Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes - February 3, 2004Planning Connrrrssioty Minutes Rehruary 3, 2004 Pugc 2 Mr. Humphrey talked about the States goals and began with citizen involvement In Cenh~al Point the Citizens Advisory Committee, is the local sounding board which makes recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission has the responsibility to make a land use decision on behalf of the City Council unless it involves amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning. Mr. Humphrey, then went through appeal process. Mr. Humphrey defined various acronyms such as LCDC, DLCD, LUBA and the purpose and/or role of each. Other areas of discussion included definitions of Urban Growth Boundaries, Urban Reserve, and the remaining Statewide Planning Goals. Some of the goals talked about in greater depth were: Goal # 9: Economic Development - as explained is being given more importance. Natural resource protection is working hand in hand with economic growth. Mr. Humphrey gave an example of Governor Kulongoski's pursuit in identifying industrial `.shovel ready' sites throughout the state, with one of the best sites being here in Central Point. Goal # 10: Housing - To provide build able lands inventory that provides a variety of homes commensurating with the economy. Goal # 12: Transportation -The Transportation System Plan (TSP) ties in with this goal. The TSP helps prioritize certain road improvements. Goal # 14: Urbanization -Expanding the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), forces growth where infrastructure already exists, rather than promoting urban sprawl. The Planning Commission can expect to see more on the UGB in the late summer or fall sometime. Additional topics considered at length were from League of Oregon Cities -Planning Commissioner Training. Discussions included: Introduction to Land Use Planning in Oregon; City Land Use Procedures which consist of Quasi-judicial vs. Legislative hearings, burden of proof, relevant vs. irrelevant testimony, evidence and common procedural issues. B. Distribution of Proposed Retail Site Plan Application for Pear Blossom Plaza (Wal-Mart) Mr. Humphrey explained that he has distributed copies of the Wal-Mart application now to give Commissioners enough time to review. There were questions as to the status of the application and whether the application was complete or not. Mr. Humphrey explained that there were additional items that he had asked for such as an Economic analysis, and the effect of displaced traffic with the Highway 62 store once it closes. He Planning Commission Muiutes February 3, 2004 Page 3 then read the letters from Kittleson & Associates representing Wal-Mart for their traffic analysis. The application was deemed complete on January 16, 2004, and a tentative time frame for upcoming meetings was discussed, provided PacLand agreed to waive the 120 day rule by approximately two weeks. There were questions from the commissioners about whether or not they could attend other meetings held by other committees regarding the application, and if it is acceptable to have a study session with the City Council. Mr. Humphrey said he would contact the attorney to see if this could be done and would call commissioners back at a later date with direction. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey passed around booklets from this years Council Retreat. He explained the theme this year and how each Department Head had to map where they wanted their departments to go within the next 5 years. Mr. Humphrey encouraged the Planning Commissioners to take the Council Retreat's walking tour and comment on their observations. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL GALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M.