not adversely affect the TSP, and would therefore not require changes in the TSP project list. Unlike the other two scenarios the church site is evaluated on the basis of build -out as a church facility, which has the effect of reducing residential density. 7 Table 4. TOD BUILD -OUT Zoning Gross Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. P.M. Max. P.M. Commercial Acres Density Density Build- Build- Peak Peak Out Out Traffic Traffic LMR 61.0 4.7 9.4 287 573 77 155 MMR 29.44 10.9 25.0 321 736 64 147 H M R 5.0 24.0 40.0 120 200 25 42 Total 95.44 7.62 15.82 728 1,509 166 344 Residential unurcn 5.Uj - - - - 14.1 14.1 Open Space 21.33 - - - - 12.58 12.58 Commercial 37.54 - - - - 1,525 1,525 TOTAL 160.249.8 7.62 15.82 728 1,509 1,718 1,896 Compliance with Minimum Density Requirement — Scenario 3, at a minimum density of 7.62, does meet the minimum density requirement of the Regional Plan Element. Compliance with Maximum Peak Hour Trips —At 1,896 trips the maximum P.M. Peak trip generation of Scenario 3 is within the 2,135 trips used in the TSP, and therefore consistent with the TSP. IV. CONCLUSION Use of the City's TOD standards as the basis for master planning of the Study Area is an effective means of addressing the density requirements of the Regional Plan Element, as well as the use of mixed -use development. V. SUPPORT INFORMATION The following information explains, in further detail, the source of data and assumptions used in preparing this memorandum. Transportation As the City develops it will be necessary to periodically upgrade the transportation system to maintain a minimum level of service. To achieve this the City uses a two -step process. The first is through the preparation of a Transportation System Plan (TSP), which addresses the long- term transportation needs of the City. The City's long -term transportation needs are based on the Land Use Plan and the rate of development, from which specific transportation improvements necessary to maintain a level of service D are identified. It also includes the estimated timing and cost of the improvements. Secondarily, as a check - and - balance to the TSP the City relies on what is referred to as a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). TIAs are required of development projects that will add 250 or more average daily trips. The purpose of the TIA is to confirm, or modify, the timing of improvements identified in the TSP. According to the TSP the East Pine TOD, at build -out, can accommodate 2,135 P.M. Peak Hour trips, provided that during the course of the area's build -out the improvements identified in the TSP are completed in a timely manner sufficient to maintain a LOS D. Discussion of the changes in density within the East Pine TOD area will use these TSP projections for comparison between density options and the current Land Use Plan. Development Assumption The preparation of the scenarios discussed in this memorandum were based on the following assumptions: All lands are considered to be vacant. This assumption is based on the finding that most of the tax lots are either vacant or underdeveloped. Build -out was considered to occur within a 20 -year period, 2012 -2032. Infra - structure. With the exception of transportation, infra - structure availability can adequately serve all development scenarios. Transportation infrastructure is limited to the Study Area's generation of a maximum 2,135 P.M. Peak Hour trips at build -out. Density. Residential densities were calculated on the gross acreage of each tax lot. The minimum and maximum density requirements for each residential zoning district were adjusted to gross density terms. Commercial Land. There are no proposed changes in the Commercial land use designation. The amount of commercial gross floor area development potential was based on a floor area to acreage ratio of 1:25 (1sq. ft. of commercial gross floor area for each 25 sq. ft. of gross land area). For transportation purposes all commercial development was considered retail /office (most aggressive). Existing Conditions The Study Area contains 160.24 acres. The Area is represented by lands currently within the City (37 %), in the UGB (40 %), and in the URA (23 %). The Study Area borders the City on the east, north, and south. To the west the Study Area borders the Expo property. Considering its E size and location the Study Area is currently the City's single largest potential growth area. As illustrated in Table 1 the predominant land use is residential, followed by commercial and open space. The Study Area accounts for over 28% of the City's vacant residential land inventory and 37% of the vacant commercial land inventory. Existing Development The Study Area is currently occupied by thirteen single - family residential dwellings, a church, and three agricultural buildings. Zoning & Comprehensive Plan The Area is predominantly planned and zoned for residential and commercial use. Table 2 illustrates the acreage distribution by land use, and zoning. To accommodate Scenario 3 it will be necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element /Map to designate the Study Area as a TOD District. t i � i- Figure 3 Eastside TOD Development Plan Ownerships 10 EAST PINE STREET CORRIDOR REFINEMENT PLAN STAFF REPORT CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT September 4, 2012 Community Development Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director ITEM: A discussion of the East Pine Street Corridor Refinement Plan Streetscape Design Alternatives. After analyzing the relative efficiency of two `Road Diet' scenarios (three and four lanes) for Pine Street in the Downtown, the City Council directed staff to produce Streetscape design alternatives for each of these scenarios. The Planning Commission was given a copy of these alternatives which will be discussed at the meeting. STAFF SOURCE: Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director BACKGROUND: The Community Development Department has overseen the work of land use and transportation consultants who were hired and funded by the state to evaluate ways to make Central Point's Downtown more safe and attractive while preserving Pine Street's transportation function. There has been a lot of speculation in the past about whether a three -lane street would function as well as a four -lane street and that question has been answered as part of this Corridor Refinement Plan. The Streetscape Design Alternatives allow decision - makers to visualize what the changes could look like without actually making the improvements. An estimate of the cost associated with these improvements is also provided for discussion. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission was given copies of the above mentioned material and we will talk about the relative appearance, overall appeal and the value of the design alternatives. It has occurred to planning staff that Pine Street improvements (in whatever form they take) will not necessarily be a `silver bullet' to revitalize Central Point's Downtown. Street improvements will probably be a component of a larger plan that is tied to economic revitalization involving public investment in infrastructure, private investment in property, the right combination of businesses, more effective marketing, etc. The Commission's review will be limited to the Design Alternatives however, the discussion can range into other areas that may help to contextualize the street improvements. ISSUES: There is a limited right -of -way on Pine Street (80') within which to satisfy multiple and often competing objectives. Wider sidewalks are needed in order to meet minimum conditions for a Main Street design which is a combination of safety and amenities. Consequently, travel lane widths would need to be reduced. No one is in favor of eliminating parking however, in order to add some amenities without reducing lane widths, some spaces would need to be removed. ATTACHMENTS: Alternatives were distributed at the previous meeting. ACTION: None required. RECOMMENDATION: Consider materials distributed at the meeting, give attention to those areas to which you're directed by planning staff and ask questions about the nature of the public meetings and review. The Commission will not be expected to make a recommendation to the City Council at this time.