1 / 37

RVCOG

RVCOG. Advisory Committee Meeting Discussion on Draft Interpretation of The Urban Reserve Rule Location Factors And Analysis of RPS Growth Areas February 28, 2006. RPS Assigned Basecase Assumptions. URA Population based on RPS projections Base year population from July 2005 PSU

pia
Download Presentation

RVCOG

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RVCOG Advisory Committee Meeting Discussion on Draft Interpretation of The Urban Reserve Rule Location Factors And Analysis of RPS Growth Areas February 28, 2006

  2. RPS Assigned Basecase Assumptions • URA Population based on RPS projections • Base year population from July 2005 PSU • Use the proposed mix of uses (Same Densities) • Use the needs identified • Commercial, Industrial, Residential • Use standardized buildable lands constraints • Use Urban Reserve Rule priority of lands

  3. Population Modeling • New 2005 PSU Estimates have only minor differences from 2000 base year estimate. • Document modeling differences between Base Case population forecast, and population forecasts for other modeling (Housing Needs, Economic Opportunities Analysis, TPAU)

  4. Issues nearly resolved • Consistent spatial and numerical data • Consistent area-wide methodology and GIS data • Fixed set of proposed growth areas • Consistent buildable lands criteria • Base Case Urban Reserve

  5. Base Case Approach • Use GIS Analysis to rank all lands • Develop “base case” urban reserves from ranked land • Compare with RPS areas and forecast need • Identify Conflicts

  6. Base Map

  7. Distance from Roads ¼ Mile Increments Closer to Roads = Higher Priority Farther out from Roads = Lower Priority

  8. Distance from UGB ¼ Mile Increments Closer to UGB = Higher Priority Farther out from UGB = Lower Priority

  9. EFU & Exception Lands Exception Lands = Most desirable EFU = Low priority for inclusion

  10. Slopes Lower % Grade = More Desirable Higher the % Grade = Less Desirable

  11. Soils Richer the Soil = Less desirable Poorer the Soil = More desirable

  12. Overlay all factors

  13. Combine all data and rank by total score. The higher the value the more desirable for inclusion into urban reserves

  14. Convert to parcels and rank by total score to delineate new urban reserve areas

  15. Analysis of RPS and Base Case Growth Areas • Standardized Buildable Lands Assumptions Applied - Removals • Floodway • Wetlands with 25’ Buffer • Streams – buffered 50’ and 25’ depending on class • Open Space Shapefile (Provided) • Public Lands Shapefile (Provided) • Exception land reduced 20% in capacity to account for existing homes • TAC Recommendation: Developed sites than 1 du/ac - eliminate • Compared buildable lands with defined land needs

  16. Central Point Area Comparison Base Case – 1636 acres RPS – 2382 acres Overlap – 921 acres

  17. Central Point Location of RLRC Lands

  18. Central Point Parcels coded by Rank Green - yellow = Values - 25-50 More desirable Orange to red = Values - 0-24 Less desirable

  19. Eagle Point Area Comparison Base Case – 873 acres RPS – 1350 acres Overlap – 319 acres

  20. Eagle Point Location of RLRC Lands

  21. Eagle Point Parcels coded by Rank Green - yellow = Values - 25-50 More desirable Orange to red = Values - 0-24 Less desirable

  22. Jacksonville Area Comparison Base Case – 594 acres RPS – 518 acres Overlap – 368 acres The 470 acres of land to the south of Jacksonville has not been included in RPS growth area capacity. This issue will be resolved when further analysis on the amount of buidlable acreage can be determined.

  23. Jacksonville Location of RLRC Lands

  24. Jacksonville Parcels coded by Rank Green - yellow = Values - 25-50 More desirable Orange to red = Values - 0-24 Less desirable

  25. Medford Area Comparison Base Case – 2833 acres RPS – 4579 acres Overlap – 1645 acres

  26. Medford Location of RLRC Lands

  27. Medford Parcels coded by Rank Green - yellow = Values - 25-50 More desirable Orange to red = Values - 0-24 Less desirable

  28. Phoenix Area Comparison Base Case – 575 RPS – 600 Overlap – 59 PH-3 At the request of Jackson County, Phoenix has agreed to include 266 acres of highly urbanized rural land (labeled PH-3) between Medford and Phoenix as part of its proposed urban reserve. Because this area is fully built out, there is no assigned residential capacity.

  29. Phoenix Location of RLRC Lands

  30. Phoenix Parcels coded by Rank Green - yellow = Values - 25-50 More desirable Orange to red = Values - 0-24 Less desirable

  31. Talent Area Comparison Base Case – 149 acres RPS – 233 acres Overlap – 115 acres

  32. Talent Location of RLRC Lands

  33. Talent Parcels coded by Rank Green - yellow = Values - 25-50 More desirable Orange to red = Values - 0-24 Less desirable

  34. Base Case Urban Reserve Areas

  35. RPS proposed Reserve Areas

  36. Issues nearly resolved • Consistent spatial and numerical data • Consistent area-wide methodology and GIS data • Fixed set of proposed growth areas • Consistent buildable lands criteria • Base Case Urban Reserve

  37. Remaining Issues • Document population modeling differences • Review capacity estimates for RPA areas • Finalize Land Need calculation • Document criteria for RPS urban reserves • Match need and area in RPS urban reserves comparing proposed, base case, and other modeling efforts

More Related