HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP010815Central Point
City Hall
541-664-3321
City Council
Mayor
Hank Williams
Ward I
Bruce Dingler
Ward 11
Michael Quilty
Ward III
Brandon Thueson
Ward IV
Allen Broderick
At Large
David Douglas
Rick Samuelson
Administration
Chris Clayton, City
Manager
Deanna Casey, City
Recorder
Community
Development
Tom Humphrey,
Director
Finance
Bev Adam S Director
Human Resources
Barb Robson, Director
Parks and Public
Works
Matt Samitore,
Director
Jennifer Boardman,
Manager
Police
Kris Allison Chief
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
City Council Meeting Agenda
January 8, 2015
Next Res. 1416
Next Ord. 1998
I. OATH OF OFFICE — 7:00 P.M.
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
11�91i4vIYU�_U�YHL1�[ai
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES —Comments will be limited to 3 minutes per
individual ors minutes if representing a group or organization.
V. CONSENTAGENDA
Page 2 - 9 A. Approval of December 8, 2014 Council Minutes
1r]Yi4LTA FAR 7LTA Wr/7Cli:TULTA [dUi M9i 1W-,Tcl90 1111, 1
VII. PUBLIC HEARING, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS
11-29 A. Public Hearing — First Reading of an Ordinance
Amending An Agreement Between the City of Central
Point, Oregon and Jackson County, Oregon for the Joint
Management of the Central Point Urban Growth
Boundary (Humphrey)
31-36 B. Public Hearing — First Reading of an Ordinance
Amending the Comprehensive Plan Map (Minor) to Add
Approximately 48 Acres to the Central Point Urban
Growth Boundary East of Interstate 5, North of Upton
Road to the Seven Oaks Interchange (Exit 35) Including
Dean Creek Road (Humphrey)
38-57 C. Public Hearing — First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Central
Point Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.08.010 Definitions; 17.64.040, Land
use — TOD District; 17.65.050 Zoning Regulation — TOD District; and
17.65.070 Zoning Regulations — TOD Corridor (Humphrey)
59-66 D. Ordinance No. Amending Central Point Municipal Code
Chapter 6.08 Animal Control (Allison)
68-78 E. Ordinance No. An Ordinance Amending the Central Point
Zoning Map on Lot 33 of Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase 1 (1.81 Acres) From
TOD-HMR, High Mix Residential to TOD-LMR, Low Mix Residential Zoning
(Humphrey)
VIII. BUSINESS
A. Planning Commission Report(Humphrey)
IX. MAYOR'S REPORT
X. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
XI. COUNCIL REPORTS
XII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
EIII!•*14Y411111LyJY.iYt5-1W01
The City Council may adjourn to executive session under the provisions of ORS 192.660.
Under the provisions of the Oregon Public Meetings Law, the proceedings of an
executive session are not for publication or broadcast.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Consent Agenda
CAP010815 Page
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
City Council Meeting Minutes
December 11, 2014
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Mayor Williams called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL: Mayor: Hank Williams
Council Members: Allen Broderick, Bruce Dingler, Kelly
Geiger, Rick Samuelson, David Douglas, and Ellie George
were present.
City Manager Chris Clayton; City Attorney Darrell Jarvis;
Police Chief Kris Allison; Community Development Director
Tom Humphrey; Finance Director Bev Adams; Parks and
Public Works Director Matt Samitore; and City Recorder
Deanna Casey were also present.
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
V. SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Mayor Williams and City Manager Chris Clayton presented Councilors Geiger
and George with certificates of service. This is their last meeting on the City
Council.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of November 13, 2014 City Council Minutes
B. Approval of 2015 Committee Reappointments
Allen Broderick moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. David
Douglas seconded. Rall call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Kelly
Geiger, yes; Allen Broderick, yes; David Douglas, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and
Ellie George, yes. Motion approved.
VII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA - None
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 1415, Canvassing the Votes Cast at the General
Election Held November 4, 2014
City Manager Chris Clayton explained the City Charter requires that the Council
canvas all election returns at the first regularly scheduled meeting following
receipt from the County Clerk of the certification of election results. The proposed
CAP010815 Paget
City o/C',Ct' d Point
City cc?"C"I Min utc.
Ucccn,hcr 11, 2014
Pngc 2
resolution canvasses the total number of votes for each position, the name of
each person elected to office and the office to which they have been elected.
Bruce Dingier moved to approve Resolution No. 1415, Canvassing the
Votes Cast at the general Election Held November 4, 2014. Ellie George
seconded. Rall call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Kelly Geiger, yes;
Allen Broderick, yes; David Douglas, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Ellie
George, yes. Motion approved.
B. Public Hearing- First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Central
Point Zoning Map on Lot 33 of Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase 1 (1.81
Acres) from TOD-HMR, High Mix Residential to TOD-LMR, Low Mix
Residential Zoning
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey explained that the proposed
amendment to the zoning map is for the Twin Creeks Retirement Center, a
congregate living facility, which was developed on land designated HMR in 2009.
The Applicant is requesting a zone change from High Mix Residential to Low Mix
Residential adjacent to the Retirement Center.
The request meets all required criteria and is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. There are adequate public services and transportation available to the
area. The developer of Twin Creeks TOD has prepared a mitigation plan
conditionally approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
He stated that this is a public hearing and that notices have been posted and
mailed according to State law.
Mayor Williams opened the public hearing.
Brett Moore, Applicant and Developer
The Twin Creek Retirement has been a great addition to Central Point. This
would be a draw for those not yet ready for the retirement facility. They would
have access to the larger facility and would be able to transition when ready. The
single family structures will be rentals and will be owned by Twin Creeks
Retirement.
No one else came forward. Mayor Williams closed the public hearing.
Kelly Geiger moved to second reading an Ordinance Amending the Central
Point Zoning Map on Lot 33 of Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase 1 (1.81 Acres)
from TOD-HMR, High Mix Residential to TOD-LMR, Low Mix Residential
Zoning. Rick Samuelson seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler,
yes; Kelly Geiger, yes; Allen Broderick, yes; David Douglas, yes; Rick
Samuelson, yes; and Ellie George, yes. Motion approved.
C. Public Hearing — First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Central
Point Municipal Code Chapter 6.08 Animal Control
CAP010815 Page
City o/C',Ct' d Point
City Cmmci! Min utc.
Ucccnibcr 11, 2014
Pngc 3
Police Chief Kris Allison explained that the proposed Ordinance would require
dog owners to maintain control of their dogs in public places. The City would
impose regulations on dog owners and impose criminal penalties on owners
whose dogs threaten or injure other people or animals. She explained that the
Ordinance is not breed specific. The City Council and Staff discussed the
particulars of the Ordinance at a Study Session in September and it was clear
that the burden should be on the owner, not a specific breed of dog.
The Ordinance is very similar to the City of Medford's. She feels it is important for
jurisdictions that are so close together to be similar on subjects of this kind.
There was discussion regarding transportation of dogs that are running free.
Central Point Police cannot transport them in our police cars. We must rely on
Jackson County Animal Control and they are limited on the hours that they are
available.
Mayor Williams opened the public hearing.
Allen Burns, Central Point Resident
Mr. Burns explained that his dog was attached by an unattended dog. The owner
was never located. He agrees that the ordinance should not be breed specific.
He is concerned that Jackson County Animal Control is not available to help
transport when needed. He agrees that the Central Point Council should put
pressure on Jackson County Animal Control so that they have an on call
enforcement officer to transport vicious animals after regular business hours.
No one else came forward. Mayor Williams closed the public hearing.
Chief Allison will work with Jackson County to see if there are other options
available for the times when they are not available. She may be able to work
something out with the local Animal Hospitals to see if they would be able to
house stray animals on weekends.
Rick Samuelson moved to second reading an Ordinance Amending Central
Point Municipal Code Chapter 6.08 Animal Control. Kelly Geiger seconded.
Rall call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Kelly Geiger, yes; Allen
Broderick, yes; David Douglas, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Ellie George, yes.
Motion approved.
IX. BUSINESS
A. Discussion Regarding the Intersection of Beebe and Hamrick Road
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore explained that the City has been
trying to negotiate the purchase of property needed to install a traffic signal at the
intersection of Hamrick and Beebe Road for the past year. The conversations
have been congenial but the property owner is not interested in selling just a
portion of the property that the city requires for the signal. If the City purchases
the property outright we would need to pay for a relocation study to determine the
CAP010815 Page 4
City o/Ccnbd Point
City Cmmci! MinOc.
Ucccnihcr 11, 2014
Pngc 4
costs associated to relocate the owner to a similar property in the Rogue Valley.
The City would also be required to pay for all relocation/moving expenses.
It would be in the best interest of the city to only purchase what is needed for the
signal. The city offered to build a sound wall along Beebe Road, install two water
meters and give free water for a year and pay $5,000 cash for the corner, which
is approximately 172 square feet. The owner did not like this offer because it did
not include a sound wall along Hamrick. We cannot build a sound wall along
Hamrick Road because it is against our ordinances to do so.
Staff would like to hire a consultant to work through the options to obtain the
property needed for the signal. This will involve hiring an appraiser to determine
cost of the property and putting together a formal offer. If the property owner dos
not agree to the formal offer, the Council would have to discuss the possibility of
condemnation. He reminded the Council that this signal is required before further
construction can continue on the west side of Hamrick. It has been planned for
several years and has been included in traffic studies.
The Council and staff are not in favor of condemnation and we would all like to
see a mutual solution. Staff has been trying to work with the property owner for
over a year with no positive outcome. There are plans currently being reviewed
by the City for White Hawk Subdivision. There have been concerns about this
intersection from citizens come before the Council over the past year.
City Attorney Darrell Jarvis stated that the City can start the process of
condemnation. It is done all the time in many jurisdictions. Property owners
cannot hold up progress if they file a law suit against the city. There does not
appear to be another option for the city in regards to this intersection. The
property owner will still have the required setbacks once the intersection is in
place and the buildings will be intact. The city is only requiring a small portion of
the property.
Allen Broderick made a motion directing staff to move forward with the
appraisal needed for the intersection improvements at Hamrick and Beebe.
Kelly Geiger seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Kelly
Geiger, yes; Allen Broderick, yes; David Douglas, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and
Ellie George, yes. Motion approved.
B. Joint Planning Commission Report
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey reported that the Central Point
Planning Commission and the Jackson County Planning Commission held a joint
meeting on November 20, 2014 to discuss the following items:
• Held a public hearing to consider a resolution to revise the urban growth
boundary management agreement (UGBMA) between the City of Central
Point and Jackson County to improve consistency with the Greater Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan and the City's Regional Plan Element. The
respective planning staffs introduced new language to the Commissioners
CAP010815 Pages
City "f c,0, d PC, n t
City Cmmci! MinOc.
Ucccnihcr 11, 2014
Pngc
which are intended to address "areas of mutual planning concern' for
Forest/Gibbon Acres and Jackson County Expo. Other changes were
made to clean up the agreement and to make City/County land use
protocols more clear. Once the UGBMA is adopted by both parties, a
joint meeting will become an option and not a requirement in the future.
The changes also satisfy regional planning requirements which allow the
City to proceed with UGB amendments. Both commissions supported the
UGBMA revisions.
Held a public hearing to consider a resolution to the City Council to
amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to add approximately 48 acres to
the City of Central Point Urban Growth Boundary east of Interstate 5;
along and including Dean Creek Road; between the Seven Oaks
Interchange and Old Upton Road. The Community Development
Department introduced the City's application to the County to amend its
UGB into Urban Reserve Area CP -4D. Both Commissions supported the
proposal as did various agencies who were asked to comment.
The City and County are planning a joint meeting in March to consider a second
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment for a private application made by
Combined Transport Logistics Group.
C. Briefing and Discussion on Issues Related to Approval of Measure
91
Mr. Clayton explained that there have been several articles in the paper
regarding the legality of local governments to put in place the ability to tax the
sale of marijuana with the passing of Oregon Ballot Measure 91. He asked the
City Attorney to provide a legal review of the measure and the Ordinance we
have put in place for addressing the Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer explained that the provisions of Measure 91
become effective for homegrown marijuana on July 1, 2015. Licensing for
production, processing, wholesale and retail sales of marijuana becomes
effective January 4, 2016. Under Measure 91, cities have authority to adopt
reasonable time, place, and manner regulations for retail sales; bring nuisance
actions against businesses; and require compliance with other regulations of
general applicability such as land use. Cities also have a local opt out provision
under the initiative process. OLCC will be reviewing the measure and rules that
were put in place.
She explained the regulation options for facilities; licensing; the local option using
the initiative process; the state tax revenue process; and employee drug testing.
The city has put in place regulations for facility and licensing. It is unclear at this
time if the local tax that over 60 cities put in place prior to Measure 91 will be
upheld. It is expected that the local taxes will be challenged and will be a court
decision. Measure 91 does not disturb existing employment laws regarding drug
testing in regards to marijuana. An initiative process is not likely to happen for
Central Point because it would need to be in place prior to the July 2015 date.
The next General Election is November 2016.
CAP010815 Page 6
City o/C',Ct' d Point
City Cmmci! Min utc.
Ucccnibcr 11, 2014
Pngc ti
There was discussion regarding private grows and that there are no options in
place for cities to regulate personal grows. They need to be secure. Cities can
use a chronic nuisance ordinance to help with complaints. Chief Allison and Mrs.
Dreyer will review the current ordinance to make sure it is strong enough to
enforce and help surrounding property owners. We may need to add a section for
odor enforcement.
Mrs. Dreyer stated that we will continue to watch what the state is doing with their
process but does not recommend changing anything that we have already put in
place.
X. MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Williams reported that:
• He attended the Medford Water Commission meeting.
• He was a Judge for the Providence Festival of Trees.
• He attended the Grand Opening for the Dairy Queen.
• He attended the Community Christmas Lights Parade. It was well
attended and the City Staff did a greatjob again this year.
XI. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Chris Clayton reported that:
• We have received word that our health insurance is staying stagnant
again this year. We have been fortunate that there have been no changes
in our premiums for this employee benefit.
• He met with the school district, they intend to explore the possibilities of a
school bond in a few years.
• He has been approached by one of the businesses downtown. The new
Oak Street parking lot is being used by one of the businesses all day and
they would like to work on a solution so that customers have a place to
park.
• The Medford Water Commission plans an across the board increase of
7.5%. They will be holding a public hearing at their next meeting. He will
be writing a letter to present to them.
• The Community Christmas Lights Parade was a huge success.
XII. COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Member Allen Broderick stated that he attended the Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting and the Multicultural Committee meeting.
Council Member Kelly Geiger reported that he has been appointed to the
Jackson County Fair Board, and attended the Dairy Queen Grand Opening.
Council Member Rick Samuelson reported that he attended the RVCOG meeting
where they discussed a feasibility report on Medicaid; he also attended a
destination boot camp meeting.
CAP010815 Pagel
City o/C',Ct' d Point
City Cmmci! Min utc.
Ucccnihcr 11, 2014
Pngc
Council Member David Douglas reported that he heard a few complaints
regarding the street closures for the Community Christmas, not all the
businesses were aware that they would be blocked in, and the parents had a
hard time picking up children from Hope Christian School. He also attended a
Greenway Committee meeting.
Council Member Ellie George reported that she attended the Dairy Queen Grand
Opening and has enjoyed working with the City Council and City Staff.
XIII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore reported that:
• The department would like to shut the skate park down for an indefinite
amount of time. Staff has been spending too much time doing repairs and
picking up trash because a few of the skaters are trashing the park. They
have issued citations and warned the teens causing the problems but
they continue to do the damage costing the city money. Chief Allison says
it does no good to arrest these teens, they only get released and come
back to cause more issues. The Police Department and Parks Employees
are constantly dealing with specific individuals at this time. Council is
against punishing the other teens using the park and not causing the
problems. Other cities have paid staff that sit at their skate parks to
monitor behavior. Central Point does not have staff to fulfill that position.
We could not put a volunteer in that position. The Park may need to be
relocated in the future and we should get public input to see if the citizens
of Central Point are in favor of moving the skate park to a different
location in town. Council discussed other options available other than
fencing off and closing the skate park all together.
• There were issues having the Community Christmas on a Friday night.
The traffic is an issue with some of the business that would not be open
on a Saturday night. The Schools had problems getting kids home at that
time of day, there were a few complaints that the date and time did not
give parents time to get home from work and back to town for the Parade
and festivities. We will be talking to the Crater Foundation regarding the
date for next year. We tried changing it this year for their Crater
Foundation Auction Dinner, but the Community Christmas Lights Parade
needs to be on a Saturday night. Either the City will have to move the
event closer to Christmas or the Crater Auction will need to move their
date.
Police Chief Kris Allison reported that:
• This is our busy time of year where we have several events to cover and
vacations that everyone wants to take with their families.
• We have had an increase in DUII arrests.
• We are looking at a drug recognition expert position. This would be taking
one of our officers and sending them to school to be an expert on
recognizing suspects that are under the influence of something other than
alcohol.
CAP010815 Page 8
City o/Ccnt, d Point
City Cmmci!Min Oc,
Ucccnihcr 11, 2014
Pngc H
• Two of our officers were able to save the life of a man at Scenic Middle
School last week. They arrived before the paramedics and were able to
start CPR. They have AED's in their cars and were able to use the device
to stabilize the gentleman so that the paramedics could transport him to
the hospital.
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey reported that the Crater
Foundation raised $65,000 at their desert auction. It was their best auction in the
20 years that they have been around.
Finance Director Bev Adams reported that we have collected almost 86% of our
tax money, this is a little higher than average for this time of year.
XIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION —ORS 192.660 (2)(h) Legal Counsel
Allen Broderick moved to adjourn to Executive Session under ORS 192.660
(2)(h) Legal Counsel. David Douglas seconded. All said "aye" and the regular
meeting was adjourned to executive session at 8:55 p.m.
The Council returned to regular session at 9:02 p.m. No further action was taken.
XV. ADJOURNMENT
Rick Samuelson moved to adjourn, Ellie George seconded, all said "aye" and the
Council Meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the December 11, 2014, Council meeting were approved by
the City Council at its meeting of January 8, 2015.
Dated:
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
Return to Agentla
CAP010815 Page 9
ORDINANCE
Urban Growth
Boundary Area
Management
Agreement
CAP010815 Page 10
City of Central Point, Oregon CENTRAL
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 POINT
541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384
www.centralpointoregon.gov
STAFF REPORT
January 8, 2015
Community Development
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
AGENDAITEM:
Consideration of the revision of the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (U(iBMA)
between the City of Central Point and Jackson County to improve consistency with the Greater Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan and the City's Regional Plan Element. Principal revisions add Forest/Gibbon
Acres and Jackson County Expo and Fairgrounds as "Areas of Mutual Planning Concern" to insure
coordinated land use preservation and/or development. County File No. 439 -14 -00030 -LRP and City File
No. 14010: Applicants: Jackson County/City of Central Point.
STAFFSOURCE:
Torn Humphrey AICP , Cmmmunity Development Director
BACKGROUND:
The City and County's Regional Plan Elements includes a provision that prior to expansion ofthe
Centra[ Point Urban Growth Boundary into ant, Urban Reserve Area, the Citv and Jackson Countv shall
adopt an agreement (Area o(Mutual Planning Concern) (or the management at Gibbons/Forest Acres
Unincorporated Containment Boundary (Performance Indicators 4.1.9.5). The two agencies have
concluded that the best way to address this condition is to amend the pre-existing City/County agreement
(Attachment A). City and County staff have also added Jackson County Expo and Fairgrounds as an Area
of Mutual Planning Concern for two reasons: 1) the County recently added the Expo property to an
Enterprise Zone and 2) during the first Coordinated Periodic Review process (or the Regional Plan,
Jackson Countv shall consider including the land occupied In, theJackson CountvPapo to the City of
Central Point's Urban Reserve Area (Performance Indicator 4.1.19). For this reason, bothymi sdictions
thought it wise to instigate early coordination through the UGBMA.
City and County staff introduced a draft of the City/County UGBMA to a joint meeting of the City
and County Planning Commissions on November 20, 2014. which was last revised in 1998.
Additional new declarations were added along with new definitions, the intent and purpose of the
agreement and a few new policies to clarify infrastructure in the Tolo Area and the creation of two
new Areas of Mutual Planning Concern. Each Planning Comm ssion unanimously recommended
approval of the agreement to their respective elected officials. Two minor revisions were made and
are reflected in italics on pages 8 and 10.
ISSUES:
The adoption of this proposed Major Text Amendment (Legislative) would amend the County's Urban
Growth Boundary Agreement with the City of Central Point in order to address the Greater Bear Creek
Valley Regional Plan's ((iBCVRP) Perfonmance Measure 2.9.5 which states:
Prior to the expansion of the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary into any Urban Reserve Area, the
City and Jackson County shall adopt an agreement (Area of Mutual Planning Concern) for the
management of Gibbons/Forest Acres Unincorporated Containment Boundary (same as previously
referenced in the City's Regional Plan Element).
CAP010815 Page 11
Section 3.7.1 of the County's Land Development Ordinance defines a Major Text Amendment
(Legislative) as:
Amendments that directly affect adopted goals, policies, or patterns of land use. Examples include, but
are not limited to: adopting a new policy or implementation strategy; or revising goals of the Plan.
The proposed amendment would effectively result in new policy and/or implementation strategies within
the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement with the City of Central Point and therefore falls
within the definition of a Major Text Amendment. Jackson County LDO Section 3.7.2(A)(1) states that
such amendments must be initiated through a County action such as an order approved by the Board of
Commissioners. Order No. 163-14, which was included in the record of the Planning Commission
proceedings, is the Board's action that initiated this proposal.
Major text amendments must conform to the approval criteria contained in LDO 3.7.3(8) which read:
The amendment will correct a substantive error, implement a change in policy, or bring the
Comprehensive Plan into compliance with State and Federal laws or administrative rules. Such
amendments may have widespread and significant impacts, which could require individual property
owner notice.
FINDING: The proposed major text amendment will serve to bring the City of Central Point Urban
Growth Boundary Management Agreement into compliance with the GBCVRP Performance Indicator
2.9.5, adopted pursuant to the requirements of ORS 197.656(2)(b)(C).
The City has similar criteria for initiating amendments to the comprehensive plan or the urban growth
boundary (ref. CPMC Section 17.96.200). In this case, the City Council passed a Resolution of Intent
(No. 1378) in August 2013 to initiate changes to its Urban Growth Boundary and its Urban Growth
Boundary Management Agreement with Jackson County.
FINDING: The proposed major text amendment is consistent with the Central Point Municipal Code -
Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments and will serve to bring the City of
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement into compliance with the City's Regional
Plan Element.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" — Ordinance No. An Ordinance Amending an Agreement Between The City of
Central Point, Oregon (City) and Jackson County, Oregon (County) for the Joint Management of the
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary.
ACTION:
Open public hearing and consider the proposed admendment to the Urban Growth Boundary
Management Agreement (UGBMA), close public hearing and 1) move to second reading; 2)
move to second reading with revisions; 3) deny the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff to schedule the second reading for the next regularly scheduled City Council
meeting (January 22, 2015) to approve an amendment to the UGBMA.
CAP010815 Page 12
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CENTRAL
POINT, OREGON (CITY) AND JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON (COUNTY) FOR THE
JOINT MANAGEMENT OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY.
Recitals:
A. The City of Central Point (City) is authorized under Oregon Revised Statute
(ORS) Chapter 197 to prepare, adopt and revise comprehensive plans and
implementing ordinances consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning
Goals.
B. The City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with
ORS 197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure compliance with goals
and compatibility with City Comprehensive Plans.
C. Pursuant to authority granted by the City Charter and the ORS, the City may
amend the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement
with Jackson County which was originally adopted on September 26, 1984
and has been amended at various times since.
D. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Chapter 17.96.100
Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments — Purpose
and Chapter 17.05.010, Applications and Development Permit Review
Procedures, the City has accepted an application and conducted the following
duly advertised public hearings to consider the proposed amendment:
a) Planning Commission hearing on November 20, 2014
b) City Council hearings on January 8, 2015 and January 22, 2015.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Based upon all the information received, the City Council adopts the
findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the City staff report and file records;
determines that changing community conditions, needs and desires justify the
amendments and hereby adopts the changes entirely.
Section 2. The City Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA)
is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 1 which is attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein.
CAP010815 Page 13
Section 3. The
City
Manager
is directed to conduct
post acknowledgement
procedures defined in
ORS
197.610
et seq. upon adoption
of the changes to the
UGBMA.
Section 4. Effective date. The Central Point City Charter states that an ordinance
enacted by the council shall take effect on the thirtieth day after its enactment. The
effective date of this ordinance will be the thirtieth day after the second reading.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
day of , 20
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
CAP010815 Page 14
Return to Agenda
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON (CITY)
AND JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON (COUNTY)
FOR THE JOINT MANAGEMENT OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN
GROWTH BOUNDARY
WHEREAS, under ORS 190.003 to 190.030, and 197.175, et seq. City and County are
authorized to enter into intergovernmental agreements and are required to prepare and
adopt Comprehensive Plans consistent with Statewide Planning Goals; and
WHEREAS, under ORS 197 - State Land Use Goal 14, Urbanization, the "Establishment
and change of the boundary shall be a cooperative process between a city and the county
or counties that surround it", and
WHEREAS, City and County have adopted a Regional Plan which necessitates revisions
to the previous agreement; and
WHEREAS, City and County recognize the importance of providing an orderly
transition of urban services from County to City jurisdiction and administration as the
Urban Reserve transitions from a rural to an urban character; and
WHEREAS, ORS 190.003, et seq. requires that an intergovernmental agreement relating
to the performance of functions or activities by one unit of local government for another
shall be adopted and shall specify the responsibilities between the parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and County adopt the following urban growth policies
which shall serve as the basis for decisions pertaining to development and land uses in
the area between the City limits of Central Point and its urban -growth boundary, and
other lands that are of mutual interest or are of significant importance to Central Point's
long-range growth and development.
DEFINITIONS
L Area of Mutual Planning Concern: A geographical area lying beyond the adopted
urban growth boundary in which the City and County have an interest in terms of
that area's types and levels of development, land uses, environment, agriculture,
and other unique characteristics. The area is not subject to annexation within the
current planning period but may be in the path of longer -range urban growth.
Therefore, the City and County will fully coordinate land use activity within this
area.
2. BOC: Jackson County Board of Commissioners.
3. Comprehensive Plan: State -acknowledged comprehensive plan adopted by City or
County.
CAP010815 Page 15
4. Contract Annexation: A process whereby the City, County, and other involved
parties enter into a contract that permits:
A) The parties to administer urban land use regulations on the development of
property following an annexation decision while the property remains under
County j urisdiction; and
B) The City to annex property developed to City densities and uses, with the
improvement to appear on the County tax rolls prior to the effective date of
annexation, resulting in a greater benefit to the tax base of the community.
5. Council: City of Central Point City Council
6. Develop: To bring about growth or create new opportunities for growth; to cause
the expansion of available lands; to extend public facilities or services; to
construct, alter or expand a structure; to conduct a mining operation; to make a
change in the use of appearance of land; to divide land into smaller parcels; to
create or terminate rights of access, etc.
7. LDO: Jackson County's Land Development Ordinance.
8. Non -Resource Land: Land that is not subject to the statewide Goals listed in OAR
660-004-0010(1)(a) through (g) except subsections (c) and (d).
9. Planning Services: Legislative activities, such as adoption and amendment of
comprehensive plan text and maps, adoption and amendment of land use
regulations, and quasi-judicial processing of land use actions.
10. Resource Land: Land that is subject to the statewide Goals listed in OAR 660-
004-0010(1)(a) through (g) except subsections (c) and (d).
11. Subdivide or Partition Land: The act of dividing the legal ownership of land into
smaller units, as set forth in Oregon Revised Statutes 92.010.
12. Urban/Public Facilities and Services: Basic facilities that are planned for and
provided by either the private or public sector, and are essential to the support of
development in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Such facilities
and services include, but are not limited to, police and fire protection, sanitary
facilities, public water and storm drain facilities; planning, zoning, and
subdivision controls; health services; recreation facilities and services; energy and
communication services; and community governmental services including schools
and transportation.
13. Urban Growth Boundary: A site specific line on the Official Plan and Zoning
Map of Jackson County, which identifies and encompasses urban and urbanizable
lands within the County, including:
CAP010815 Page 16
A) URBAN LAND: Residential areas generally comprised of parcels smaller
than one acre, or highly developed commercial and industrial areas which are
within incorporated cities or which contain concentrations of persons who reside
or work in the areas, including land adjacent to and outside cities, and which have
supporting urban public facilities and services.
B) URBANIZABLE LAND: Areas within an officially adopted urban growth
boundary which are needed for the expansion of that urban area, and which have
been determined to be necessary and suitable for development as future urban
land and which can be served with necessary urban public facilities and services.
14. Urban Reserve Areas (URA): Land outside of a UGB identified as highest priority
(per ORS 197.298) for inclusion in the UGB when additional urbanizable land is
needed in accordance with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 14.
INTENT AND PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
The intent and purpose of this Agreement is for City and County to:
L Enhance long-range planning in the Urban Growth Boundary and the Urban
Reserve.
2. Maintain and improve coordination and communication between City and
County.
3. Develop consistent policies and procedures for managing urban growth and
development within the Urban Growth Boundary.
4. Minimize impacts to property owners, local governments and service providers
related to the transition of property from within the Urban Growth Boundary to
within the City Limits.
URBAN GROWTH POLICIES
The City of Central Point shall have primary responsibility for all future urban
level development that takes place within the City and urban growth boundary
area. Additionally:
A) All urban level development shall conform to City standards, shall be
consistent with the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, and shall meet all
appropriate requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and Map.
CAP010815 Page 17
B) The term "urban level development" shall be generally defined, for
purposes of this agreement, as any commercial or industrial development,
and any residential development, partitioning, or subdivision that creates
actual or potential densities greater than allowed by the City's Residential
Low-density District (R -L). The expansion or major alteration of legally
existing commercial or industrial use shall also be considered urban level
development.
C) Urban level development proposals submitted through County processes
must be accompanied by a contract to annex to the City.
A change in the use of urbanizable land from a use designated on the Jackson
County Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map to uses shown on the City
Comprehensive Plan shall occur only upon annexation or contractual intent to
annex to the City. Additionally:
A) Development of land for uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan shall
be encouraged on vacant or underdeveloped lands adjacent to or within the
City limits prior to the conversion of other lands within the urban growth
boundary.
B) Urban facilities and services must be adequate in condition and capacity to
accommodate the additional level of growth, as allowed by the
Comprehensive Plan, prior to or concurrent with the land use changes.
C) The City may initiate annexation and zone changes of lands outside the
City limits and within the UGB that are under a County "Exclusive Farm
Use" designation or otherwise enjoying farm -related tax incentives when
such lands are needed for urban development.
3. City annexation shall only occur within the framework of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and within the Urban Growth Boundary.
4. Except as provided in Policy t t of this agreement, specific annexation decisions
shall be governed by the City of Central Point. The City will provide
opportunities for the County and all affected agencies to respond to pending
requests for annexation with the response time limited to sixty days to minimize
any unnecessary and costly delay in processing.
5. The establishment of the Urban Growth Boundary does not imply that all lands
within the Boundary must be annexed to the City.
6. Jackson County shall retain jurisdiction over any land use decisions, other than
annexations, within the unincorporated urbanizable area, in conformance with
these adopted policies. Additionally:
CAP010815 Page 18
A) The City shall be requested to respond to pending applications for land use
changes in the unincorporated urbanizable area. If no response is received
within fourteen days, the County will assume the City has no objections to
the request
B) The City will request that the County respond to pending applications for
land use changes within the incorporated area which could affect land
under County jurisdiction. If no response is received within fourteen days,
the City will assume the County has no objections to the request.
C) Recognizing that unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Boundary
could ultimately become part of Central Point, the City's
recommendations will be given due consideration. It is the intent of the
County to administer a mutually adopted City/County policy in the
urbanizable area until such time as the area is annexed.
Lands in the vicinity of the Seven Oaks Interchange, as delineated on Map I
attached, are considered unique because of the transportation facilities present.
The I-5 Interchange Area Management Plan ([AMP) for Exit 35 addresses the
unique characteristics of the area and recommendations from the plan will be
incorporated into the City and County Comprehensive Plans. Portions of this area
are in Central Point's Urban Reserve while the remainder is designated an Area of
Mutual Planning Concern and shall be protected from premature development.
Additionally:
A) The County shall ensure that the area remains in a rural character so that a
priority is placed on urban development within the UGB, as planned.
B) The Seven Oaks Interchange Area of Mutual Planning Concern shall
retain its present County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map
designation, or similar "rural" designation, until such time as the area can
be shown to be needed for the City's urbanization, in accordance with the
seven urbanization factors of Statewide goal 14 and the provisions of this
agreement that pertain to City -initiated comprehensive plan amendments.
Lands in the vicinity of and including Forest/Gibbon Acres west of Table Rock
Road, as delineated on Map 2 attached, are considered remote to Central Point at
this time. Although located outside of any Urban Reserve, this area is designated
an Area of Mataal Planning Concern and shall be protected from premature or
more intense development. Additionally:
A) The County shall ensure that the area remains in a rural character so that a
priority is placed on urban development within the UGB and URAs, as
planned.
CAP019915 Page 19
B) The Forest/Gibbon Acres Area of Mataal Planning Concern shall retain its
present County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designation, or
similar "rural" designation, until such time as the area can be shown to be
needed for the City's urbanization or for inclusion in Medford or in White
City should it incorporate. Inclusion in a planning area will occur in
accordance with the seven urbanization factors of Statewide goal 14 and
the provisions of this agreement that pertain to City -initiated
comprehensive plan amendments.
9. Lands under the ownership of Jackson County between Gebhard Road and
Interstate -5 north of Pine Street, including the Jackson County Expo (fairgrounds)
and property in the ownership of Jackson County adjacent to the Expo as
delineated on Map 3 attached, are designated an Area of Mataal Planning
Concern and shall be protected from uncoordinated land use development.
Additionally:
A) The County shall ensure that all land use planning that occurs will be
coordinated with the City so that a priority is placed on urban development
within the UGB and URAs, as planned.
B) The Jackson County Expo Area of Mataal Planning Concern shall retain
its present County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designation, or
designations unique to the fairground master plan, until such time as the
area can be shown to be needed for the City's urbanization, in accordance
with the seven urbanization factors of Statewide goal 14 and the
provisions of this agreement that pertain to City -initiated comprehensive
plan amendments.
C) During the first coordinated Periodic Review process for the Regional
Plan, Jackson County shall consider including the land occupied by the
Jackson County Expo to the City of Central Point Urban Reserve Area.
D) The impacts of County development upon City and Regional
infrastructure shall be assessed and mitigated in order to obtain a mutually
beneficial outcome to both entities.
10. Lands within the urbanizable area which currently support a farm use shall be
encouraged, through zoning and appropriate tax incentives, to remain in that use
for as long as is "economically feasible".
A) "Economically feasible", as used in this policy, shall be interpreted to mean
feasible from the standpoint of the property owner. Implementation of this
policy will be done on a voluntary basis.
B) "Exclusive Farm" or other appropriate low -intensity rural zoning
designation shall be applied to areas within the UGB by the County for the
CAP010815 Page 20
purpose of maintaining agricultural land uses and related tax incentives
until such time as planned annexation and urban development occur.
C) "Suburban Residential" or other zoning designations that would permit
non-agricultural land uses to develop prematurely could result in obstacles
to future planned and coordinated growth and, therefore, should be
restricted to only those areas that are already developed to such levels.
D) Agricultural zoning policies contained herein apply only to areas
identified by the City or County as agricultural lands within the UGB,
URA's or Seven Oaks Area of Mutual Planning Concern and shall not be
used as a standard to review other land use applications within these areas.
11. The City and County acknowledge the importance of protecting agricultural
lands. Therefore:
A) While properties are in agricultural use, the City will apply the below
standards when adjacent lands are proposed for urban residential
development:
To mitigate the potential for vandalism, the development's design
should incorporate the use of visible public or semipublic open
space adjacent to the agricultural lands.
ii. To mitigate nuisances originating from agricultural noise, odors,
irrigation run-off, and agricultural spray drift, the development's
design should incorporate:
a. The use of landscaping and berms where a positive
buffering benefit can be demonstrated.
b. The orientation of structures and fencing relative to usable
exterior space such as patios, rear yards and courts, such
that the potential impacts from spray drift, dust, odors, and
noise intrusion are minimized.
C. The design and construction of all habitable buildings,
including window and door locations, should be such that
the potential impact of spray drift, noise, dust, and odors
upon interior living/working areas will be minimized.
d. Physical separation between agricultural lands and urban
development shall be utilized to the greatest extent possible
to minimize adverse impacts. Site design emphasizing the
appropriate use of open space areas, streets, and areas not
CAP010815 Page 21
designed specifically for public recreation or assembly
shall be considered.
B) The City and County mutually agree herewith that the buffering standards
established by the Jackson County Regional Plan and adopted by the City of
Central Point have or can and will be met, prior to annexation or urban
development of lands.
C) The City and County mutually agree to involve affected Irrigation Districts
prior to annexation or when contemplating urban development of lands.
12. The City, County, and other affected agencies shall coordinate the expansion and
development of all urban facilities and services within the urbanization area.
Additionally:
A) Provisions for urban facilities and services shall be planned in a manner
limiting duplication in an effort to provide greater efficiency and economy
of operation.
B) A single urban facility or service extended into the urbanizable area must
be coordinated with the planned future development of all other facilities
and services appropriate to that area, and shall be provided at levels
necessary for expected uses, as designated in the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
13. All County road construction and reconstruction resulting from new development,
redevelopment, or land division, in the urbanizable area shall be to urban
standards, except that the term "reconstruction" does not include normal road
maintenance by the County.
14. Except for URAs, no other land or non -municipal improvements located
outside the Urban Growth Boundary shall be permitted to connect to the water
tine serving Erickson unless it is first included in the Urban Growth Boundary
or a "reasons" exception is taken to applicable Statewide Land Use Planning
Goals which allows such connection. The owners of such benefited property
must sign an irrevocable consent to annex to the City of Central Point.
AMENDMENTS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
The procedure for joint City and County review and amendment of urban growth
boundary and urbanization policies are established as follows:
CAP010815 Page 22
MAJOR REVISIONS
Major revisions in boundary or policies will be considered amendments to both the City
and County comprehensive plans and, as such, are subject to a legislative review process.
A major revision shall include any boundary change that has widespread and significant
impact beyond the immediate area, such as quantitative changes allowing for substantial
changes in population or significant increases in resource impacts; qualitative changes in
the land use itself, such as conversion of residential to industrial use, or spatial changes
that affect large areas of many different ownerships. Any change in urbanization policies
is considered a major revision.
Major revisions will be considered by the City and County at periodic intervals in
accordance with the terms of the mutually adopted urban growth boundary agreements
between the County and each municipal jurisdiction. It is the intent of the governing
bodies to review the urban growth boundary and urbanization policies for consistency
upon completion of the City and County Comprehensive Plans.
A request for major revision can be initiated only by the County or City governing bodies
or their respective planning commissions. Individuals, groups, citizen advisory
committees, and affected agencies may petition the County or appropriate City in
accordance with the procedural guidelines adopted by thejurisdiction for initiating major
legislative amendments. The party who seeks the revision shall be responsible for filing
adequate written documentation with the City and County governing bodies. Final
legislative action on major revision requests shall be based on the factors stated in each
mutually adopted urban growth boundary agreement. Generally these are:
A) Demonstrated need to accommodate unpredicted population trends, to
satisfy urban housing needs, or to assure adequate employment
opportunities;
B) The orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services;
C) Maximum efficiency of land uses within the current urbanizable area;
D) Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences;
E) Compatibility of the proposed change with other elements of the City and
County comprehensive plans; and,
F) The other statewide planning goals.
Major revision proposals shall be subject to a mutual City and County review and
agreement process involving affected agencies, citizen advisory committees, and the
general public. The review process has the following steps:
CAP010815 Page 23
A) CAC and planning commissions review and make recommendations to the
City Council and Board of County Commissioners;
B) Proposal mailed to the affected agencies and property owners; and,
C) Proposal heard and acted upon by City Council and Board of County
Commissioners.
MINOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS
Minor adjustments to an urban growth boundary line may be considered subject to
similar procedures used by the City and County in hearing zoning requests. A minor
amendment is defined as focusing on specific individual properties and not having
significant impacts beyond the immediate area of the change.
Application for a minor boundary line amendment can only be made by property owners,
their authorized agents, or by a City or County governing body. Written applications for
amendments may be filed in the office of the Jackson County Department of Planning
and Development on forms prescribed by the County. The standards for processing an
application are as indicated in the mutually adopted urban growth boundary agreement.
Generally these are the same factors as for a major urban growth boundary amendment.
CORRECTION OF ERRORS
A. An error is generally considered to be a cartographic mistake, or a
misprint, omission, or duplication in the text. They are technical in nature
and not the result of new information or changing attitudes or policies.
B. If the City Council and Board of County Commissioners become aware of
an error in the map(s) or text of this mutually -adopted urbanization
program, both bodies may cause an immediate amendment to correct the
error, after mutual agreement is reached.
C. Corrections shall be made by ordinance, following public hearing
conducted by both governing bodies, but hearings before the planning
commissions shall not be required when an amendment is intended
specifically to correct an error.
REVIEW. AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. This Agreement may be reviewed and amended at any time by mutual
consent of both parties, after public hearings by the Council and the Board
of Commissioners.
l0
CAP010815 Page 24
B. Any modifications to this Agreement will be consistent with City and
County comprehensive plans and state law.
C. Staff from City and County will attempt to informally resolve any disputes
regarding the terns, conditions, or meaning of this Agreement. For any
disputes not resolved through this informal process, the Council and the
BOC will meetjointly in an attempt to resolve those disputes. Either party
may request the services of a mediator to resolve any dispute.
D. This Agreement may be terminated by either party subsequent to
dissolution of a URA or an Area of Mutual Planning Concern. Such
termination shall proceed through a properly noticed public hearing
process.
This agreement supersedes the prior agreement between the parties on the same subject
matter approved by the County on 20__, and by the City on
20
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT JACKSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Hank Williams, Mayor DATE Don Skundrick, Chair DATE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Counsel
ATTEST: ATTEST:
City Administrator Recording Secretary
Return to Agentla
I
CAP010815 Page 25
sm—
tares
Aw4kk
CENTRAL.
POINT
11 Central Point
Urban Growth Boundary
Areas of Mutual Planning Concern
Index Map
nepme1%dep11MV NSIWGis map RohdeI Pm)ec kUG9gg2erteT Ameld 201TISJI25
r
A904111k.
CENTRAL
POINT
T
r
y
`r.
Legend
^ Urban Growth Boundary r J
Urban Reserve Areas
L� Seven Oaks Interchange Area
A
�mpmeneepen pRygygryu§�aiB Meo 11,emalcdv Pruec154eGeAgreement Amend sala\MaBage 27
Central Point
Map 7
Urban Growth Boundary
Areas of Mutual Planning Concern
Seven Oaks Interchange Area
b0i
AO.
CENTRAL
POINT
Legend
Urban Growth Boundary ® Forest Gibbon Acres
Urban Reserve Areas A
A Central Point
Map 2
Urban Growth Boundary
Areas of Mutual Planning Concern
Forest Gibbon Acres
�mpn1e1�dePmn,,,gn4Q"HGrGIs mao Role r8SQIy vroaomwna A,nex,entAmend 201 m uRp 9e 28
r
CENTRAL
POINT
4 Jackson County
Expo & Fairgrounds Area
`l
Central Pom[_
'T
r �
� Exit 33 1111
a C1 `
Legend
F— _—I Urban Gromh Boundary
rO� Urban Reserve Areas
LJ Jackson County Expo Area
OCOIIlgapaNi AP "N&GIS Map PmleCsICI, Pr,pe I n.Agreamsn4Amend 2,191Map$gB 29
Central Point
Map 3
Urban Growth Boundary
Areas of Mutual Planning Concern
Jackson County Expo Area
ORDINANCE
Urban Growth
Boundary Amendment
Ordinance
CAP010815 Page 30
City of Central Point, Oregon CENTRAL
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 POINT
541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384
www.centralpointoregon.gov
STAFF REPORT
January 8, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14003
Community Development
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
Consideration of an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map (Minor) to add approximately 48 acres
to the City of Central Point Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) east of Interstate 5, north of Upton Road to
the Seven Oaks Interchange (Exit 35) including Dean Creek Road. County File No. 439 -14 -00025 -LRP
and City File No. 14003; Applicant: City of Central Point.
STAFFSOURCE:
Tom Humphrey AICP , Cmmmunity Development Director
BACKGROUND:
The adoption of the proposed Minor Map Amendment would amend the County and City Comprehensive
Plan Maps by adding approximately 48 acres of Bear Creek Greenway and Open Space land to the
Central Point CUB. The City Council passed a Resolution of Intent (No. 1378) in August 2013 to initiate
changes to its CUB in response to a request by Cardmoore Trucking to bring their property at Seven Oaks
Interchange into the City of Central Point. In order to extend the UGB to the Cardmoore property, the
City first needs to add land from Urban Reserve Area CP -4D.
The land proposed for amendment includes property that is in the public ownership of Central Point,
Jackson County and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The land being added to the
UGB will retain the County Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning until such time as the properties
are annexed and the appropriate City zoning is applied.
ISSUES:
City and County's Regional Plan Elements include a provision that prior to expansion at the Central
Paint Urban Grax•th Boundav into anv Urban Reserve Area, the City and Jackson County shall adapt an
agreement (Area afMutual Planning Concern) far the management afGibbons/forest Acres
Unincorporated Containment Bounder v (Performance Indicators 4.1.9.5). The two agencies concluded
that the best way to address this condition was to amend the pre-existing City/County agreement (This is
the subject of another item on the City Council's agenda). The UGBMA must be adopted before the
UGB can be amended.
Other conditions of he Regional Plan Element include: 1) the creation of Conceptual Land Use and
Transportation Plans (Performance Measure 2.7 and 2.8); 2) the restriction of new roadway access into
CP -4D (Performance Measure 2.9.3); and 3) the formation of and receipt of recommendations from a
County Appointed Agricultural Task Force (Performance Measure 2.22).
Each of these conditions have been or are being addressed. The City Council may recall its approval of a
Conceptual Plan for URA CP -4D. This plan has been vetted and approved by the Rogue Valley MPO and
by the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District. Regarding issues of roadway access, City and County staff
have worked out an intergovernmental agreement to transfer jurisdiction of Dean Creek Road when
properry from CP -4D is annexed. City staff participated in the Agricultural Task Force and contributed to
CAP010815 Page 31
the recommendations the County Board of Commissioners incorporated in the County Comprehensive
Plan.
FINDING: The proposed UGB Amendment may proceed having satisfied conditions and being in
compliance with the GBCVRP Performance Indicators, adopted pursuant to the requirements of ORS
197.656(2)(b)(C).
The City has criteria for initiating amendments to the comprehensive plan or the urban growth boundary
(ref. CPMC Section 17.96.200). The Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement with Jackson
County also provides a process for considering and adopting this UGB Amendment.
FINDING: The proposed Minor Boundary Line Adjustment is consistent with the Central Point
Municipal Code - Comprehensive Plan and Urban Grox•th Boundary Amendments and with the
City, County UGBMA and it also satisfies the requirements of the GBCVRP and the City's Regional Plan
Element.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" — Ordinance No. An Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Plan Map (Minor) to
Add Approximately 48 acres to the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary east of Interstate 5, north of
Upton Road to the Seven Oaks Interchange (Exit 35) including Dean Creek Road.
ACTION:
Open public hearing and consider the proposed admendment to the Urban Growth Boundary,
close public hearing and t) move to second reading; 2) move to second reading with revisions; 3)
deny the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff to schedule the second reading for the next regularly scheduled City Council
meeting (January 22, 2015) to approve an amendment to the UGB.
Return to Agenda
CAP010815 Page 32
CAP010815 Page 33
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP (MINOR) TO ADD
APPROXIMATELY 48 ACRES TO THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARY EAST OF INTERSTATE 5, NORTH OF UPTON ROAD TO THE SEVEN
OAKS INTERCHANGE (EXIT 35) INCLUDING DEAN CREEK ROAD.
Recitals:
A. The City of Central Point (City) is authorized under Oregon Revised Statute
(ORS) Chapter 197 to prepare, adopt and revise comprehensive plans and
implementing ordinances consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning
Goals.
B. The City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with
ORS 197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure compliance with goals
and compatibility with City Comprehensive Plans.
C. Pursuant to authority granted by the City Charter and the ORS, the City may
amend the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary with Jackson County which
was originally adopted on September 26, 1984 and has been amended at
various times since.
D. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Chapter 17.96.100
Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments — Purpose
and Chapter 17.05.010, Applications and Development Permit Review
Procedures, the City has accepted an application and conducted the following
duly advertised public hearings to consider the proposed amendment:
a) Planning Commission hearing on November 20, 2014
b) City Council hearings on January 8, 2015 and January 22, 2015.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Based upon all the information received, the City Council adopts the
findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the City staff report, File No. 14003
and public records; determines that changing community conditions, needs and desires
justify the amendments and hereby adopts the changes entirely.
Section 2. The City Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is hereby amended as set
forth in Exhibit 1 which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
CAP010815 Page 34
Section 3. The City Manager is directed to conduct post acknowledgement
procedures defined in ORS 197.610 et seq. upon adoption of the changes to the UGB.
Section 4. Effective date. The Central Point City Charter states that an ordinance
enacted by the council shall take effect on the thirtieth day after its enactment. The
effective date of this ordinance will be the thirtieth day after the second reading.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
day of , 20
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
Return to Agentla
CAP010815 Page 35
CAP010815
i L Y4 J,
j��•j ' �4
5 ytL
OF
ir 4�L
•TSF,
14
Page 36
ORDINANCE
Congregate Housing
Amendments
CAP010815 Page 37
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14022
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
January 6, 2015
Planning Department
lom Humphrey, AICP,
Community Development Director
Consider amendments to the Central Point Municipal Code. Chapter 17.08 .010 Definitions, Specific, defining the
term "Congregate (Senior) Housing" 17.64.040, Off -Street Parking Requirements, Table 17.64.02A adjusting
parking requirements for Congregate (Senior) Housing, 17.65.050 Zoning Regulations, TOD District, Tables 1
through 3, and 17.65.070 Zoning Regulations, TOD Corridor, Tables 4 and 5, to delete the term "Senior Housing"
and replace the term "Senior Housing" with the term "Congregate (Senior) Housing"; Applicant: City of Central
Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
Don Burt, AICP
BACKGROUND:
As the result of a recent application three issues came to the attention of the Community Development Department as
follows:
I. Section 17.65.050, Tables I and 4 refers to `Senior Housing" as a use; however, the tern `Senior Housing" is not
defined. It is proposed that the tern `Senior Housing" be replaced with `Congregate (Senior) Housing" a more
generally acknowledged and accepted tern within the housing industry. Additionally, Congregate (Senior)
Housing will be listed under the multifamily dwelling housing category in Tables I through 5 in Sections
17.65.050 and 17.65.070.
It is proposed that Section 17.08.010 Definitions be amended to add the term "Congregate (Senior) Housing" to
mean a multi -family living arrangement, with common dining facilities, designed far healthy olderadiths in which
residents live in their awn living unit and have various opportunities farsacializatian with other residents.
!Housekeeping and maintenance services are provided, but health maintenance services are scheduled
independently by the residents.
2. Section 17.65.050, Tables 1 and 4 prohibits "Senior Housing" within the LMR district. The proposed amendment
will allow Congregate (Senior) Housing within the LMR district, but only when part of an existing or proposed
congregate housing project located on abutting property under the same ownership within the MMR or HMR
district.
3. Table I7.64.02A Residential Off -Street Parking Requirements currently requires 1 parking space per dwelling
unit. It is proposed that the required parking be reduced to .5 spaces per dwelling unit per the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 3" Edition.
On January 6, 2015 the Planning Corumission review the proposed amendments and by Resolution No. 812 forward to the
City Council a eecontmendation to approve.
ISSUES:
It is recognized that congregate housing, as a use, has employees for housekeeping, administration, corumon dining, ete.,
which sets it apart from an apartment complex. For this reason the allowance of congregate housing within the LMR zone
has been restricted to those incidences where it is part of, and under the same ownership of, an abutting congregate
Page I of 2
CAP010815 Page 38
housing project in the MMR or HMR zoning district. The design of a congregate housing project in the LMR district will
be subject to the LMR residential design and development standards, including density.
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit "A — Resolution No. 812"
Exhibit `B — Proposed Ordinance"
ACTION:
Open public hearing and consider the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, close public hearing and
1) move to second reading; 2) move to second reading with revisions; 3) deny the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff to schedule the second reading for the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting (January 22,
2015) to approve amendments to the zoning ordinance per the January 6, 2015 Staff Report.
Return to Agentla
Page 2 of 2
CAP010815 Page 39
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 812
A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO AMEND TO THE CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER
17.08.010 DEFINITIONS, SPECIFIC, DEFINING THE TERM "CONGREGATE HOUSING";
17.64.040, OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, TABLE 17.64.02A ADJUSTING
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONGREGATE HOUSING, 17.65.050 ZONING
REGULATIONS, TOD DISTRICT, TABLES l THROUGH 5, AND 17.65.070 ZONING
REGULATIONS, TOD CORRIDOR, TABLES l THROUGH 5, TO DELETE THE TERM
"SENIOR HOUSING" AND REPLACE THE TERM "SENIOR HOUSING" WITH THE
TERM "CONGREGATE HOUSING"
FILE NO. 14022
Applicant: City of Central Point;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the above noted amendments (`Amendments")
to the Zoning Ordinance determined necessary to clarify and update regulations relative to senior
housing; and
WHEREAS, the Amendments as proposed do not alter regulations, or preclude senior housing, but
only serves to replace the term `senior housing" with the term "congregate housing" and update
parking standards related to senior housing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by
this Resolution No. 812, does recommend that the City Council amend the Central Point Municipal
Code, Chapter 17.08 .010 Definitions, Specific, defining the term "Congregate Housing", 17.64.040,
Off -Street Parking Requirements, Table 17.64.02A adjusting parking requirements for Congregate
Housing, 17.65.050 Zoning Regulations, TOD District, Tables I through 5, and 17.65.070 Zoning
Regulations, TOD Corridor, Tables I through 5, to delete the term "Senior Housing' and replace the
term "Senior Housing' with the term "Congregate (Senior) Housing". ThPs decision is based on the
Staff Report dated January 6, 2015 attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 6'" day
of January 2015.
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this G" day of January 2015.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 812 (01-06-2015)
CAP010815 Page 40
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CENTRAL POINT ZONING ORDINANCE,
CHAPTER 17.08 .010 DEFINITIONS; 17.64.040, LAND USE — TOD DISTRICT;
17.65.050 ZONING REGULATIONS - TOD DISTRICT; 17.65.070 ZONING
REGULATIONS - TOD CORRIDOR
Recitals:
A. The City of Central Point (City) is authorized under Oregon Revised Statute
(ORS) Chapter 197 to prepare, adopt and revise comprehensive plans and
implementing ordinances consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning
Goals.
B. The City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with
ORS 197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure compliance with goals
and compatibility with City Comprehensive Plans.
C. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Chapter 17.10.100 Zoning
Map and Zoning Code Text Amendments— Purpose and Chapter 17.05.010,
Applications and Development Permit Review Procedures, the City has
accepted an application and conducted the following duly advertised public
hearings to consider the proposed amendment:
a) Planning Commission hearing on January 6, 2015
b) City Council hearings on January 8, 2015 and January 22, 2015.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS
Section 1. Based upon all the information received, the City Council adopts the
findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the City staff report; determines that
changing community conditions, needs and desires justify the amendments and hereby
adopts the changes entirely.
Section 2. The City zoning text is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A which
is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 3. The City Manager is directed to conduct post acknowledgement
procedures defined in ORS 197.610 at seq. upon adoption of the changes to the zoning
ordinance.
CAP010815 Page 41
Section 4. Effective date. The Central Point City Charter states that an ordinance
enacted by the council shall take effect on the thirtieth day after its enactment. The
effective date of this ordinance will be the thirtieth day after the second reading.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
day of 2015.
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
CAP010815 Page 42
Return to Agentla
EXHIBIT "A"
Chapter 17.08 DEFINITIONS
17.08.010 Definitions, specific
"Congregate (Senior) Housing" means a multi -family living arrangement, with
common dining facilities, designed for healthy older adults in which residents live
in their ow n living unit and have various opportunities for socialization with other
residents. Housekeeping and maintenance services are provided, but health
maintenance services are scheduled independently by the residents.
"Dwelling Unit, Living Unit" means one or more rooms designed for occupancy by one
family and having no more than one cooking facility.
Chapter 17.64 Off -Street Parking and Loading
17.64.040 Off -Street parking requirements
TABLE 17.64.02A
RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Categories
Minimum Vehicle Parking Requirement (fractions rounded down to the
closest whole number)
RESIDENTIAL
Single -Family Residential
2 spaces per dwelling unit, both of which must be covered.
Accessory Dwelling Unit
1 space per accessory dwelling unit.
Two -Family
2 spaces per dwelling unit, both of which must be covered.
Multiple -Family
1 space per studio or 1 -bedroom unit;
1.5 spaces per 2 -bedroom unit; and
2 spaces per 3+ -bedroom unit.
plus 1 guest parking space for each 4 dwelling units or fraction thereof.
Mobile Home Parks
2 spaces per dwelling unit on the same lot or pad as the mobile home (may be
tandem); plus 1 guest space for each 4 mobile homes.
Residential Home
2 spaces per dwelling unit, both of which must be covered.
Residential Facility
.75 spaces per bedroom
CAP010815 Page 43
EXHIBIT "A"
TABLE 17.64.02A
RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
CHAPTER 17.65 TOD DISTRICTS AND CORRIDORS
17.65.050 Zoning regulations — TOD district
Table 1
Minimum Vehicle Parking Requirement (fractions rounded down to the
Use Categories
closest whole number)
Congregate (Senior) Housing
1 .5 spaces per dwelling unit
Boarding Houses, Bed and
1 space per guest unit; plus 1 space per each 2 employees
Breakfast
GC
CHAPTER 17.65 TOD DISTRICTS AND CORRIDORS
17.65.050 Zoning regulations — TOD district
Table 1
TOD District Land Uses
Use Categories
Zoning Districts
P
LMR
MMR
HMR
EC
GC
C
OS
Residential
Dwelling, Single -Family
L1
L1
N
N
Accessory Units
P1
Large and standard lot
P
L5
N
N
N
N
N
Zero lot line, detached
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
Attached row houses
P
P
P
C
N
N
N
Dwelling, Multifamily
Multiplex, apartment
P
P
P
Li
Li
N
N
Congregate (Senior) Housing
L6
P
P
L1
L1
N
N
Accessory Units
P1
P1
P1
C
N
N
N
Boarding/Rooming House N C C N N N N
CAP010815 Page 44
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 1
TOD District Land Uses
Use Categories
Zoning Districts
P
LMR
MMR
HMR
EC
GC
C
OS
Family Care
C
P
N
N
N
N
P
Family day care
C
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
Day care group home
P
C
C
P
N
N
N
N
Adult day care
C
C
C
N
N
N
N
Home Occupation
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
Residential Facility
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
Residential Home
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
S�
W
P
R
L4
W
6
W
Commercial
Entertainment
N
NC
P
P
N
N
Professional Office
C
L3
L3, L4
P
P
P
N
Retail Sales and Service
Sales -oriented
C
L3
L3
P
P
N
N
Personal service-oriented
C
C
C
P
P
N
N
Repair -oriented
N
N
N
P
P
N
N
Drive-through facilities
N
N
N
P
P
N
N
Quick vehicle service
N
N
N
P
P
N
N
Vehicle sales, rental and repair
N
N
N
P
P
N
N
Tourist Accommodations
Motel/hotel
Bed and breakfast inn
N
C
N
C
C
P
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
Industrial
Manufacturing
N
N
I N
I N
P
N
N
CAP010815 Page 45
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 1
TOD District Land Uses
Use Categories
Zoning Districts
C
LMR
MMR
HMR
EC
GC
C
Os
Industrial Service
Light
Heavy
C
C
C
N
Religious assembly
C
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
C
N
N
N
N
Wholesale Sales
N
N
N
N
P
N
N
Civic
Community Services
C
C
C
N
N
P
C
Hospital
C
C
C
C
N
C
N
Public facilities
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
Religious assembly
C
C
C
C
N
P
N
Schools
C
C
C
N
N
P
L2
Utilities
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Parks and Open Space I P I P I P I P I P I P I P
N --Not permitted.
P --Permitted use.
Pi—Permitted use, one unitper lot
C --Conditional use.
Ll—Only permitted as residential units above ground floor commercial uses.
L2—School athletic and playfields only. School building and parking lots are not permitted.
L3—Ground floor business within a multifamily building. Maximum floor area often thousand square feet per tenant.
L4Secondstory offices may be permitted in areas adjacent to EC zones as a conditional use.
CAP010815 Page 46
EXHIBIT "A"
L5Onlypermitted as a transition between lower density zones and/or when adjacent to an environmentally sensitive
area.
1-6—Permitted only when part of an existing or proposed congregate housing project on abutting property
under the same ownership within the MMR or HMR district..
Table 2
TOD District Zoning Standards
Standard
Zoning Districts
LMR
MMR
HMR
EC
GC
C
OS
Density --Units Per Net Acre
(f)
Maximum
12
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Minimum
6
14
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dimensional Standards
Minimum Lot or Land
Area/Unit
Large single-family 5,000 SF NA NA
Standard single-family 3,000 SF NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
Zero lot line detached 2,700 SF 2,700 SF NA
NA
NA NA NA
Attached row houses 2,000 SF 1,500 SF 1,200 SF
NA
NA NA NA
Multifamily and senior NA NA NA
housing
Average Minimum Lot or
Land Area/Unit
Large single-family 7,500 SF NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA
Standard single-family 4,500 SF NA NA
NA
NA NA NA
Zero lot line detached 3,000 SF 3,000 SF NA
NA
NA NA NA
Attached row houses 2,500 SF 2,000 SF 1,500 SF
NA
NA NA NA
Multifamily anei r
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CAP010815 Page 47
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 2
TOD District Zoning Standards
Standard
Zoning Districts
LMR
MMR
HMR
EC
GC
OS
hogs
EC
Minimum Lot Width
Large single-family 50' NA NA
NA
NA NA NA
Standard single-family 50' NA NA
NA
NA NA NA
Zero lot line detached 30' 30' NA
NA
NA NA NA
Attached row houses 24' 22' 18'
NA
NA NA NA
Multifamily andsen cr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Minimum Lot Depth
50'
50'
50'
NA
NA
NA
NA
Building Setbacks
Front (min./max.)
10'/15'
10'/15'
0'/15'
0'
15'
5.
15'
Side (between bldgs.)
(detached/attached)
5' detached
0'
attached
(a)(c)
5'
detached
0'
attached
(a)(c)
5.
detached
0'
attached
(a)
0'
10'(b)
0'
15'(b)
0'
20'(b)
5.
Corner (min./max.)
5'/10'
5'/10'
0'/10'
5'/10'
15'/30'
5'/10'
15'/NA
Rear
15'
15'
10'
0'
10'(b)
15'(b)
0'
0'
20'(b)
5.
Garage Entrance
(d)
(d)
(d)
(e)
(e)
(e)
NA
Maximum Building Height
35'
45'
60'
60'
60'
45'
35'
Maximum Lot Coverage (g)
80%
80%
85%
100%
100%
85%
25
Minimum Landscaped Area
(i)
20% of site
area
20% of
site area
15% of
site area
0% of
site
15% of
site
15% of
site area
NA
CAP010815 Page 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 2
TOD District Zoning Standards
Standard
Zoning Districts
LMR
MMR
HMR
EC
GC
C
OS
(j)
area
area
(h)
Housing Mix
Required housing types as
< 16 units in development: 1
listed under Residential in
housing type.
Table 1.
16--40 units in development: 2
housing types.
> 40 units in development: 3 or
more housing types (plus
approved master plan)
Notes.
NANotapplicable.
(a) The five-foot minimum also applies to the penmeter of the attached unit development.
(b) Setback required when adjacent to a residential zone.
(c) Setback required is ten feet minimum between units when using zero lot line configurations.
(d) Ten feet behind front building facade facing street.
(e) Garage entrance shall not protrude beyond the face ofthe building.
(f) Net acre equals the area remaining after deducting environmental lands, exclusive employment areas, exclusive
civic areas and fight -of -way.
(g) Lot coverage refers to all impervious surfaces including buildings and paved surfacing.
CAP010815 Page 49
EXHIBIT "A"
(h) Parking lot landscaping and screening requirements still apply.
(i) Landscaped area shall include living ground cover, shrubs, trees, and decorative landscaping material such as
bark, mulch or gravel. No pavement or other impervious surfaces are permitted except for pedestrian pathways and
seating areas.
Q) Rooftop gardens can be used to help meet this requirement.
Table 3
TOD District and Corridor Parking Standards
Use Categories
Minimum Required Parking
Residential
Dwelling, Single -Family
2 spaces per unit.
Large and standard lot
Zero lot line, detached
Attached row houses
Dwelling, Multifamily
Plexes
1.5 spaces per unit.
Apartments and condominiums
1.5 spaces per unit
Congregate (Senior) Housing
.5 spaces per dwelling unit
Dwelling, Accessory Unit
1 space per unit.
Boarding/Rooming House
1 space per accommodation, plus 1 space for every 2 employees.
Family Care
1 space for every 5 children or clients (minimum 1 space); plus 1
Family day care
space for every 2 employees.
Day care group home
Adult day care
Home Occupation
Shall meet the parking requirement for the residence.
Residential Facility
1 space per unit.
Residential Home
1 space per unit.
Senior Housing
1 space per unit.
CAP010815 Page 50
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 3
TOD District and Corridor Parking Standards
Use Categories
Minimum Required Parking
Commercial
Entertainment
1 space per 250 square feet of floor area, except for theaters which
shall provide 1 space per 4 seats.
Professional Office
1 space per 400 square feet of floor area.
Retail Sales and Service
1 space per 750 square feet of floor area.
Sales -oriented
1 space per 500 square feet of floor area.
Personal service-oriented
1 space per 500 square feet of floor area.
Repair -oriented
1 space per 500 square feet of floor area.
Drive-through facilities
Parking as required by the primary use.
Quick vehicle service
1 space per 750 square feet of floor area.
Vehicle sales, rental and repair
1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area.
Tourist Accommodations
1 space per guest unit, plus 1 space for every 2 employees.
Motel/hotel
Bed and breakfast inn
Industrial
Manufacturing
1 space per employee of the largest shift.
Industrial Service
1 space per employee of the largest shift.
Sales 11 space per employee of the largest shift.
Community Services Number to be determined as part of site plan or conditional use
review.
Hospital 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area.
Public Facilities Number to be determined as part of site plan or conditional use
CAP010815 Page 51
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 3
TOD District and Corridor Parking Standards
Use Categories
Minimum Required Parking
LMR
review.
Religious Assembly
1 space per 100 square feet of floor area for the main assembly area.
Schools
2 spaces per classroom.
Utilities
Number to be determined as part of site plan or conditional use
review.
Open Space
Parks and Open Space
Number to be determined as part of site plan or conditional use
review.
(Ord. 1981 §4 (Exh. D), 2014, Ord. 1971 §4 (Exh. C) (pad), 2013, OM. 1867 §4(pad), 2006, OM. 1815 §1(p art), Exh.
S(pad), 2000).
Table 4
TOD Corridor Land Uses
Use Categories
Zoning Districts
LMR
MMR
EC
GC
Residential
Dwelling, Single -Family
Large and standard lot P L4 N N
Zero lot line, detached P P N N
Attached row houses P I P N N
Dwelling, Multifamily
Multiplex, apartment P P Li Li
Congregate (Senior)Housing L5 P L1 N
(Accessory Units P1 P1 C N
CAP010815 Page 52
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 4
TOD Corridor Land Uses
Use Categories
Zoning Districts
N
LMR
MMR
EC
GC
Boarding/Rooming House
N
C
N
N
Family Care
Family day care P P N N
Day care group home C C N N
Adult day care
C
C
N
N
Home Occupation
P
P
P
N
Residential Facility
P
P
N
N
Residential Home
P
P
N
N
Senior Housing
N
P
Lt
N
Commercial
Entertainment
N
N
P
P
Professional Office
C
L3
P
P
Retail Sales and Service
C
C
P
Sales -oriented
C
L3
P
P
Personal service-oriented
C
C
P
P
Repair -oriented
N
N
P
P
Drive-through facilities
N
N
P
P
Quick vehicle service
N
N
P
P
Vehicle sales, rental and repair
N
N
N
P
Tourist Accommodations
Motel/hotel
N
N
P
P
Bed and breakfast inn
C
C
P
P
Industrial
CAP010815 Page 53
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 4
TOD Corridor Land Uses
Use Categories
Zoning Districts
N
LMR
MMR
EC
GC
Manufacturing
N
N
N
P
Industrial Service
N
N
N
C
Licht
N
N
N
P
Heavy
N
N
N
C
Wholesale Sales
N
N
N
P
Civic
Community Services
C
C
N
N
Hospital
C
C
C
N
Public Facilities
C
C
C
C
Religious Assembly
C
C
C
N
Schools
C
C
N
N
Utilities C C C C
Open Space
Parks and Open Space P P P P
N --Not permitted.
P --Permitted use.
Pi—Permitted use, one unitper lot.
C --Conditional use.
Li—Only permitted as residential units above ground floor commercial uses.
L2—School athletic and playfields only. School building and parking lots are not permitted.
L3—Ground floor business within a multifamily building. Maximum floor area often thousand square feet per tenant.
CAP010815 Page 54
EXHIBIT "A"
L4Onlypermitted as a transition between adjacent lower density zones and/or when adjacent to an environmentally
sensitive area.
1-5—Permitted only when part of an existing or proposed congregate housing project on abutting property
under the same ownership within the MMR or HMR district.
Table 5
TOD Corridor Zoning Standards
2,900-&FNA�&FNA
2,000 SFNA
Standard
Zone Districts
Large single-family
5,000 SF
NA
LMR
MMR
EC
GC
Density --Units Per Net Acre (f)
NA
NA
Zero lot line detached
2,700 SF
Maximum
Minimum
12
6
32
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dimensional Standards
NA
NA
Attached row houses
Minimum Lot Area or Land Area/Unit
2,900-&FNA�&FNA
2,000 SFNA
1.000
NA
Large single-family
5,000 SF
NA
NA
NA
Standard single-family
3,000 SF
NA
NA
NA
Zero lot line detached
2,700 SF
2,700 SF
NA
NA
Attached row houses
2,000 SF
1,500 SF
NA
NA
Multifamily and senior housing
2,900-&FNA�&FNA
2,000 SFNA
1.000
NA
Area/Unit
SFNA
Average Minimum Lot or Land
2.000 SFNA
2,000 SFNA
1-084
NA
Area/Unit
SFNA
Large single-family
7,500 SF
NA
NA
NA
Standard single-family
4,500 SF
NA
NA
NA
Zero lot line detached
3,000 SF
3,000 SF
NA
NA
Attached row houses
2,500 SF
2,000 SF
NA
NA
Multifamily a^^ `mAnor no sing
2.000 SFNA
2,000 SFNA
1-084
NA
SFNA
CAP010815 Page 55
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 5
TOD Corridor Zoning Standards
Standard
Zone Districts
NA
LMR
MMR
EC
GC
Minimum Lot Width
Large single-family
50'
NA
NA
NA
Standard single-family
50'
NA
NA
NA
Zero lot line detached
30'
30'
NA
NA
Attached row houses
24'
22'
NA
NA
Multifamily and sem er^ ^ heHs mg
NA
NA
NA
NA
Minimum Lot Depth
50'
50'
NA
NA
Building Setbacks
Front(min./max.)
10'/15'
10'/15'
0'
15'
Side (between bldgs.)
5' detached
5' detached
0'
0'
detached/attached)
O'altached (a)(c)
O'allached(a)(c)
10'(b)
15'(b)
Corner(min./max.)
5'/10'
5710'
5710'
15/30'
Rear
15'
15'
0'
0'
10'(b)
15'(b)
Garage Entrance
(d)
(d)
(e)
(e)
Maximum Building Height
35'
45'
60'
60'
Maximum Lot Coverage (g)
80%
80%
100%
85
Minimum Landscaped Area (i)
20% of site area
20% of site area
0% of site
15% of site
area
area
Housing Mix
Required housing types as listed under
< 16 units in development: 1 housing type
NA
NA
Residential in Table 3.
16-40 units in development: 2 housing types
CAP010815 Page 56
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 5
TOD Corridor Zoning Standards
Standard
Zone Districts
LMR
MMR
EC
GC
> 40 units in development: 3 or more housing
types (plus approved master plan).
NANotapplicable
Notes.
(a) The five-foot minimum also applies to the perimeter of the attached unit development.
(b) Setback required when adjacent to a residential zone.
(c) Setback required is ten feet minimum between units when using zero lot line configurations.
(d) Ten feet behind building facade facing street.
(e) Garage entrance shall not protrude beyond the face of the building.
(f) Net acre equals the area remaining after deducting environmental lands, exclusive employment areas, exclusive
civic areas and fight -of -way.
(g) Lot coverage refers to all impervious surfaces, including buildings and paved surfacing.
(h) Parking lot landscaping and screening requirements still apply.
(i) Landscaped area shall include living ground cover, shrubs, trees, and decorative landscaping material such as
bark, mulch or gravel. No pavement or other impervious surfaces are permitted except for pedestrian pathways and
seating areas.
CAP010815 Page 57
Ordinance
Chapter 6.08 Animal
Control
CAP010815 Page 58
155 South Second Street• Central Point, OR 97502 Kristine Allison
Ph: (541) 664-5578 • Fax: (541) 664-2705 • www.centralpointoregon.gov Chief
STAFF REPORT
December 11, 2014
AGENDAITEM:
The City Council of the City of Central is asked to consider if an ordinance should be passed that
require dog owners to maintain control of their dogs in public places; through the means of
imposing reasonable regulations on dog ownership and imposing criminal penalties on dog
owners whose dogs threaten or injure other people or animals.
STAFF SOURCE:
Kristine Allison, Chief of Police
BACKGROUND/SYNOPSIS:
The Police Department over the past years has seen an increase in calls involving dogs biting and
injuring persons and animals in our City. There has been an ongoing discussion in out
community regarding implementing sanctions making sure that pet owners take responsibility of
the well-being of their pets and any impacts they may cause. There was a study session on
September 15, 2014 and the council directed me to bring back an ordinance that addressed both
the rights and responsibilities of pet owners. The amended ordinance that is presented to you
allows for responsible pet ownership and an expectation for our citizenry that if there are
damages caused by another's pet, it will be the responsibility of the pet owner.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
An ordinance amendfug chapter 6.08of the Central Point Nhrricipal Code requiring dog
owners to maintain con ruj of their dogs in public places/
RECOMMENDATION:
inflict injury on another person or animal.
PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED:
Yes
CAP010815 Page 59
155 south second street• Central Point, OR 97502 Kristine Allison
Ph: (541) 664-5578 • Fax: (541) 664-2705 • www.centralpointoregon.gov Chief
SUGGESTED MOTION:
We approve amendments to CPMC ordinance 6.08 imposing reasonable regulations on dog
ownership and imposing criminal penalties on dog owners whose dogs threaten or injure other
people or animals.
11
j%doa&d T r�ewmioe" ('40"Tir(d T &ellleemoe
CAP010815 Page 60
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 6.08 ANIMAL CONTROL
RECITALS:
A. Words lined"are to be deleted and words in bold are added.
B. The City Council of the City of Central Point finds and declares that the
health and welfare of the citizens of the City of Central Point are promoted by
requiring dog owners to maintain control of their dogs in public places;
through the means of imposing reasonable regulations on dog ownership and
imposing criminal penalties on dog owners whose dogs threaten or injure
other people or animals.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Amendments to Chapter 6.08 of the Central Point Municipal Code is
amended to read:
Chapter 6.08
Animal Control
Sections:
6.08.005
Definitions
6.08.010
Animal Control
6.08.020
Control of Dogs
6.08.030
Impoundment
6.08.040
Failure to Control Dangerous Dogs
6.08.050
Additional Conditions
6.08.005- Definitions
"Criminal negligence" has the meaning set out in ORS 161.085(10).
"Dangerous dog" means a dog that engages in an unprovoked attack in a
public place that causes either physical injury to another person or animal, or
engages in three or more of the acts set out in Section 6.08.020(A) within a
two-year period.
CAP010815 Page 61
"Physical injury" has the meaning set out in ORS 161.015(7).
'Public place' has the meaning set out in ORS 161.015(10).
"Run at large" means a dog off leash in a public place.
"Unprovoked" means conduct by a dog that is not:
(a) in response to being tormented, abused or assaulted;
(b) in response to pain or injury;
(c) in protection of its nursing offspring; or
(d) in response to an assault or attempted assault on a person.
6.08.010 -Animal Control
A. The owner or custodian or a dog shall keep the dog on a leash and under the
owner or custodian's direct control when the dog is not on the private property of
the owner or custodian. Except in areas designated as public property off -leash
areas, no owner shall permit dog to be at large within the city.
B. All dogs kept within the city shall be licensed according to the laws of the state of
Oregon.
C. A police officer, code enforcement officer or animal control officer may impound a
dog found to be loose or running at large.
D. The owner or custodian of any animal shall not
1. Permit or allow an animal to run or be at large.
2. Permit an animal to trespass upon property of another.
3. Keep a wild or dangerous animal.
4. Permit any animal to cause annoyance, alarm or noise disturbance at any
time of the day or night, by repeated barking, whining, screeching, howling,
Pg. 2 Ordinance No. (_//_)
CAP010815 Page 62
braying, or other like sounds which may be heard beyond the boundary of the
owner's property.
S. Leave an animal unattended for more than twenty-four consecutive hours
without adequate care.
6. Deprive an animal of proper facilities or care, including but not limited to
food, potable water, shade or shelter.
7. Physically mistreat any animal either by deliberate abuse or failure to
furnish adequate care, including medical attention.
8. Allow any stable or place where any animal is or may be kept to become
unclean or odiferous produce an unreasonable offensive odor.
9. Confine an animal within or on a motor vehicle at any location under such
conditions as may endanger the health or well-being of the animal.
10. Allow an animal to deposit its solid wastes on any private property, or
public area, including but not limited to streets, sidewalks, parking strips, and
parks, unless such wastes are removed immediately. This section shall not
apply to a sightless person while walking his/her guide dog.
11. Allow the carcass of an animal to remain on public property or exposed on
private property for a period of time longer than is reasonable and necessary
to remove and properly dispose of said carcass. (Ord. 1901 §2 (part), 2007).
6.08.020- Control of Dogs
A. No person who owns or keeps a dog shall permit the dog to:
1. defecate in a public place, unless the person immediately removes
the feces from the property;
2. chase vehicles or persons;
3. scatter garbage;
Pg. 3 Ordinance No. (_//_)
CAP010815 Page 63
4. run at large in a public place, except for any park area specifically
designated as a "dog park;"
5. engage in conduct that places a person in fear of imminent physical
injury.
6. inflict physical injury on another person or animal.
B. Violation of this section constitutes a Violation.
6.08.030 - Impoundment
Any animal which is the subject of a violation of this chapter may be impounded by
any city employee, taw enforcement officer, code enforcement officer, or county dog
control officer. The procedures established by the city police department shall
control the release or disposal of animals so impounded. (Ord. 1901 §2(part), 2007).
6.08.040- Failure to Control Dangerous Dog
A. A person commits the violation of failure to control dangerous dog if the
person:
1. Intentionally or recklessly permits a dangerous dog to inflict physical
injury on another person or animal;
2. With criminal negligence permits a dangerous dog to inflict physical
injury on another person or animal; or
3. Is convicted of three or more violations under Section 6.08.020(A)
within a two-year period. For the purposes of this section, the phrase
"two-year period" means three or more convictions within two years
from the date of the present conviction. This subsection does not apply
to persons violating 6.08.020(A)(1).
B. Failure to control dangerous dog is a crime punishable as prescribed in
Section 1.16.010 if the Court finds that a person is guilty of the offenses set out
in Section (A)(1) or (2); and punishable as prescribed in Section 1.16.010 if
the Court finds that a person is guilty of the offense set outat 6.08.040(A)(3).
6.08.050 - Additional Conditions
In addition or in alternative to the criminal penalties prescribed in Section
6.08.040(8), the Court may impose one or more of the following conditions:
Pg. 4 Ordinance No. (_//_)
CAP010815 Page 64
1. Order a person to provide an enclosure to adequately confine a
dangerous dog;
2. Order a person to post their property with a clearly visible warning
sign that there is a dangerous dog on the property.
3. Order a person to obtain a surety bond issued by a Surety Insurer in
a form acceptable to the City Attorney in the sum of at least $250,000,
which provides for prior written notification to the City of cancellation
or material change, payable to any person for personal injuries or
property damage caused by the dangerous dog regardless of whether
the personal injury or property damage occurs on or off the person's
premises;
4. Order a person to obtain a policy of liability insurance, such as
homeowner's insurance, issued by an insurer in the amount of at least
$250,000, with a maximum $500 deductible, and which provides for
prior written notification to the City of cancellation or material change,
insuring the person for any personal injuries and property damage
inflicted by the dangerous dog, regardless of whether the personal
injury or property damage occurs on or off the person's premises;
5. Require the person to have the dangerous dog spayed or neutered,
and provide documentation demonstrating that the dangerous dog has
been spayed or neutered;
6. Suspend the person's right to own a dog in the City for a period of
time as specified by the Court;
7. Require the person, at the person's expense, to attend a responsible
pet ownership class; or
8. Impose any additional conditions necessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare.
SECTION 2. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the
City Code and the word Ordinance may be changed to "code", "article", "section",
"chapter" or other word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or
re -lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions
need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-
references and any typographical errors.
Pg. 5 Ordinance No. (_//_)
CAP010815 Page 65
SECTION 3. Effective date. The Central Point City Charter states that an ordinance
enacted by the council shall take effect on the thirtieth day after its enactment. The
effective date of this ordinance will be the thirtieth day after the second reading.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this day
of
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
Pg. 6 Ordinance No. (_//_)
CAP010815 Page 66
ORDINANCE
Twin Creeks Zone
Change
CAP010815 Page 67
City of Central Point, Oregon CENTRAL
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 POINT
541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384
www.centralpointoregon.gov
STAFF REPORT
January 8, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14017
Community Development
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
Second reading to consider a Minor Zone Map Amendment application for a 1.81 acre site located within
the Twin Creeks Transit Oriented Development (TOD) from HMR, High Mix Residential to LMR, Low
Mix residential. The Project Site is identified on the Jackson Comity Assessor's map as 37 S 2W 03CA,
Tax Lot 1200. Applicant: Twin Creeks Retirement, LLC Agent: Herb Farber, Farber Surveying.
STAFFSOURCE:
Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner II
BACKGROUND:
Twin Creeks Retirement Center ("Retirement Center"), a congregate living facility, was developed on
lands designated HMR in 2009. At this bine the applicant is requesting a zone change from High Mix
Residential (HMR) to Low Mix residential (LMR) on 1.81 acres (Lot 33, Twin Creeks Crossing,
Phase 1) adjacent to the Retirement Center. The propose of the zone change is to allow the
development of lower density housing consistent with the recently amended Twin Creeks Master
Plan.
On October 7, 2014 the Planning Commission considered and approved an amendment to the Twin
Creeks Master Plan (Attachment A), including a favorable recommendation to change the zoning for
Lot 33 from HMR to LMR. Given the action taken by the Planning Commission, the proposed zone
change would be consistent with the amended Master Plan. The City Council conducted a public
hearing in December at which no one opposed this proposal. Consequently the Minor Zone Map
Amendment and ordinance was moved to this second reading.
APPROVAL CRITERIA:
Minor zone map amendments are subject to the following approval criteria:
I. Comprehensive Plan. Approval of the request is consistent with the Cenuzl Point
Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates Lot 33 as Transit Oriented Development
(TOD). This designation was based on the Twin Creeks Master Plan. The proposal does not
change the TOD land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the
Master Plan.
2. Public Services and Transportation Network. Findings must demonstizte that adequate
public services and transportation networks to serve the property are either available or
identified for construction in the city's public facilities master plans.
Public facilities and services, including transportation network, have been established
pursuant to the Twin Creeks Master Plan. The Master Plan initially identified this site as part
of the "Mixed -Use" prototype to provide ground Floor retail and commercial uses with high
CAP010815 Page 68
density residential units above. As stated in the findings (Attachment `A"), the proposed
zone change through a reduction in density, reduces the intensity of development allowed on
the site and subsequently the demand on public facilities. Public facilities and services are
sufficient to serve the proposed use.
3. State Transportation Planning Rule. The amendment must be found to comply with the
State Transportation Planning Rule.
The proposed zone change does not significantly affect an existing or future transportation
facility, as demonstrated in the Findings of Fact (Attachment "A"), and therefore complies
with the State Transportation Rule.
ISSUES & NOTES:
There is one (I) issue relative to this application as follows:
I. Flood Impacts. Lot 33 is currently located in the SFHA and subject to CPMC 8.24. The
proposed zone change does not aggravate Lot 33's development within the SFHA. The
developer of Twin Creeks TOD has prepared a mitigation plan removing the lot from the
SFHA (File No. FP 14001). The mitigation plan has been conditionally approved by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The developer of Twin Creeks TOD is
completing construction of the SFHA mitigation plan and will apply for a Letter of Map
Revision to remove Lot 33 from the SFHA.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" - Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for File No. 14017
Attachment'B"— Ordinance No. An Ordinance Amending the Cental Point Zoning Map on Lot
33 of Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase 1 (1.81 acres) from TOD-HMR, High Mix Residential to TOD-
LMR, Low Mix Residential Zoning (37S2W03CA, TL 1200)
ACTION:
Consider the proposed admendment to the zoning map, and 1) approve the ordinance; 2) approve
the ordinance with revisions; 3) deny the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Ordinance No. An Ordinance Amending the Central Point Zoning Map on Lot 33 of Twin
Creeks Crossing, Phase 1 (1.8lacres) from TOD-HMR, High Mix Residential to TOD-LMR, Low Mix
Residential Zoning(37S2W03CA, TL 1200)
CAP010815 Page 69
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
File No.: 14017
Before the City of Central Point Planning Commission
Consideration of a Zone Change Application on a 1.81 acre site in the Twin Creeks Transit
Oriented Development Master Plan Area
Applicant: ) Findings of Fact
Twin Creeks Retirement, LLC ) and
888 Twin Creeks Crossing ) Conclusion of Law
Central Point, OR 97502 )
PART 1
INTRODUCTION
It is requested that Lot 33, Twin Creeks Crossing Phase I ("Lot 33") be rezoned from High Mix
Residential (HMR) to Low Mix Residential (LMR). At this time Lot 33 is designated in the Twin Creeks
TOD Master Plan ("Master Plan") as HMR. Prior to approval of the zone change it is necessary the
Master Plan be amended to re -designate Lot 33 as LMR. A concurrent proposal (File No. 14013) has
been submitted to amend the Master Plan, including the designation of Lot 33 as LMR. These findings
have been prepared with the understanding that the Master Plan amendment re -designating Lot 33 from
HMR to LMR will be approved prior to action on the zone change.
The zone change request is a quasi-judicial map amendment, which is processed using Type III
application procedures. Type III procedures set forth in Section 17.05.400 provide the basis for
decisions upon standards and criteria in the development code and the comprehensive plan, when
appropriate.
Applicable development code criteria for this Application include:
L Statewide Planning Goals
2. Comprehensive Plan
3. Twin Creeks Master Plan
4. State Transportation Rule
5. CPMC 17.10
Findings will be presented in four (4) parts addressing the requirements of Section 17.05.300 as follows:
I . Introduction
2. Statewide Planning Goals
3. Comprehensive Plan
4. Twin Creeks Master Plan
5. Summary Conclusion
CAP010815 Page 70
PART 2
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
At the time the Master Plan was initially adopted in 2001 it was found that the Master Plan was
consistent with the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, previously determined to be consistent with the
Statewide Planning Goals. The General Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan designates the Master
Plan area as Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Development within a TOD is regulated by
individual master plans and compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in CPMC 17.65 through
17.67. The proposed zone change does not alter the TOD designation, but is subject to compliance with
the Twin Creeks Master Plan (See Part 3 for further discussion).
Finding: The proposed zone change does not alter the current TOD designation on the City's
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan, which has previously been determined to be consistent with
the Statewide Planning Goals.
Conclusion: Consistent with Statewide Planning Goals.
PART 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the Twin Creeks Master Plan area as Transit
Oriented Development ("TOD"). The TOD land use designation allows for mixed-use transit oriented
development. Development within this land use classification is subject to the approved Twin Creeks
Master Plan.
Finding: The project site is located on Lot 33 of Twin Creeks Crossing Phase I within the Twin
Creeks Master Plan area, a 230 acre master planned development approved by Ordinance No.
1817 in January 2001. The zone change from HMR to LMR on the project site does not change
the Project Site's TOD land use designation on the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusion: Consistent.
PART 4
STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION RULE
Section 660-012-0060(1) Where an amendment to a f mcnonal plan, an acknowledged comprehensive
plan, or a land use regulation would .significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facili(v,
the local government. shall put in place measures as provided in .section (2) of this role to assure that
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capaci(v, and performance .standards (e.g.
level of.service, volume to capaci(v ratio, etc.) of the facili(v. A plan or land use regulation amendment
.significantly affects a transportation facili(v ifit would:
a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facili(vf
h) Change .standards implementing functional classification system; or
c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation .system
plan:
CAP010815 Page 71
(A) Allow (vpes or levels of land uses that would result in levels of travel or access that are
inconsistent with the Junctional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility:
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the
minimum acceptable performance .standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan, or
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is
otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance .standard
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(a): The proposed zone change does not modify any existing land use
regulations. The proposed zone change serves to decrease the density standard of the property,
as shown in Table I, within the mixed residential designated area and is consistent with the
Master Plan' and Comprehensive Plan Map. The proposed zone change will not cause any
changes to the functional classification of any existing or planned transportation facilities.
Table 1.
Proposed Zone Change Impact to Average Daily Trips
Zoning
Site Acreage
Min Density
Min Units
Min ADT
Max Densitv
Min Units
Max ADT
HMR
1.81
30
54.3
361.10
40
72.4
481.46
LMR
1.81
6
10.86
37.36
12
21.72
74.72
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(a): No significant affect
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(b): The proposed zone change serves to significantly reduce the
Project Site's maximum density (Table 1), consistent with the Master Plan and CPMC
17.65.050, Table 2. The proposed zone change will not cause a change to standards
implementing the City's transportation system.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(b): No significant affect.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(e)(A): The proposed zone change will not cause an increase in land
uses that would result in levels of travel or access that would be inconsistent with the City's
functional street classification system for existing and planned transportation facilities. As
shown in Table I, the proposed zone change will decrease the intensity of daily travel.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(e)(A): No significant affect.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(e)(B): The proposed zone change will result in significant density
reduction and subsequently fewer average daily trips as demonstrated in Table 1. The proposed
zone change will not reduce the performance of any existing or planned transportation facilities
below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the Master Plan, or in the
City's Transportation System Plan.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(e)(B): No significant affect.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(e)(C): The proposed zone change decreases the travel intensity
serving the project site as shown in Table I and will not cause the worsening of an existing or
Twin Creeks Transit -Oriented Development, Part III, Commanity Design Features
CAP010815 Page 72
planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum
acceptable performance standard identified in the Master Plan or Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(c)(C): No significant affect.
PART 5
ZONING ORDINANCE
17.10.300 Quasi-judicial amendments.
A. Applicability ofQnasi-Judicial Amendments. Quasi judicial amendments are those that involve
the application of adopted policy to a .specific development application or code revision, and not the
adoption ofnew policy (i.e., through legislative decisions). Quasi judicial zoning map amendmenis
.shall follow the Type III procedure, as governed by Section 17.05.400, using .standards of approval in
.snb.section B of this .section. The approval anthori(v .shall be a.s follows:
1. The planning commission .shall review and recommend land use district map changes that do
not involve comprehensive plan map amendments,:
2. The planning commission .shall make a recommendation to the ci(v council on an application
for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The ci(v council shall decide .such applications, and
3. The planning commission .shall make a recommendation to the ci(v council on a land n.se
district change application that also involves a comprehensive plan map amendment
application. The ci(v council.shall decide both applications.
Finding 17.10.300(A): A zone change application has been submitted to rezone a 1.81 acre site
from HMR, High Mix Residential to LMR, Low Mix Residential. The proposed zone change
does not require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, but must demonstrate compliance
with the Master Plan.
Conclusion 17.10.300(A): Consistent.
B. Criteria for Quasi -Judicial Amendments. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve
with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi judicial amendment .shall be based on all ol'the
following criteria.
1. Approvat ol'the request is consistent with the applicable .statewide planning goals,
Finding 17.10.300(6)(1): See Part 2, Statewide Planning Goals findings and conclusions.
Conclusion 17.10.300(6)(1): Consistent
2. Approvat ol'the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan,
Finding 17.10.300(6)(2): See Part 3, Comprehensive Plan findings and conditions.
Conclusion 17.10.300(6)(2): Consistent.
CAP010815 Page 73
3. The property and affected area is presently provided with adequate public facilities, .services and
transportation networks to .support the use, or .such facilities, .services and transportation
networks are planned to be provided in the planning period, and
Finding 17.10.300(6)(3): Public facilities, services and transportation networks have been
established pursuant to the Twin Creeks Master Plan and are sufficient to serve the allowable
uses. The proposed zone change reduces maximum densities from 50+ units per acre to 12 units
per acre significantly reducing the use of public facilities.
Conclusion 17.10.300(6)(3): Consistent.
4. The change is in the public interest with regard to neighborhood or community conditions, or
corrects a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or land use district map regarding
the property which is the .subject of the application.
Finding 17.10.300(6)(4): The proposed zone change is consistent with the Twin Creeks Master
Plan as amended (File No. 14013), which determined that the LMR designation is consistent
with objectives of the Master Plan.
Conclusion 17.10.300(6)(4): Consistent.
17.10.600 Transportation planning rule compliance.
Section 660-012-0060(1) GVhere an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive
plan, or a land use regulation would .significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility,
the local government .shall put in place measures asprovided in .section (2) of this rule to assure that
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance .standards (e.g.
level of.service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment
.significantly affects a transportation facility ifit would:
a) Change the functional classification ratan existing or planned transportation facility;
b) Change .standards implementinga functional classification system; or
e) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation .system
plan:
(A) Allow (vpes or levels of land uses that would result in levels of travel or access that are
inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility:
(B) Reduce the performance ratan existing or planned transportation facility below the
minimum acceptable performance .standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan, or
(C) Worsen the performance ratan existing or planned transportation facility that is
otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance .standard
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
Finding 17.10.600(1): See Part 4, Statewide Transportation Planning Rule findings and
conclusions.
CAP010815 Page 74
Conclusion: Consistent.
Summary Conclusion: As evidenced in findings and conclusions, the proposed zone change is
consistent with applicable standards and criteria in the Central Point Municipal Code, including the
Statewide Planning Goals, Comprehensive Plan, the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan and Statewide
Transportation Planning Rule.
CAP010815 Page 75
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CENTRAL POINT ZONING MAP ON LOT 33 OF
TWIN CREEKS CROSSING, PHASE 1 (1.81 ACRES) FROM TOD-HMR, HIGH MIX
RESIDENTIAL TO TOD-LMR, LOW MIX RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
(37S2W03CA, TL 1200)
Recitals:
A. The City of Central Point (City) is authorized under Oregon Revised Statute
(ORS) Chapter 197 to prepare, adopt and revise comprehensive plans and
implementing ordinances consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning
Goals.
B. The City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with
ORS 197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure compliance with goals
and compatibility with City Comprehensive Plans.
C. Pursuant to authority granted by the City Charter and the ORS, the City may
amend the Central Point Zoning Map which was originally adopted on August
29, 1980 and has been amended at various times since.
D. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Chapter 17.10.100 Zoning
Map and Zoning Code Text Amendments — Purpose and Chapter 17.05.010,
Applications and Development Permit Review Procedures, the City has
accepted an application and conducted the following duly advertised public
hearings to consider the proposed amendment:
a) Planning Commission hearing on October 7, 2014
b) City Council hearings on December 11, 2014 and January 6, 2015
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Based upon all the information received, the City Council adopts the
findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the City staff report; determines that
changing community conditions, needs and desires justify the amendments and hereby
adopts the changes entirely.
Section 2. The City zoning map is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 1 which
is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 3. The City Manager is directed to conduct post acknowledgement
procedures defined in ORS 197.610 et seq. upon adoption of the changes to the zoning
and Comprehensive Plan maps.
CAP016615 Page 76
Section 4. Effective date. The Central Point City Charter states that an ordinance
enacted by the council shall take effect on the thirtieth day after its enactment. The
effective date of this ordinance will be the thirtieth day after the second reading.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
day of , 20
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
CAP010815 Page 77
Lot 33 Twin Creeks Crossing Phase I
Current Zoning
N
F
Golden Peak Drive N
HMR ^ e co5gcg
cue
S�.
Proposed Zone Change
�s
N
TGolden Peak Drive i
LMR
n S es5
`ye
The proposed zone change on Lot 33 of Twin Creeks Crossing, also known as 37 2W 03CA TL
1200 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation (Transit Oriented Development
(TOD)) and the Twin Creek Master Plan.
CAP010815 Page 78