Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAC Minutes - August 16, 2005City of Central Point Special Joint Meeting Citizen's Advisory Committee & Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 2005 7:20 P.M. 1. Meeting Called to Order II. Roll Call: Connie Moczygemba, Chairperson; Candy Fish, Planning Commissioner; Damian Idiart, Planning Commissioner; Mack Lewis, Planning Commissioner; Scott Mangold, Planning Commissioner; Chuck Piland, Planning Commissioner; Wayne Riggs, Planning Commissioner; Walter Moczygemba, CAC Chairman; Herb Farber, CAC; Sam Inkleg Jr., CAC; Sam Inkley, Sr., CAC, David Painter, CAC; Peg Wiedman, CAC were present. Joe Thomas, CAC.; was absent. Also in attendance was Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director Don Burt, Interim Planning Manager; and Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician. III. Minutes There were no minutes. Minutes from prior meeting to be approved at the next individual regularly scheduled meeting. IV. Public appearances There were no public appeazances V. Business A. Public Meeting for re-consideration of the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) potential future growth areas surrounding Central Paint. Planning Chairperson, Connie Moczygemba asked if anyone had conflicts of interest or ex-pane communications [o disclose. Candy Fish stated that she has 130 acres listed for sale in area CP6a. Peg W iedman owns property within area CP6a. Sam Inkley, Jr. owns property within area CP26. All Citizen Advisory Committee members introduced themselves Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director explained the purpose and role of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). Mr. Humphrey gave an overview and background regazding the 1"recommendation for the urban reserve azea made by the CAC and Planning Commission. This process evolved and more input was received from various agencies, as to whether or not they would support [he areas recommended before. He explained that the Technical Advisory Committee wants to see this process wrapped up. The City of Central Point is looking at a 37,000 - 40,000 population within 35-40 years. Mr. Humphrey went through each of the previously recommended areas. CP-1 was met with opposition because of agricultural land, i[ could have an impact for ODOT, and DLCD opposed the area. CP-2 couldn't handle all of the growth expected by itself. The City will need approximately 2300 acres and therefore began looking at other areas that may work. There was a modification to the azea west of Grant Road adding more acreage to the original 33 acres recommended. He explained that no matter what direction the City chooses, we will run into agricultural land. On Plan `A', area CP-2 had been reduced significantly. Mr. Humphrey stated that if there are existing natural features, they can be supported in master planning. This area would be difficult to efficiently develop given the number of already divided land. Area 4a was added including west of Boes Avenue. Area CP6a was added. The property owners are not in agreement with the classification of good agricultural land. There aze also pending Measure 37 claims in this area. CP-I was amended based on a new potential industrial azea being able to capitalize on the interchange, and respecting boundaries of a new interchange on exit 35. This plan accommodates County Commissioner Gilmore's plan [o create a new industrial town. There are fatal flaws in Plan `A'. The biggest being no continuity with City boundaries. Don Buri, Interim Planning Manager, stated that it consideration of growth areas should be based on an underlying philosophy. One such approach is [o develop in centric pattern around your core downtown area. You want to try to balance both sides for development. Mr. Humphrey added that the County wants [o develop also in the CP-1 azea. Our azgument to support this area would be sttonger since [he County wants to develop there. There are several agencies against CP-l. This area was identified because of the unique opportunity with the railroad and freeway. There aze many reasons why transportation is looking at moving away from trucking to rail. This area is a prime candidate for industrial development. Mr. Humphrey continued through each of the options. The City needs further clarification of how industrial (and will be allocated. Whether the industrial land will be limited to certain areas in the region, or if Central Point would be entitled to have industrial land. There were questions regarding utilities, proposed route to connect Highway 62 to I-5, how much weight the City has in the decision making, and which plan the City recommends, supports and why. Chairperson Moczygemba opened the public portion of the meeting. Citizen # 1 -Lives on Linden Lane. Would like to see a buffer. Would like to see a few larger pazcels for housing. Citizen #2 -Had questions regarding plans. Mazk Barthomew, Attorney representing Elk Farms south of Beall Lane and west of US Highway 99 urged the CAC & Planning Commission to consider taking this azea in. He stated that it could be master planned and it will unlikely be used as agricultural in the future. The property owner is considering a Measure 37 claim. Elk Fazms consists of approximately 300 acres and would probably divide them into io 2 acre pazcels. Citizen #3 -Lives on Taylor Road is a proponent of Area 6a. He has a pending Measure 37 claim. This azea is more contiguous with the downtown azea. Water resides all along the boundaries. There are larger pazcels which aze easier to master plan. Right now there is 135 acres along there with only 4 houses. The ]and has a class 3 soil, which can not support intensive crops. Dorian Bradshaw of 7 Oaks Farms said they appear to be right in the middle of what everyone else wants them to be. There has been interest in their property in relation to the Interchange. Feels the City should have input on the Interchange. No one else came forward to speak in favor of or against any other aeeas. Chairperson Moczygemba closed the public portion of the meeting. There were additional questions regazding Measure 37, and how property owners could develop with the waiver but would still need to meet other requirements. Some members felt that whether certain properties were in the City limits or not, they will develop and may not develop to the City's standazds. There were questions regarding CP-1 and why it wen[ so far north. Mr. Humphrey explained that because of the larger parcels and best connection between the railroad and highway. The larger parcels would be needed for industrial uses. There were variations discussed about adding an area included in another option to another one. Herb Farber, CAC recommended Plan `B' as i[ stands. Scott Mangold, Planning Commission recommended Plan `B' as it stands. Recommendation: Chairperson Moczygemba asked those who were in favor of Plau `B' say "Aye". Those who are opposed of Plan `B' please raise your baud. Commissioner Idiart raised his head. Mc Humphrey asked the Citizen Advisory Committee and Planning Commission to offer some reasons as to why [hey recommended Plan `B'. Some of the reasons were: CP-6 can be easily developed; it could preserve agricultural land to the northeast; JC Commissioner Gilmore's plan is a good idea, and could be done by the City; if the azea in CP-1 is going to be industrial, we want the citizens of Central Point to have input instead of under the authority of the County. VI. Miscellaneous There were no miscellaneous items. VII. Adjournment The committee adjourned at approximately 9:40 P.M.