HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 3 - Snow AnnexationPLANNING CO~ISSION
RESOL~STION ~t 3
t{hereas, Aiilton Snow filed application for Annexation on December 20, ].97€3 of a
five acre parcel, of ground located on Grant Road;
Nhereas, notices of a public hearing held on February 20, 1979 were sent to
property owners within 300 feet and published in the Mail Tri'uune on February 11 and
1.g, 1.979;
;~ihereas, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to recieve addi-
tional information and for deliberation to dates of tiarch 6, 1979, 3uly 17, 1.979, and
~`~ugust 2I, 1979;
I~lhereas, the Planning Commission has completed the required public hearing
process: receiving information from proponents, opponents, and city staff;
i~hereas, subsequent to closure of public hearing, deliberations were continued
by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting dates of:~ September 4, 1979,
September 1$, 1.979, and f?ctober 2, 19796
Be it resolved, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that
the proposed annexation be denied due to failure of the evidence presented to carry
the burden of proof that the proposal complies with and meets all. State and local
planning criteria necessary to merit annexation to the City of Central Point.
$e it further resol•~ed, that the following findings are adopted by the Central
Paint Planning Gommission in support of the above recommendation:
1. CITIuF~ti INV4LVEri1::I~T
I,CIIC Gaal 1 states: "To provide for ;widespread citi zen involvement"
a. A prior and larger annexation proposal by Milton Snow was reviewed by
the Jackson County Citizens Advisory Committee on February J.6, 1.97$, and
their report, entered into the record of the Planning Commission as
Proponents l;xhibit ~~ III, which references ixhibit ~t 15 of the earlier
petitiorG for annexation by Dr. 5t~owo
b. The Citizens Advisory Committee voted against the original annexation
proposal.
c. The evidence did not show that the present 5 acre proposal was reviewed
by a citizens advisory committee.
d. Public hearings and notifications were processed as defined above.
The Planning Commission finds that Goal 1 was not complf_ed with in that
a citizens advisory committee did not look: ar. the 5 acre proposal. and
LCi7C Goal 1 requires citizens involvement. The citizens advisory commi«
tee should have been offered the opportunity for review of the 5 acre
proposal because it differs significantly from the original 50 acre
proposal reviewed by the citizens advisory committee.
{2}
2.. LANll U5E PLANNING
LCllC Goal 2 states: "Ta establish a land use planning process and policy
framework as a basis for ail decisions and actions related to use of land
and to assure an adequate factual, basis far all decisions and actions related
to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and
actions."
a. The Gity of Central Point has adopted a Comprehensive Plan by Resolution
fir` I73, 21.0, and 222, which calls for processing land use decisions in
accordance with applicable State and local laws.
b. The proposed annexation is within the above Comprehensive Plan boundary
adopted by the .City Council. The proposed annexation is also within
the Comprehensive Plan boundary adopted by the County on .Tune 14, 197$x:
c. Th.e Central Point Comprehensive Land Use P~iap provides for medium density
residential development on the applicants property.
The Planning Commission finds, based on the evidence shown in paragraphs
a, b, & c above, that proper land use planning processes have been fol.~.owed
in this annexation proposal.
3. AGRIC~}LTUR.AL LANDS
LCDC Goal 3 status: '1To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.°°
The area proposed for annexation is not within an LCDC acknowledged
comprehensive plan and LCDC Administrative Rule pertaining to annexations
adopted on February 15, 197$ is applicable.
Section IV, B states: "Goal 3...shali be considered satisfied only if the
city finds;
~) The lands are physically developed for urban uses yr are within an
area physically developed for urban uses;
or,
2) The lands are clearly and demonstrably needed for urban use...and
circumstances exist which make it clear that the lands i.n question
will be within an urban growth boundary...°'
a. Regarding 1) above, a visual inspection shows the surrounding properties
to be primarily land which is vacant or being used for agricultural
purposes.
b. The applicants pro; er4y .~s c;!.rt•o~:~tly ~~eing used for agricultural purposes
as stated in proponents Exhibit ~` 1, paragraph 9.
c. The soils classification on the property is stated in proponents Exhibit
~~ 1, paragraph 10 as Class 3 and Glass 4.
d. Regarding 2) above, the evidence shows a need for additional housing by
. a letter from Bruce Bauer Real Estate dated January 25, 1.97$ which states:
"...not enough available homes in Central Point area...have a waiting
(3)
list of families..." However, the evidence has not reI.ated the housing
need expressed in the letter to housing unit approvals since the date of
the letter, nor has a detailed accounting been made af. acreage of. e~cisting
land within the city available for housing,
The Planning Commission finds the evidence as shown in paragraphs a, h,
c, & d above does not meet the burden of proof required to satisfy the
requirements of the I,CDC Administrative Rule pertaining to annexatianst
The exception process defined in I,CDC Goal 2, requires addressing the
following four issues in order to take an exception to Goal 3:
~.) ~v'hy housing should be provided far nn the applicant property
rather than agricultural uses.
2) Address alternative locations within the area that could be used for
housing.
3) The long term environmental, economic, social, and energy copse..
quences to the locality, region, or State.
4} Show the proposed uses will be compatible with other adjacent useso
£. In Proponents Exhibit ~ ~., Items 6 & 8, the evidence pro~~ects future
housing demands through a uniform progression of the Comprehensive Plan
population estimate.
g. However, in reference to f. above, it is not mandatory for the City to
adhere to population projections estimated in the Comprehensive Plan.
h. Nn evidence was submitted adequately addressing alternative locations
that could be used for housing.
i. Visual inspection of the City Zone Map shows vacant parcels of land
within the existing City Limits. One such parcel, an I3ea11 Lane is
approximately SO acres,
j, The evidence has not adequately addressed the long tee°m environn~ental.
economic, social, and energy consequences to the Locality, region, or
State.
k. fihe property to~the West of the proposal is owned by the proponent
Dr. Snow.
1. The RR 2.5 County toned property to the South of the proposed annex
atinn was not addressed by the evidence.
m. Proponents Exhibit r~ II, a letter from Mr, dull, the adjacent p~-opert:y
owner to the East, supports the annexati,onp
n. Proponents Exhibit ~~ XV, in a letter from the property owner to tt~e
North of the proposal The Church of Latter Dray Saints) expressed a
desire to receive City water and sewer services.
(~+)
The Planning Commission finds that due to items f and g above, LCDC
criteria 7k 1 above was not adequately addressed. Due to items h and i.
above LCDC criteria ~k 2 above was not adequately addressed. LCDC
criteria ~~ 3 above was not adequately addressed by the evi.denco,. LCDC
criteria ~~ 4 above was briefly addressed as evidenced in items k, m,
and n; however, the area to the South was not addressed by the evidence
which leaves issue ~k 4 incomplete.
Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the evidence does pat support
the taking of an exception to Goal 3.
4. FoxEST LANDS
LCDC Goal 4 states: "To conserve forest Iands for forest uses."
a. No evidence was submitted relating to forest lands.
The Planning Commission finds that there is not enough evidence to arrive
at a conclusion on this goal.
5. OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LCDC Goal 5 states: "To conserve open space and protect natural and
scenic resources."
a. Although 5 acres of open space will be Lost with the residential deve7.-
opment of this area, the city ordinance regulations covered by Chapter.
X6.20 of the r3unicipal Code provides for open space for public parks
upon urbanization.
Item a. above provides inadequate evidence and no other appropriate
evidence was submitted, therefore the Planning Commission finds that
Goal 5 has not been properly addressed.
6, AIR, L7AT.~R, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY
LCDC Goal 6 states: F'To maintain and improve the quaI.ity of the ai,}°, water.
and land resources of the State," -
a. The evidence submitted does not address the existing EPA and i~L
designated Air :duality Maintenance Area and whether or not as stated
under LCDC Goal 6 the proposal will exceed (a) the carryi-ng capacity,
(b) degrade the resource, and (c) threaten the availabli.Iity of such
resource.
b. The evidence does not show as stated under LGDC Goal 6, "All waste and
process discharges from future development, whop combined with such
discharges from existing developments shall. no's threaten to vi.alate or
violate applicable state.or federal environmental quality statutes, rules
and standards."
The Planning Commission finds that due to the evidence shown in items
a and b above, there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact
upon air, water, and land resources.
C5)
Letters from the affected responsible agencies such as Medford Taste
Treatment Plant and Pledford ,dC~ter District and City Sanitary Sali.d Waste
regarding their ability to provide services would be appropriate.
7. ARE,~~S. SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISAST:~RS AND HA"LARDS
LCDC Goal 7 states: "To protect life and property from natural disasters
and hazards."
a.. The applicant concedes a drainage problem. Evidence cited three drainage
studies and reports (Proponents P.xhibit I, page b).
b. The evidence shows in Proponents Exhibit 1, page 7, that the development
of the property would provide sub surface drainage as recommended in the
Latham Study, but the evidence does not show how this subsurface drainage
would be distributed within a formal area-wide drainage program as
recommended in the Helseth and i~rarren studies.
The Planning Commission finds the evidence as outlined in items a & b
above, does not conclusively show that life and property would be
protected after urbanization of this property.
S. RECREATIUNAI, NEEDS
LCDG Goal 8 states: "To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens
of the State and visitors.
a. C}laptex 16.20 of city ordinances provides for land dedication for
"recreational park purposes...of 1/64 acre per dwelling unit,."or a fee
in lieu of dedication to be "expended only for the purpose of acc}uiring
and developing park sites>"
The Planning Commission finds, due to item a. above, that recreational
needs in coordination with private enterprise, and in appropriate
proportions to the proposed development and in quantity and quality and
location as is consistent, with avazlabie resouxres wi5.1. be prvvi.ded by
City Ordinance.
9. ECUNUriY OF THE STATE
LCDC Goal 9 states: "To diversify and improve the economy of the State."
a. The Proponents Exhibit I, Item J States: The short term benefits to the
Timber Products and Construction Industries during development and
increased supportive goods and services due to increase in population
will benefit the area.
b. Proponents Exhibit I, paragraph 9 shows a present not agricultural income
from the property averaging $702,p0 per year for the years 1967-1976.
The Planning Commission finds that the evidence shows that the Timber
Product, Construction, Goods and Services economy of the area will
(6)
improve due to the annexation and urbanization of the property, and
that the agricultural economy will be lowered. The evidence does not
show if the net result is a gain or a loss to the economy.
10. ii0t15ING
LCDC Goal 10 states: "To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the
State." "Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans
shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of housing units at
price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial
capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibiJ.ity o£ housing
location, type, and density."
a. Building Permits for new residential housing have averaged 7~. units pe.r
year £rom 1971 to 7.977, according to Proponents Exhibit XrI.
b. the evidence does not provide vacancy ratio, or the present number of
available housing lots.
c. An acreage-zoning inventory o£ existing available ].and was not provided
in the evidence presented.
d. Items 3f and 3g of this resolution apply to housing.
The Flannir_~; Commission finds the evidence shown in items b, c, & d
above .does not support a need for additional housing through annexati_an
at this time.
11. PUBLIC f'ACILITlES AND SERVICES
LCDC Goal 11 states: "To plan and develop a timely, orderlyF and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for.
urban and rural development."
"Public facilities and services in urbanizable areas should be provided at
levels necessary and suiL•able for existing uses. The p~ov3.sion for future
public facilities and services in those areas s:iou7~d be based upo~t;
(1) the time required to provide the service; (2) reliability of service;.
(3) financial cost; and (~-) Ievels of service needed and desired."
a. Water cannot reasonably be made available through the 6" waterline on
Donna t,tay and the existing water system. There is inadequate fire flow
in this area as determined by test results outlined in a l'ebruary 20,
1979 Sta££ Report and shown further in a CH~I~i Hill report dated August- 2,
X979 which stated "the proposed subdivisions cannot be adequately serviced
by either of the extensions without additional system improvements."
This report went on to summarize costs minimally necessary to provide
adequate water at $136,800.
b. The evidence does not show the time required to provide adequate water
service.
c. The evidence does not show an economic means to provide adequate water
service.
(7)
d. The evidence shows in Proponents Exhibit ~~ I, Ii.nes 1~., 12, & ~.3, t}gat
sower service is available to the site and sewer interceptors and
regional sewer treatment plant expansions are planned.
The evidence does not show the adequacy of the sewer. available to the
site.
Public Works Department testimony, in the minutes of the continued
public hearing dated July 17, 1979, stated that high maintenance, i.e..
servicing 4 to 5 times per year, is required of fhe existing siphon in
the sewer that serves this area. The evidence does not show that the
planned interceptor and treatment plant will actually be funded and
constructed.
e.. The evidence shows in Proponents Exhi~it XIV, a letter dated January
23, 1978, from~James Tacchini School District b Superintendent stating,
"...presently at or over capacity in all District b schools..." The
evidence shows in Proponents Exhibit 4~ 1, item 5, "The solution to current
problems of overloaded schools will be to construct new. ,.school..."
The evidence submitted does not show if School District 6 has an existing
plan to provide new schools, how financing for school construction will
be obtained, or the projected time period for completion.
The Planning Commission finds the evidence, as shown in items a, b, c,
d, & e above, indicates that adequate public facilities are not oval l
able for additional homes in this area, and further, the evidence does
not provide -sn adequate plan for completion of the public facilities
necessary to allow annexation of this prapertyr
12. TRANSPORTATION
LCDC Goal 12 states: "To provide and encourage a safe convenient and
economic transportation system."
a. The evidence shows that transportation demands will be increased primarily
through automobile use aver existing streets. Proponents Exhibit I, items
11, 3 states: "traffic increase upon Grants Taylor, and Bea11 Roads
will result from approximately 20 single fa~~~_Iy clv:ell.ings~" A~ sa,
traffic volumes shown in item 11, 5 states: "traffic volumes for .i'aylor
Road,,Beall Lane, and Grant Road are 1915, 2001, and 501.r.CADT)
respectively."
b. Traffic volumes shown in Proponents Exhibit VzII shave ADT of Scenic
avenue near Scenic Village Subdivision of 1203, North 3rd Street at
Upton Road of 3973, and Pine Street west of Haskell of 7950
The Planning Commission finds, due to a & b above and based upon the
size of the proposal with only 20 single family dwellings, that traffic
impact resulting from the proposal would be r~3.ni.mal~
13. ENERGY CONSERVATION
LCDC Gaal 13 states: "Land and uses developed on the Land shall be managed
and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of alI forms of energy,
based upon sound economic principles."
(8)
a. Proponents Exhibit 1, item"N states: "The proposed annexation properly
is contiguous with the City Limits and provides direct transportation
routes."
The Planning Commission finds that, based on item a above, that energy
conservation will be provided. However, evidence could be provided .
relating to the availability of mass transit, Local jobs and shopping.
facilities; the nearness of which wauld also relate to the conservatiot~
of energy.
14. URBANILz'~TIaN
LCDC Goal 14 states: "To provide
from rural to urban land use."
"Urban growth boundaries shall be
u.rbanizable land from rural land."
for an orderly and efficient transition
established to identify and separate
The proposed subject property is not within an acknowledged Comprehensive
Plan. Therefore, LCDC Administrative Rule pertaining to annexation is
applicable, specifically Section IV B, which states:"For the annexation of
Lands not subject to an acknowledged plan the requirements of Goal ].4 shai.l
be considered satisfied only if the City finds that adequate public facilities
and services can be reasonably made available..."
a. -Under Item ?1 of this resolution the Planning Commission found that
adequate public facilities of sewer, water, and schools are no#~ avai.l~
able for additional homes in this area, and...further, the evidence
does not provide an adequate plan for completion of the public facilities
necessary to allow annexation of this property.
b. The City of Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Proposals and the City
of Central Point Urban Growth Boundary as adapted in the Cityis
Comprehensive flan include the Snow property as urbanizable land.
E. Tkte Jackson County proposal for the City of Central Point Urban Growth
Boundary does include the Snow property at the present time
d. Neither the City of Central Point nor the Jackson CounL'y Urban G~;owth
Boundaries as set Earth in the Comprehensive flan have been acknowledged
by the LGDC.
The Planning, Commission finds that even though items b & c above represent
an intention on the part of the City and Gounty to urbanize this property
the Commission finds further that since LCDC acknowledgement has not
occurred, the Administrative Rule on annexation leas precedent and due to the
reasons stated in item a above, LCllC Administrative Rule and therefore LCDC
Goal 1.4 has not been satisfied to allow annexati.ana
Passed by the Planning Cammissian on the 2nd day of_ fletobex~, 1973 .
and signed in authentication by me this ll.tl~ day of Octa~~er , l9'~30
~~ (~'~~i~-lam'"'-t---
Ben ic~4anarua, Planning Commission
Chaff rrnan
A.T'1'~S'!'
...
_ ~~-~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~r y
~V.. ...~ L.. .~.. .h. .~~I ~ ll.
Secretary