HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 771 - Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional PlanPLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~ , ~
A RESOLUTION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ADOPTION OF
THE GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PLAN
WHEREAS, pursuant to former 4RS 197.654 (1) {2007), Jackson County and the cities
of Medford, Ashland, Central Paint, Eagle Point, Phoenix and Talent, entered into a
collaborative regional problem-solving (RPS} process; and
WHEREAS, the City of Central Point (City}, as a participant in RPS, having signed a
Participants' Agreement identifying a regional land use problem, establishing goals
addressing the problem, creating mechanisms for achieving such goals, and a system far
monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of the those goals; and
WHEREAS, the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (the "RPS Plan")
contemplated by the Participants' Agreement has been proposed under the provisions of
former ORS 197.654(1) and farmer 197,656(2), which remain applicable to this RPS
process; and
WHEREAS, Jackson County is the local government charged with adapting the final
RPS Plan; and
WHEREAS, the RPS process must include: (a) An opportunity for involvement by other
stakeholders with an interest in the problem; and (b) Efforts among the collaborators to
agree on goals, objectives and measures of success; and
WHEREAS, the City has been requested to make reconunendation(s) to 3ackson County
concerning the contents and adoption of the final RPS Plan, including associated maps
and Findings; and
WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission conducted hearings on the RPS Plan on
March 16, 2010; and
WHEREAS, all requirements far legal notices and advertisements have been fulfilled
and public testimony accepted and recorded; now, therefore,
THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS
TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Page 1 of 14
Section l -- RPS Plan.
The Planning Commission hereby forwards a favorable recommendation to the City
Council regarding approval of the "Greater Bear Creek Valley Resional Plan,
November 2049", attached as Exhibit "A", including Findings attached as Exhibit "B",
and subject to the following modifications:
1, Clarify the use of the Employment designated lands in CP-6B as described in
Exhibit "C";
2. Include tax lot 362W 34D 230 within CP-4D as described in Exhibit "D", and
3. Correct Figure 2.10 per Exhibit "E" .
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage
this 6th day of April, 2010.
Planning Commission Cha
ATTEST:
~. l
City Representative
Approved by me this ~`~ day of , 2410.
m
Planning Co issio Ch
Page 2 of 14
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 09017
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
April 6, 2010
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey,AICP,
Community Development Director/
Assistant City Adminlstrator
Consideration of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (the "Plan"), dated November 2009.
Applicant: Jackson County
STAFF SOURCE:
Don Burt, AICP, EDFP Planning Manager
BACKGROUND:
On March 16, 2010 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to gather public input regarding the
Greater Bear Creek Regional Plan. After taking testimony the Planning Commission closed the public
hearing and moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the Gity Council subject to the following
modifications:
1. Add tax lot 362W34D 230 to CP-4D; and
2. Clarify the indented use of the Little League Fields and the Boy Scout property in CP-6B.
The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a final resolution for consideration at the April 6,
2010 meeting.
FINDINGS:
Exhibit "B" of the resolution contains the findings supporting the Planning Commission's
recommendation. It should be noted that the City's consideration of the Plan at this time is limited to
consistency with the Participant's Agreement. As a land use decision the County is responsible for
preparing findings addressing consistency with all applicable state land use laws.
DISCUSSION POINTS:
The only point worth noting is staff's inclusion in the Resolution to a modification {Exhibit E") of Figure
2.10 of the Plan as it applies to the average household size within the urban reserve areas. Figure 2.10
uses a figure of 2.69. This figure should read 2.5, which has been previously approved. The County
Planning Department has been notified and acknowledges the error.
Exhibits "C - E" address the changes to the Plan as discussed at the March 16`h meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" -Planning Commission Resolution No. ~ "-[
Page 1 of 2
ACTION:
Consideration of Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolutian No. ~ ~ I
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT "A"
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan
Volumes 1- 3
Page 3 of 14
FINDINGS OF FACT
FOR
CONSIDERATION OF THE GREATER BEAR CREEK REGIONAL
PLAN
Before the City of Central Point
Consideration of the Greater Bear Creek Regional Plan
Applicant:
Jackson County
Page 4 of 14
i. INTRODUCTION
On December 22, 2008 the City Council approved Ordinance No. 1923 adopting the Bear
Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement (the "Agreement"). The Agreement
set forth the terms and conditions agreed to by the City relative to implementation of the
draft Plan as referenced in the Agreement. The Agreement further states that the adopted
Plan shall be what is adopted as a result of Jackson County's comprehensive plan
amendment process'.
Jackson County is currently in the process of conducting a series of public hearings to
consider approval of comprehensive plan and land use regulations necessary to approve
and implement the Plan, which upon adoption will become the adopted Plan per the
Agreement. As part of the County's review process the participating cities are provided
an opportunity to review a final draft of the Plan, and will forward a recommendation to
the County planning commission regarding the Plan. Participating cities will also be
given an opportunity for oral comment before the County planning commission prior to
the County's final decision.
The purpose of these findings is to confirm that the plan as presented in Exhibit "A" is
substantially consistent with the draft Plan presented in the Agreement, and to forward a
recommendation to the County to approve the Plan as presented in Exhibit "A", with
changes.
As used in these findings the following terms are used in referencing the Greater Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan:
"Regional Plan" - A generic reference to the Greater Bear Creek Regional Plan;
"Agreement Plan" -Refers to the Regional Plan approved as part of the Participants
Agreement;
"Pending Plan" -Refers to the Regional Plan dated November 2009 and the subject of
these findings; and
"Adopted Plan" -Refers to the Regional Plan adapted by the County per the current
proceedings, subject to LCDC acknowledgement and appeals.
It is the purpose of these findings to determine whether or not the Pending Plan is
consistent with the Agreement Plan, and to recommend any changes, and supporting
f ndings, that are revealed during the City's public hearing process.
The following addresses the comparison between the Agreement Plan and the Fending
Plan:
1 RPSPA, Section II General Agreement
Aage 5 of i4
II. Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
{"Agreement"} has been approved by the City2 and the Land Development and
Conservation Commission on September 23, 2009 The Agreement is an
agreement by all participating cities that that they will abide by the Plan adopted
by the Implementing Signatories and acknowledged by the State of Oregon. The
Agreement further stipulates that the adopted Plan shall be the Plan adopted as a
result of Jackson County's comprehensive plan amendment process.
Approval of the Agreement included approval of the Agreement Plan, subject to
any modifications that may occur during the comprehensive plan and land use
changes necessary to implement the Region Plan.
III. Statement of Problems to be Addressed
Finding: The Agreement identifies three problems to be addressed by the
Regional Plan:
Problem #1:Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth;
Problem #2: Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban Expansion;
and
Problem #3: Loss of Community Identity.
These three problems were addressed in the Agreement draft Plana. The pending
draft of Plan restates these three problems verbatim4.
Conclusion: The pending draft plan is consistent with the Agreement draft Plan.
IV. Project Goals
Finding: The Agreement sets forth three goals to be achieved by adoption of the
Plan:
Goal #1: Manage future regional growth far the greater public good;
Goal #2: Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic,
cultural, and livability benefits; and
Goal #3: Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique features, and
relative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each community within the
Region.
z City of Central Point Ordinance No. 1923, December 22, 2008
3 Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, July 2008, Chapter l
4 Greater Sear Creek Valley Regional Plan, November 2009, Chapter 1, Section 4.3.1.
Page 6 of 14
These three goals were incorporated in to the Agreement draft Plans. The pending
draft Plan restates these goals verbatim, including all related guiding policies as
previously presented in the Agreement Plan.
Conclusion: The Pending Plan is consistent with the Agreement Plan.
V. Optional Techniques/Strategies for Implementation
Finding: The Agreement Plan included ten (IO) optional implementation
techniques addressing6, addressing the Problems and Goals discussed in the
Agreement Plan. The Pending Plan restates, verbatim, the implementation
techniques set forth in the Agreement Plan.
Conclusion: The Pending Plan is consistent with the Agreement Plan.
VI. Measurable Performance Indicators
Finding: In the Agreement Plan there are ten (10) Performance Indicators, which
are essentially a restatement of the Implementation Techniques. The Pending
Plan8 restates, verbatim, the Performance Indicators set forth in the Agreement
Plan.
Conclusion: The Pending Plan is consistent with the Agreement Plan.
VII. Incentives and Disincentives to Achievieg Goals
Finding: In the Agreement Plan9 there are six (6) incentives for participating
cities to adhere to the Plan, and six (6} disincentives. The Pending P1an10 restates,
verbatim, the Incentives and Disincentives set forth in the Agreement Plan.
Conclusion: The Pending Plan is consistent with the Agreement Plan.
VIII. Progress Monitoring System & Amendment Process
Finding: In the Agreement Plan11 Section IV of the Agreement lists the standards
by which progress in attaining the objectives of the Regional Plan will be
measured, including minor and major amendments to the Regional Plan. The
language in the Pending Plan12 is verbatim from the Agreement Plan.
s Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, July 2008, Chapter 1, Section 7
6 Ibid, Chapter 6, Section 1
' Ibid, Chapter 6, Section 2
$ Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, November 2409, Chapter 5, Section 1
91bid, Chapter 6, Section 3
io Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, November 2009, Chapter 5, Section 2
'~ Ibid, Chapter 6, Section 4
12 Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, November 2009, Chapter 5, Section 2
Page 7 of 14
Conclusion: The Pending Plan is consistent with the Agreement Plan.
Age 8 of 14
EXHIBIT "C"
Note: Proposed changes identified in red.
Page 4-26
Area CP-6B: (T'hird para,.graph)
"Central Paint Little League operates a baseball field facility on a 14.5 acre parcel within one of
the two Agricultural land inclusions in CP-6B. The baseball property constitutes the majority of
the acreage within this Agricultural land inclusion. Two EFU zoned parcels having
approximately five aggregate acres, exists between the baseball fields and the Rural Residential
land to the north. These two parcels are used by the Central Point Council, Boy Scouts of
America for its facilities and activities. The Boy Scout property is not nor likely will be used for
farming in the future (other than incidental not-for-profit farming by Boy Scouts). [n Figul•e
CP.11 both the Central Point Little League property and the Boy Scout property are classified
under then Etnnlovment land use-type, with the understanding that thev will be retained as a
subclassification land-use type Institutional. The second inclusion of Agricultural land is located
near the geographic center of CP-6B and is completely surrounded by Rural Residential
exception lands, Together, these inclusions have approximately -1-419 acres."
Figure CP.11
Residential Aggregate Resource Open Space'
/lParl~s Ernployrnent
Existin Plan 77% 23%
Pro ased Uses 90°/a 10%
Page 9 of 14
EXHIBIT "D"
Note: Proposed changes identified in red.
Page 4-9
Fisure CP.3
~' Detail
Steicl Arca
y Lots Existing
Dwelliu ~
. '. Gross
Acres , Phy~~~ally
' Cotl~tx l~~ec~ . wilt , GB~erall~
U~con#traine~l'
Cl?-II3 ' 104 103 544 82 21 441
'~Cp• l C ;; 25 26 70 2 9 60
LP-2B' ; 72 82 325 25 19 282
CP-3 9 7 36 8 1 27
~E-4D : b7 91 X83 30 81 52
GP-5 9 11 31 10 2 19
;CP-GA 165 163 444 2 56 386
CI?-6B ' 95 93 188 4 22 162
Cl?~A.~i' 28 30 86 9 9 69
CP-A.b` 1 1 177 8 0 169
~' ~- -~ ~ 9 ~- 8
CPiB.x, 6 4 297 11 1 286
CP=T).a 7 4 87 0 1 86
CP-D,b 3 0 46 0 0 46
CPyFG,~ 4 4 247 67 1 179
Totals 535 529 2,664 258 141 2,264
Page 4-11
. ,
.,.,«,.~,1 ,.~ ., ..rol. o.l . +l,..a
Page 4-20
Area CP-4D:
This Urban Reserve area exists as atriangular-shaped tract that runs along the northeastern side
of Interstate 5. The area has approximately 5-83 acres, approximately two-thirds of which is
currently designated Agricultural and is owned by Jackson County. The southerly third of the
area is designated as Rural Residential land and is owned by the City of Central Point. Both
tracts are part of the Bear Creek Greenway. None of the land is or has in recent history been in
agricultural production and the soils are of low agricultural suitability (Class IV-VII, where not
built as roadway, or within the Bear Creek floodway). This area also has environmental
Page 14 of l4
constraints. The eastern third of this 583-acre area is within the 100-year floodplain of Bear
Creek and is also impacted by wetlands. The City expects to use this area for passive recreation,
dedicated open space, or parks adjacent to and in connection with the Bear Creek Greenway.
At the northeast corner of CP-4D there is a one-acre parcel of exception Land zoned Urban
Residential (UR-1). This property has an existing residence, and abuts the City limits and
residentially zoned lands to the east. The property also abuts Agricultural ]ands to the north. As
an exception area it was deemed appropriate to include the property within this urban reserve as
first riori land. However it is reco nized that the roe abuts A ricultuarl land and as
such an future develo ment of the roe will be sub'ect to corn fiance with the a ricultural
buffering standards to be implemented as part of this Plan. Because of the existing residential
character of the property, and it proximity to other developed residential lands, it was deemed
appropriate to include this parcel within CP-4D.
Fi ure CP.$
Residential Aggregate Resource Open Space
/Parks Employment
Existin Plan 32% 68%
Pra Deed Uses 1 % a-A899%
With the exception of the single residential exception property, ~s-this area was found to be
suitable for park and trail use due to the following Goal 14 boundary location factors and
resource land use impacts:
1. Efficient Accommodation of Identified Land Needs - CP-4D will accommodate the City's
identified park land needs and non-motorized transportation facility needs. The Bear
Creek Greenway Master Plan guides the city and county development which links active
recreation nodes with abicycle/pedestrian trail system along the natural corridor of Bear
Creek. The plan includes a land and easement acquisition strategy which seeks to
eventually extend the greenway trail to the Rogue River. Although public ownership of
the greenway is preferred, easements have also been employed as a viable alternative.
Through the years aggregate has been mined from Bear Creek; sometimes leaving deep
pits which have filled with water and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. Reclamation
plans for aggregate sites which exist to the north provide extension of the greenway trail
system. Construction of this trail linkage and including same within or linking to the
larger Central Point urban area, will provide an alternative transportation mode for
workers in the Tolo employment area in addition to providing recreational access along
the greenway for all.
The inclusion of the one acre residential prope ,recognizes the exceptions status of the
property_,and avoids the potential isolation and long term limitation of public service
BXtensl0rrS.
2. Orderly and Economic Provision of Public Facilities and Services -The area extends
northerly from existing city limits over land assembled by public agencies for the
purpose of providing the Bear Creek Greenway in accordance with its adopted master
plan. Access to urban facilities and services, to the limited extent needed for the
Aage 11 of 14
greenway use and the exceptions parcel, may be extended directly from 41d Upton Road
on the south and the Boes subdivision to the east. Greenway improvements, policing, and
management would be coordinated between the City and Jackson County.
3. ESEE Consequences -The overall comparative ESEE consequences of an Urban
Reserve boundary in this area is positive, based on the following:
a, Economic -The provision of park and non-motorized transportation linkage will
supply an attractive community amenity and have a positive affect on property
values and tourism. It will also afford workers a more economical way to access
employment opportunities. The area has already been acquired by the public and
inclusion into Central Point will help finance completion of this segment of the
Bear Creek Greenway. The use of lands within the greenway area far
economically viable agriculture is Beverly limited as discussed above. Land
acquisition will be required in other areas to provide for park and trail needs.
The inclusion of the one acre exception parcel will allow for the extension of
,public utilities as may be deeded to serve this property. The economic
conclusion is neutral.
b. Social -Residents and vistors will have the opportunity to view preserved
natural habitat in close proximity to urban populations and inclusion of this area
will facilitate the development of facilities for the handicapped. This will
positively affect the community's sense of identity and quality of life, and will
promote opportunities for healthful exercise. Park land will need to be provided
in some proportion far any Future growth area. However, the greenway is a
unique resource in this fixed location.
h~clusion of the exception parcel will have a positive social consequence as a
result of the property being able to obtain public services and utilities similar to
the abuttingresidential subdivision to the east.
c. Environmental -the area will serve as a natural area providing open space and
habitats for fish and wildlife. Inclusion as urban reserve will assure, through and
urban reserve management agreement and the RPS agreement, further protection
for the area to preserve the enumerated natural values.
The environmental consequence of including the exception parcel within_CP-4D
is neutral. The property is currently zoned and developed for residential use.
Any future development of the property will be subject to compliance with the
agricultural buffering standards required of this Plan.
d. Energy -inclusion of the area will facilitate completion of a continuous trail
along the length of the Bear Creek corridor and, specific to this segment, anon-
motorized corridor between the Tolo employment area and residential population
areas of Central Point. The delivery of non-motorized transportation facilities
linking employment and residential areas can and is expected to result in
significant energy savings.
The inclusion of the exception parcel, because of it existin d~pment and
proximity to available public facilities, will not have an, adverse impact on the
Page 12 of 14
use of ener~,y.
4. Compatibility of the Proposed Urban Uses with Nearby Agricultural and Forest
Activities Occurring on Farm acrd Forest Land Dutside the Urban Growth Boundary -
There are no Herby forest lands or forest activities. Nearby agricultural uses on land that
would remain outside the urban area (assuming inclusion of the greenway area} include
an active fruit orchard having approximately 177 acres and located to the easrt of the
corridor. Hay and livestock pasturing further to the north exists along the east bank, and
the cultivation of field crops also exists north of the subject area to the west of the creek
corridor. The proposed urban use of the area will be for park and trail use. The Bear
Creak Greenway routinely traverses farm land throughout its reach. Fencing is used to
control and prevent trespass. The predominant wind direction during the summer months
is from the north. Consequently, care in the routing of the trail and separation of
recreational areas from farm activities should and will be taken in the planning of these
park and trail facilities and the same will occur under the jurisdiction of Jackson County
or the City of Central Point• The area has sufficient size to accommodate setbacks and
screening of sensitive receptors from the nearby and sometimes adjacent agricultural
land activities. The riparian corridor along the creek is heavily vegetated and provides
natural screening through a significant portion of the area. While the potential exists for
Heise from farm activities, the same are not anticipated to be a significant problem and
can be mitigated. In addition, ambient noise from Interstate 5 will serve to dampen noise
from farm uses.
The one-acre residential exception parcel that abuts Agricultural lands to the north is
occupied by one single-family detached residence dwelling. The inclusion of this parcel
within the urban reserve area will facilitate the availability of public utilities to serve the
existing residence. Because the parcel abuts A~ricultural_lands any future development
of the roe will be subject to com fiance with the a ricultural bufferin standards to
be icnplemented as part of this Plan.
Page 13 of 14
EXHIBIT "E"
Note: Proposed correction is identified in red. The use of urban reserve average persons per
household of 2,5 has always been agreed to and noted in prior drafts, and is correctly noted in
Volume 2 of the Greater Bear Creek Regional Plan, As a result of this correction it may be
necessary to adjust developable land figures.
Page 4-9
Figure 2.10
Ashlated ~ CCntral ' 1/aglc .....
1Vl~dfntd ~ ,; i~
~'hok>a~~ i ,
~Ttile~t
,. ;Poigt point,
, ,_
, ..
. ,.,.
Expected People Per 2
15 2
69' 2
82 2
4
7 2:30 2.25
''Reside~xtl~l °: Household . . . .
Buildout of~f~ Density
lExistng (DU/Gross 5.28 5.54 5.20 5.20 6.00 5.65
UGBs . . ' Acre
People Per n/a X92,50 2.82 2.41 2.30 2.30
Household
Anticipated. Lower
Residential Density n/a 6.00 6.40 G.50 6.20 6.20
Buildout of ~ {DU/Gross
Fr
l Acre
npose~
I7RAs Higher
Density nla 7.26 7.74 7.87 7.50 7.50
(DUIGross
-~ -----Acre)- --
Page 14 of 14