Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAC Minutes - November 28, 2006City of Central Point Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting - CP-2B, CP3 & CP-8 November 28, 2006 6:00 p.m. A Citizens Advisory Committee meeting was held in City Council Chambers on November 28, 2006, commencing at 6:00 p.m. Present were Joe Thomas, Herb Farber, Sam Inkley, Jr, David Painter, and Jake Jakabosky. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Don Bur[, Planning Manager, Connie Clune, Community Planneq and Didi Thomas, Plaming Secretary. Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, thanked everyone in the audience for attending the meeting and provided a brief description of the purpose of the Citizens Advisory Committee and how the committee functions. After introducing his staff, Mr. Humphrey asked CAC committee members to introduce themselves and then fumed the meeting over [o Don Burt, Planning Manager. Mr. Buri advised [he group that they had been invited to the meeting because of the potential impact on their property with a proposed UGB expansion. No decisions were going to be made this evening -that the purpose of the gathering was for staff to provide background information, obtain input from property owners, and answer any questions that people might have. Mr. Burt then proceeded with a power point presentation covering the following issues: The Regional Problem Solving process as displayed in a color-coded map of the Central Point area indicating the anticipated growth pattern over [he next 40 - 50 years. What an Urban Growth Boundary is - a geographical boundary with lands designated for urban development for future needs in the next 20 yeazs in adequate quality and quantity. Lands need [o be developable. Mr. Burt informed the group [ha[ being in [he UGB did not mean that their property would or could be annexed into the City right away. Any particular property would need to be contiguous to existing City limits prior to being considered for annexation. Why do we need an Urban Growth Boundary -The State of Oregon mandates a UGB adequate ht area [o support 20 yeazs worth of future growth (Goal 14). Land needs are deteanined by population projections that [he counties are required to prepare. Based on Jackson County population projections for the next 20 years, it is Ci[iuns Advisory Committee November 28, 2006 Page 2 anticipated that Central Point will add over 8,000 people to its current population. This increase in population will create a need for 950 acres of buildable land. Currently there is an estimated 280 acres of buildable land within the existing UGB for future development. Based on preliminary estimates, an additional 670 acres need to be added to the UGB. The City's options would be [o: 1) include development capacity of lands already inside the curtent UGB; 2) expand the UGB; 3) both. The Ciry of Central Point anticipates utilizing option #3 -both. Population variables would include the size of households -the average of which is projected to be 2.5 2.7 persons per household. Density is projected to be 5.5 - 6 units per acre in the future in order to use less land and use it more efficienfly. Guidelines jor the location of an Uiban Growth Boundary come from the Slate of Oregon: • Efficient accommodation of identified land needs • Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services • Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and • Compatibility of [he proposed urban uses with neazby agricultural land outside of UGB The City anticipates a possible expansion pattern of north to Wilson Road as utilities aze located nearby (there are, however, some storm drainage issues in this area); expansion west of Gebhazd Road, north above Scenic Avenue and west of Grant Road as services are available to these areas. The priority of placing lands to be included within a UCB would include: Land designated urban reserve (currently being worked on but not ye[ designated); Land adjacent to an urban growth boundary identified as an exception area or non-resource land. Resource land may be included if completely surtounded by exception areas; Land designated as marginal land (ORS 197.247 - we don't have any of these lands in Central Point); and Land designated for agricultuml or forestry use. Following Mr. Burt's presentation, property owners Warren Horton, Antone Pedersen, Duane Mallams, Mike Duncan, Janet Jones, and Leon Callahan expressed concerns and made comments relative to a proposed UGB expansion into their neighborhoods: • Concern for saleability of property as subdividable at [his time; • Length of time involved in annexation proceeding; • Ability to file a sepazate application for a UGB expansion of property if no UGB expansion occurs; Citizens Advisory Committee November 28, 2006 Page 3 • Transportation planning in proposed expansion areas; • Feasibility of controlling growth much like Jacksonville and Ashland have done; • Density issues, traffic congestion and increase in crime; • Intermixing urban growth with farmland; • Suggestion to create a beltline in an attempt [o relieve traffic congestion on Pine Street; • Request for another I-5 off/on-ramp from the State of Oregon (ODOT); • Maintaining the character of neighborhoods; • Concern that [here might be forced annexations; • Other alternatives [o the selection ofnon-agricultural land; • Creation of business and shopping opportmrities within the City of Central Point; • Limiting population growth; • Affordability of property; • Orderly growth; and • Increases in property taxes. Staff responded to the issues raised and reiterated that this was only a preliminary meeting to obtain input and answer questions. Once plans have been formulated for an expansion, there will be further public involvement. Joe Thomas said that every effort was being made to move the process along. Don Burt added that staff would have a better idea of where the proposed UGB would be in Spring of 2007. Joe Thomas then asked for a show of hands for those in favor and those opposed to the Urban Growth Boundary expansion into the present CP-2 azea. Only one person in the audience indicated a "no"vote. Joe Thomas then thanked everyone for attending the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.