The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Commission Packet - March 30, 2004SPECIAL PI.ANNINC; CGMMISSIQN A(~I~aNI)A Ma~'c1z 30, 20(14 -'~:0(t ~~.xn. Next Planning Cozntnission Restziuticzn No. 6lD ~. MEETING CALLED TO t7RDER II. RtJLL CALL Chuck Piland ,Christopher Brown, Candy l=ish, Don Fostez-, Paul Lunte, Connie Moczygeznba, and Wayne Riggs III. CC?RRESP©NDENCE IV, MINUTES A. Review and approval of Mare1~ 2, 2004, a~~d Mare 1 S, 2004 Pl~nnin~ Cotnmii~sion Minutes. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VL BUSINESS A. The second of two Quasi-Judzcial public hearings to review an application for a proposed Site Plan application for Ilse proposed Retail Pear Blossom Plaza {Wal-Mart Supercenter). 'The subject parcel is identified in the records of the Jackson County t~ssessor as Map 3"] ~W 02D Tax Lot 100 in the C-4, Tourist and t~ffzce Professional zoning district and is located at the northwest coz7zer of East Pine Street and Tlamrick Road.. Pages l -62 VII. MISCELLANECJUS VIII. ADJCIURNMENT Pc03182004 Pltrnrzirtg Cortrznissiorr ~~inutes Mcrt~ch 2, 2t1t14 Pabe 1 City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 200 ~, MEETING CALLED T4 ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chairman Chuck Piland, Christopher Brown, Candy Fish, Don Faster, Paul Lunte, and Connie Moczygemba were present. Wayne Rugs was absent. Also in attendance were Tom 1-Iumphrey, Community Development Director; David Alvord, Corn~nunity Planner; Ken Gerschler, Community Planner; Chris Clayton, Deputy Public Works Director; and Lisa Morgan, Planning Secretary. IIL CORRESPONDENCE There was correspondence distributed related to Item A {t~wen's Site Plan), which consisted of a Site Plan and floor plans and elevations. A topography map was distributed for Item D {Hazel Creek PC1D}. IV, MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion #o approve the minutes from February 3, 2004, Commissioner Brown seconded the mo#ion. ROZL CALL: Brown, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Lunte, yes; and Moczygemba, abstain. Motion passed. "V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A, Continuation of a public hearing to review a site plan application. The applican# is requesting approval to add a duplex on his lot, identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 375 2W 2, Tax Lot 900, also known as 400 N. IO`~ Street, This lo# is zoned as R-3, Residential Multiple Family Dis#ric#. I'Icrrznzrr~ Conzrzzissiotz Mizzartes Mtcz•ch 2, ~'C1Q4 Pale 2 Ken Gerschlor, Community Planner, presezatecl the staff report. Mr. Gerschler reczaincled everyone that the commission had ruled to continue this application for the following reasons: rear yard setback too short; carports too close to front line; and architecturally itdid not match the sun-ounding neighborhood. Mr. Gerschler, explained that the new site plan moots all oftlae setback requirements, elevations wero more conapatiblo with the area; and there is plenty of parking. Staff will work with the applicant regarding tho plaeemont of windows. There is no reason not to approve Mr. Owen's situ plan now, Mr. Gorschler stated that due to tho power polo placoment, and Pacific rower not being ablo to relocate tho polo or go underground, that the driveway nzay Hoed fizrtlaer work with the Public Works Dopartrrzont. Staff will work with the applicant on landscaping requirements, Co~nmissianer Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution b06 granting approval of a Site plan to construct a duplex, the applicant must continue to work with City staff' on possible driveway modifications as welt as landscaping requirements. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion passod unanznaously, B, Public hearing to review an application far a conditional use permit for the purpose of operating a day care facility at independent Baptist Church located at 31& W. Pine Street. The subject parcel is in the R-1-S, Residential Single Family Zone and is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 3'7 2W 10AB, Tax Lot 5340. 1~avid Alvord, Community Plannor, presontod the staff report. 1-lo explained that tho State of Oregon has visited the situ and they are okay with the applicants proposal, The hours of operation will be Monday -Friday from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Wost Pine Street will serve as the access, which is already thorn from the previous uso. There will bo a portablo fence for the play area, which will have to be anchored, so that it can not be easily moved around. Chairman Piland asked lithe applicant Kytx~ Weathers had anything to add. l~ym Weathers wantod to discuss Item 1, under Attachment `D' -Conditions ©f.~pproval. She statod that sho is licencod by the State of Oregon, and that the numbor ofchildren she can legally provide taro for is govorned lay the State. The facility is large enough to accommodate ~7 children, based on the State's requirement of square foet Hooded por child. The applicant oxplainod that she is in tho process of purchasing the home and church. She linos in Now Haven Subdivision and has rocoivod a fow complaints regarding her carp providor businoss, anal feels tho proposed location is better. Platrttitrg Carrrtrtissicrn r~fittrcfes ltl~t•ch 2, 2CTt1~ Pale 3 Chairman Piland closed the public portiazz of the zxzcetirg. Commissioner Foster made a motion to adopt Resolution 607 granting approval of a Conditional Use Permit, to operate a day care facility. Applicant shall provide copy of State document showing maximum occupancy of children.. Commissioner Brown, seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion passed uraniznously. C. Public hearing to consider a Tentative Plan fora 9 lot subdivision known as Pine Street Station, Phase 1, located north of Taylor Road in the TQD~MMR zoning disctrict. {Map 37 2W 03DC, Tax lot 3400}. lien Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Gerschler sumzrzarized the development triggers and discussed the major iznpravements going on now. Some ofthesc include traffic improvezrzents to Silver Creek Road, Taylor Raad being re-alzgned in the very near future, and extending Haskell Street through Rogue Valley Bin. Mr. Gerschler discussed the various lots. The applicant feels that the triangular shape lot (Lot l }, would make an excellent child daycare center, Lat 9, is the largest and would be suitable for the proposed senior center because of it's good location. Lat 8, will be park area, which is only a portion of the 4f3 acres total parks and open space designated throughout the Twin Creeks development. Most of lot 8 is within the l E}tJ year flood zone. All the agencies have been notified, and staffwill work with the applicants, ifcarrespondence is received. Mr. Gerschler stated that he fznds this application in order and it meets the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tam :Humphrey, Community Development Director, added that the City has been working with Rogue Valley Bin to acquire the property to extend Haskell through. The owners of Rogue Valley Bin has agreed to the appraised price, and a vacation will be initiated in the future. All improvement triggers all falling in suit. There were questions regarding Mae Richardson losing access from the existing driveway, with the re- canfiguratians of Taylor and l~Iaskell Streets. Chz is Clayton, Public tVorks Beputy Director, addressed these questions. i-Ie explained that Taylor and Haskell are both classified as collector streets and are therefore eligible for SDC funding. Taylor and Haskell improvements will begin, by late summer, early fall, perhaps soarer. I lighway 99 and West Pine improvements are scheduled to begin in April. Then Taylor and 1-Iaskell reconfiguration will follow right after, if not concurrently at some point. Plantritrg Cortr»tissiott 1}~itttrtes ~l~at~c~h 2, 2t?t}~1 Page 4 Herb Farber, Agent for Twin Creeks Development, LLC, said staffhas done a great job outlining this application, and the overall summazy of the devclopznent of Twin Creeks. i-le explained that when vacating, l2 of the streetlalley will revert back to property owners on each side. The Right ofway is dedicated back to the property owners. Accoznmodatiozzs will be made for school access. Carolyn Johnson, property owner just south ofthe proposed re-aligned Taylor Road, wazated to speak on behalf of the developer. She is pleased with the iznprovezxzcnts in the area. However, she wanted some reassurance that her driveway will be left the same, and will not prohibit her from developing her property in the future. Mr. Farber, Agent, responded that they will do a lot line adjustment to be sure there is adequate access to develop her property to the fullest potential. Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adopt Resolution 608, granting approval of a Tentative plan. application for Pine Street Station, Phase ~, Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. RQLL CALL: The motion passed unanimously. D. Public hearing to consider a Planned Unit Development for the construction of eight duplexes known as Hazel Creek FUD, The subject parcel is in the R-3, Residential Multiple Family zone and is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as map 37 2W 02BC, Tax Lot 602. The property is located between Hazel and Cherry Streets. Chairman Piland lives in the vicinity of this proposal and turned this portion ofthe meeting to Candy Fish, Vice Chairperson. David Alvord, Community Planner, presented the staffreport. Mr. Alvord stated after his presentation that this application meets all the requirements of a Planned Unit Development and is in compliance. There were discussions regarding fencing, and screening on the side that faces the freeway. Victor Kosmatka, applicant, explained that he plans on just building a chain link fence along the north boundazy line. it is similar to the fencing that is on Cherry Street. 1Vlr. Kosmatka, said that most of the landscaping is on the burzn to reduce the freeway noise. Public input concezns were: continuation ofPlazel Street; amount of area for entering lodge hall; slope and drainage. Ptcrrrrrin,~r Corratni.ssiorz Mirrittes Mtrrch 2, 2t1tJ4 Pale 5 Mr. Kosmatka stated that he doesn't want to cause the lodge parking clifticulties. There will be a retaining wall, and stone water will be managed now with the Public works reeon~mendations, so there won't be a problem with flooding. Commissioner Leate made a motion to adop# Resole#ion 649, gran#ing approvat of an application for a Planned Unit Development for i"lazel Creek. Conu~~issioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion passed unanimously. VII. MISCELLANEC?US Tom Humphrey, gave an overview of the upcoming Special Planning Commission meetings regarding Wal-Mart Super Center. They will be March 18`", where initial Endings will be determined. March 30`", will be the second special Planning Commission meeting, where new evidence may be submitted such as a traffic study. April 15`", has been set as the City Council meeting, in the event of an appeal. Other miscellaneous items included: • Contracting with Rogue Valley Council of Governments to have Dick Converse cofxze in a couple hours a week to offer additional support to the Planning Department. • Four Oaks was z~ozninated for another award with ODDA. We should be notified in March, 2044 sometime of the results. • The City has acquired the property on Manzanita & 2°`~ Streets for parking. That is located 2 blocks behind the Old Brown's building. VIIiC. ADJOUh;NMENT Commissioner Lunte made a motion #o adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Moczygemba seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M. TCanning Commission .minutes for ~vlarcF~ i8, 2004 ~'0 6e deCivered under separate cover /~ttachment `.~' PacCand~.~pp lication Distributed under separate cover .attachment `B PCanning Department Staff Report Dated March i8, zoo4 Distributed under separate cover .~lttac(~ment `C PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: March 30, 2444 TO. Central Point Planning Commission FREJM. Tom Humphrey A1CP, Community Development Director SX.IBJECT. Site Plan Application and Land Partition for the Proposed Retail Pear Blossom Plaza Applicant: PACLAND 141.21 SE Sunnyside Road, Suite 215 Clackamas, Oregon. 9'741 Owner: Norcross East, LLC P.O. Box 996 Medford, Oregon 97541 Pro„~ty Descripticsn/ 37 2~rV 42D, Tax Lot 144 - 21.6 acres Zoning: C-4, Tourist and 4f~"ice Professional Zoning District Summary The applicant, PACLAND has requested a Site Plan Review and minor partition to facilitate the construction of a 243,491 square foot {combination} general merchandise-grocery store, a 14,244 square foot retail building and a 200 square Foot coffee kiosk {refer to Exhibit A}. This application has been forwarded to the Planning Commission because of its size, its location, its potentially adverse characteristics and because it will involve making findings as to whether or not it is a permitted use for contains individually permitted uses} in the C-4 zone (Chapter 17.44.024 8.15}. Authority CPMC 1.24.024 and CPMC 17.44.43 0 X24} vest the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and to render a decision on any application submitted for Site Plan Review (when referred by City staff} and on any tentative plan application for land partition. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.064. Attachment 8}. It should be pointed out that the City exercised its option to notice ten days ahead of the first planning commission meeting because two public meeting were planned. This was also necessitated because of processing time constraints. _~_ ,~p~alical~le Law CPMC 01.24.010 et seq -Public Hearing Procedures CPMC 16.10.010 et seq -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.44.010 et seq - C-4, Tourist and 4f~ce-Professional District CPMC 17.60.010 et seq -General Regulations CPMC 17.64.010 et seq - C1ff Street Parking and Loading CPMC 1'7.'72.(114 et seq -Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval CPMC 17.76.010 et seq -Conditional Use Permits Baek~round The Planning Commission conducted the first of two public hearings on the above referenced proposal an March 18, 2(}04. Based. on arguments :made by Wal-Mart's attorney, the Commission viewed the Wal-Mart super center as a `community shopping center' and therefore a `permitted use' in the C-4 zoning district. 1F the Commission accepts V~,TaI-Mart as a community shopping center with everything under one roof, THEN the Commission should be certain that each of the components of the super center `fit' into the list of C-4 permitted uses. This is difficult to do since the applicant has not identified all of the uses within the Wal-Mart building nor has it described any of the uses proposed in the 10,200 square foot subordinate building. IF there are some uses in super centers that do not appear on the C-4 list, THEN the Commission will need to make findings of `similarity' and `compatibility' as outlined in CPMC 17.60.140, Authorization for Permitted Uses. The alternative is for those uses to be excluded fiom the super center as a condition to project approval. Some Commission members do not believe that the Wal-Mart application should be processed as a conditional use. However, upon further investigation, staff suggests that treating the application under the CUP provisions is entirely appropriate {refer to CUP purpose statement shown below in italics}. Wal-Mart's attorney argued that; 1 } if GUP processing is necessary then their application is incomplete; 2} the CUP requirement should have been called out during the initial 30 day review period and since it wasn't the City has `waived its right' to process the application as anything but a site plan review; 3} a proper analysis of the potentially adverse characteristics of similar uses has not been (cannot be} performed; and 4} if the super center were to be compared with anything of similar type and size then it should be compared to the original Pear Blossom Shopping Center. _~_ CPMC 1'7,44.030.A.24 moves permitted uses into the conditional use category for application processing when those uses are found to exhibit potentially adverse or hazardous characteristics not normally found in uses ofsimilar type and size. Such an evaluation cannot be made until the characteristics of the proposed use are known, which can only occur after a review of the application. It is the applicant's burden to submit a complete application; if they do not do so, the City does not "waive" the right to enforce their code. The argument for processing `permitted uses' as `conditional uses' can be made at any time an application for a proposed use is found to exhibit potentially adverse characteristics. The purpose of conditional use is described in CPMC 1?.~~ as follows. In certain districts, conditional uses are permitted ... because of their unusual characteristics or the special attributes of the area in which they are to be located, conditional uses require special consideration so that they may be properly located with respect to the objectives of the zoning title and their effect on surrounding properties, It took the applicant six months to submit a completed application which was substantially different from their original proposal. Once this application was circulated, various affected agencies found that the proposal exhibited potentially adverse characteristics. City staff has provided responses from those agencies as evidence to substantiate this claim {refer to Staff Report dated March 18, 2fl44}. There are no other super centers in the valley with which to compare this proposal. The proposed development draws from a larger market area and therefore cannot be compared with the original Naumes fear Blossom. Center master plan which the City Council judged to be a `community shopping center'. There are four subject areas that the public and various regulatory agencies have identified as eoncerr~s. These subject areas include 1}traffic, 2} storm water runoff, 3} adverse economic impacts to Downtown and other Central Point businesses and 4} compatibility with surrounding land uses. Finding that the Wal-Mart proposal meets criteria for processing under the conditional use provisions enables the City to better manage the development and provides enforcement leverage for future noncompliance. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law .t~etertnination of Permitted use The Planning Commission when ruling upon this permitted use may find as follows; ~~_ That the ro osed develo meat meets the cleflnition of a Communit Sl~oping Center and is therefore a ermined use in the C-~ zone CPMC Cha ter t 7.44.020 B 15 . CPMC 1'7.44.02£}.15 permits "Community shopping Centers" as az~ allowed use and defines a Community Shopping Center "as a group of commercial establishments planned, developed, owned or managed as a unit, which may include any of the permitted uses in this section and may also include [23 additional uses."ln its project narrative, the applicant describes its development as "a combination general merchandise-grocery store of203,091 square feet, a retail building of 10,200 square feet and a 200 square foot coffee Kiosk with clz-ive through window," tl uthor~izatr"can for Similar uses The Planxzing Commission in ruling upon similar uses shall find that they are; not specified in this or any other district and are compatible with other permitted uses and with the intent of the C-4 district as provided in CPMC 17.60.140 as follows; That the use is closely related to listed uses and can be shown to exist compatibly with those uses. Uses will occur in the Wal-Mart Super Center that are not listed as allowed either outright or conditionally in the C-4 zone and include; fire sales and service; wall covering; floor covering; hardware sales; electrical and plumbing supplies; nursery and gardening materials and supplies; fzzrniture sales; sporting goods sales including firearms, and paint and related equipment and supplies. The commercial uses associated with a subordinate 10,200 square foot retail building have not been defined by the applicant. The Commission will need to reconcile these disparities by either prohibiting some uses associated with the super center or finding that they are similar and compatible with other uses listed in the C-4 zone. That the use was not antici aced or known to exist on the effective, date of the ordinance codified in this title, either because it involves products,~services or activities not available in the communit at that time or the use involves new roducts services or activities that are nonetheless similar to ermined uses in size traffic im act a earance and other attributes. ^ The uses described above were known to exist on the effective date of ordinance codification and/or ordinance amendment and are all actually permitted in the C-5 zoning district. _~_ Tha# the use is treated under local state or national codes or rules in the same manner as ermined uses. Exce t that these codes ar rules shall not include land use and zanin r regulations. ^ The state building Cade can be uniformly applied to the majority of the uses listed above. There are situations where building modification is necessary to ensure fire safety and operational compatibility between fire sales and service and retail uses. Fire arm sales are monitored and controlled by the federal government. That the use is consistent with the a ose of the district and the com rehensive lan ma and nalicie,s. ^ Uses listed above will occur in the Wal-Mart Super Center that are not listed as allowed either outright or conditionally in the C-4 zone but they are allowed in the C~5 zoning district. The commercial uses associated with a subordinate I (l,~Ofl square foot retail building have not been defined by the applicant. The Commission will need to reconcile these disparities by either prohibiting some uses associated with the super center or finding that they are similar and compatible with other uses listed in the C-4 zone. ,S`ite Plan pt~oce,ss~d as a Conditional Ilse The Planning Commission, when considering uses referred by City staff, should base it's decision on criteria from Section. 17.44.034.A.20; specifically that the proposed permitted use was found to exhibit potentially adverse ox hazardous characteristics not normally found in uses of a similar type and size: The individual im act of the ro osed su er center exhibits adverse and hazardous characteristics not normall found in uses of similar e and size and accentuated b its roximit to Interstate 5 Bear Creels and surroundin residential ro ernes. Therefore the a lication should be rocessed as a condz`tional use under CPMC 17.4~.t~3C}.A.20. ^ Planning staff has provided documentation from a variety of sources including, but not limited to; the fJregon .Department of Transportation (t~D(JT}, the C}regon Department of Fish and Wildlife {CC:>DF&W}, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ}, the Rogue galley Council of Governments (R~CC}G} Water Resources Division, JR.H Transportation Engineers, Galardi Consulting and the Central Point Public Works Department who all agree that the individual and cumulative impacts of the proposed super center exhibit adverse and hazardous characteristics upon traffic circulation, Bear Creep, Central Point's Downtown and the residential neighborhoods adjoining the project site. The documentation from affected agencies can be found in Anachment B. _~_ ~`riteria for Granting ct C'anditional use I'ern2it The Plam~ing Commission, when considering a conditional use permit application, should base it's decision on criteria from Section 17.76.{140; specifically: 17.76.040 A -That the site far the ro osed use is ade uate in size and sha e to accommodate the use and to meet all other dcvelo rnent and lot re uirements of the sub~ect zoning district and all other provisions of this code. Finding -The size of the building, company policy and the rectangular shape ofthe property prevent the front of the building from being oriented toward East Pine Street which would present the best possible appearance of store fronts toward a ~najar arterial street. Conditions to mitigate -- Re-orient the super center building and corresponding parking to face East Pine Street and give the appearance of a `Second Downtown' on the east side afthe freeway. 17.76.040 B -That the site has ade uate access to a ublic street ar hi wa and that the street ar hi wa is ade uate in size and condition to effective) accommodate the traffic that is e~~ected to be generated by the proposed use. Finding - As currently designed, the proposal will have significant impacts on the traffic flow an East Pine Street and an Hamrick Road. The Commission believes and has accepted an Uctober 27, 2003 letter from C~DC)T which provides technical analysis and states that the addition ofthe Wal-Mart "will cause the (northbound} ramp terminal at Pine Street to fail on day of opening. East Pine Street at Hamrick Road will also fail on day of opening." Independent analysis that is being completed by the City's Transportation consultant confirms the C?DDT statement and also dictates that changes be made to the applicant°s access and traffic control plans. Condztians to mitigate -- The J~RH analysis recommends various improvements that the applicant should make to mitigate traffic congestion created by the super center including;) } north bound I-S ramp improvements, 2} moving a proposed traffic signal on East Pine Street further west and constructing a new public street through the Wal-Mart property to Beebe Road, 3} constructing a new traffzc signal at Beebe and Hamrick Roads and 4}participating with. others in the construction of a new bridge over Bear Creek at Beebe Raad as part of I-5 interchange improvements. Short of making andJar participating in these improvements there is no way to provide safe and satisfactory traffic flow an public streets and the application should be denied. _~_ 17.76.040 C -That tl~e ro osecl use will have no si nificant adverse effect on abuttin ro ert or the errnitted use thercol: In makin this determination the Commission shall consider the uro~osed location of improvements on the site• vehicular ingress egress and internal circulation• setbacks• hei ht of buildin s and structures• walls and fences landscaping outdoor lighting and signs. Finding • The individual impact of the proposed super center exhibits adverse and hazardous storm. water runoff and water quality characteristics to Bear Creek which is currently water quality limited and is a fish bearing stream. Additionally, the proposed development places improvements and structures within or alters the I00 year flood plain associated with Bear Creek. Conditions to mitigate - In anticipation of Phase II M~4 permit requirements, the Public Works }apartment, R~CC3G and I~EQ, recommend that the project developer incorporate a more robust set of storm water treatment and infiltration measures into the site design. Post- constructionbest management practices {BMPs} and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to; detention facilities adequate to detain 40-50 percent ofthe two-year storm, water quality treatment devices in addition to `natural storm water bio-filters', a DEQ erosion control permit {1200-C}, stream buffers and catch basin inserts. short of making and/or participating in these improvements there is no way to ensure satisfactory environmental protection and the application should be denied. 17.76.040{D) -That the establishment, maintenance or aeration of the use applied for will com I with local state and federal health and safe re lations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health safet and eneral welfare of arsons residin or workin in the surroundin nei hborhoods and will not be detrimental or in'urious to the ro art and im rovements in the nei boyhood or to the eneral welfare ofthe communit based on the review of those factors listed above. Finding -The individual impact of the proposed super center exhibits potentially adverse characteristics to the surrounding residential property owners by creating increased traffic congestion, greater ambient noise, and glare from new on-site lighting. There have also been historic concerns associated with lass of domestic well water due to surrounding development, underground utility construction and the reduction in aquifer recharge areas. Conditions to mitigate - As in a previous tentative plan approval for the site, the developer shall be responsible for the design and constnzction of a berm and a wall along the northern boundary of the property that will sufficiently mitigate impacts of new noise and light generated by development on the site. Plans shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to construction of the wall and before building permits are issued for any new buildings on the property. _~- Finding -The individual impact of the proposed super center exhibits potentially adverse characteristics to Downtown businesses and to other shopping areas in Central Point z~at included in the applicant's economic analysis. The Ferrarini study `never directly addresses the potential impacts that the super center will have an businesses in tl~e Downtown {i.e. pricing for comparable goods}', "Ferrarini is willing to make the local stores ,.. alter their merchandise, prices and service levels ... to face Wal-Mart competition." The resulting change in product mix {merchandise} and hours of operation may have an adverse affect on small mom-and-pap businesses {see Attachment A}. Conditions to mitigate - Since a number of prospective uses within the super center were unknown at the time of the Ferrarini study, it is believed that mare Downtown businesses will be in direct competition with Wal-Mart. The developer should amend the economic analysis to include additional at-risk businesses not previously accounted far, specif Bally address the potential impacts that the super center will have on each competing business and then modify its selection oftenants in order to compliment Downtown oriented businesscs. It is questionable whether an adverse impact on businesses in Central Point can be mitigated in this case. 17.'76.040 E -That the conditions re aired fora royal ofthe ermit are deemed necessa to rotect the ublic health safet and eneral welfare and ma include• 1 ad'ustments to lot size 2 modifications in street desi s 3 ad'ustments taoff-street arl~in 4 re lotion of Dints ofaccess 5 re uirin landsca in and a ro ert maintenance ro am 6 re latin si s 7 re uirin berms walls and landsca in to reduce the effects of noise and visual incam atibilit 8 re latin time of a eratians 9 establishin a schedule for devela meat 10 re uirin a bond for im rovements and 11 such other conditions that are found to be necessary. Finding -City staff and various public agencies have proposed recanuuendatiarzs that address the issues raised in CPMC 1'7.'76.040{~} but these recommendations may ar may nit fully mitigate the impacts created by the super center proposal at this location. The conditions that have been formulated from the recommendations are intended to prated the public health, safety and general welfare of Central Paint citizens {refer to Attachment C}. Criteria far Granting Site Plan approval The Planning Commission, when considering a site plan application, should base its decision on criteria from Section 17.72.040; Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval. 17.72.040(A} - Landscatain~ and fencing and the construction of walls an the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantial) interfere with the landsca in scheme ofthe nei hborhood and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and si hts as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. _g_ The Commission ma re wire the maintenance of existiz~ lints or the installation of new one far purposes of screening adjoining property. Finding -The proposal will create an adverse visual impact to surrounding properties due to its size and orientation on the property. Previous plan approvals for this site have conditionally required screening and landscaping to minimize these impacts. Condition to mitigate -The developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of a landscaped berm and a wall along the northern boundary of the property that will sufficiently mitigate impacts of new noise and light generated by development on the site. Plans shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to construction ofthe wall and before building permits are issued for any new buildings on the property. 17 7~ 04t},~B .. Desi number and location of ingress and e ess proints so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; Finding - As currently designed, the proposal will have significant impacts on the traffic flow on East Pine Street and on Hamrick Road, The Commission believes and has accepted an October 2'], Zf103 letter from 4DQT which provides technical analysis and states that the addition ofthe Wal-Mart "will cause the (northbound} ramp terminal at Pine Street to fail on day of opening. East Pine Street at Hamrick Road will also fail on day of opening." Independent analysis that is being completed by the City's Transportation consultant confzrms the C)J~QT statement and also dictates that changes be made to the applicant's access and traffic control plans. Conditions to mitigate -The JRH analysis recommends various improvements that the applicant should make to mitigate traffic congestion created by the super center including;l } north bound I-5 ramp improvements, 2~ moving a proposed traffic signal on East Pine Street fizrther west and constricting a new public street through the Wal-Mart property to Beebe Road, 3} constructing a new traffic signal at Beebe and Hamrick Roads anal 4} participating with others in the construction of a new bridge over Bear Creek at Beebe Road as part of I-5 interchange improvements. Short ofmaking and/or participating in these improvements there is no way to provide safe and satisfactory traffic flow on public streets and the application should be denied. T'~.72.04d C - To rovideoff-street arkin and loadin facilities and edestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such a manner as is compatible with the use far which the site is proposed to be used and ca~aable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; _g_ Finding -The project creates mare parking thazx the zxxinizxxuzxx requirezrzczxts of`CPMC 17.6.~.a5~, Table 3 dictates. Although not norzxxally a problem, izx tlxis case tlxc aznouzxt of impezvious surface hover 1$ acres} creates the patezxtial far adverse izxxpacts to Bear Creels. Conditions to mitigate - In anticipation of Phase 11 MSS permit requirements, the Public works Department, R~CC7G and DEQ, recommend that the project developer incorporate a mare robust set of storm water treatment and infiltration measures izxto the site desigzx, Parking area should be limited to minimum requirements and in ardor to sz.zbstitute detention facilities adequate to detain 40-54 percent of the two-year storm. Additionally, water quality treatment devices should be introduced including `natural storm water bia-fzlters', stream buffers and catch basin inserts. Short of making and/or participating in these improvements there is no way to ensure satisfactory environmental protection. and the application should be denied. 1'T.72.4~1fl D - Si sand other outdoor advertisin structures to ensure that the do not conflict with or deter from traffzc control si s ar devices and that the are com atible with the desi of their buildin s or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the a earance or visibility of nearb~i,~rzs; Finding - There is individual signage proposed far each stare franc and a common freeway oriented sign associated with this project. The CPMC will require that building perrzzits be taken for the signs and staff will require an overall sign `package' from the developer to serve as a guide for installation. 17.72.40 E - Accessibilit and sufficient affire fi tin facilities to such a standard as to rovide for the reasonable safet of life limb and ro ert intludin but not limited to suitable aces access roads and fire lanes so that all buildin s an the remises are accessible to fire a~aparatus; Finding - The praj ect, if approved would need to meet any requirements of Jackson County Fire District 3. Alternative access to the site from Beebe Road provides improved emergency response. l 7.72.040fF) - Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; Finding -Uses will occur in the ~Tal-Mart Super Center that are not listed as allowed either outright or canditiazxally in the C-4 zone and include; fire sales and service; wall covering; floor covering; hardware sales; electrical and plumbing supplies; nursery and gardening materials and supplies; furniture sales; sporting goads sales including firearms, and paint and related equipment and supplies. The commercial uses associated with a subordinate 10,200 square foot retail building have not been defzxed by the applicant. The proposed construction will meet the minimum setback requirements for the C-4 District. _~i}_ Conditions to mitigate -The Commission will need to prohibit same uses associated with the super center or make findings that they are similar and cazxzpatil~lc with other uses listed in the C-~ zone. 1'7.'12.04(} G -Cam fiance with such architecture and dcsi n standards as to rovide aesthetic acre tabilit in relation to the nei hbarhood and. the Central Paint area and it's environs. Finding -The applicant has made an effort to create mare appealing architecture and to de- emphasize atraditional and singular `big box' appearance. The current proposal depicts a f rst attempt at designing a collection of individual store fronts, Conditions to mitigate ~ `T`he Citizen's Advisory Cozxzrnittee recommended. that, if approved, the: Commission and City Council require the applicant to make another effort to more closely represent a series of Downtown building facades in their building architecture. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Cazxzxxzission take one of the fallowing actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No.__w__, approving the Site Plan application and tentative plan for land partition for a combination general merchandise-grocery store of 203,091 square feet, a retail building of ] 0,200 square feet and a 200 square foot coffee kiosk with drive through window, based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachrrzent C}; or 2. Adapt Resolution No.,denying the proposed Site Plan application and tentative plan, based on the findings of fact contained in the retard and subject to the recommended conditions of approval {Attachment C}. Attachments A. PACLAI~ID Application. Package, dated December 17, 2003 {previously distributed} B. Planning Department Staff' Report, dated March 18, 2{304 (previously distributed} C, Planning Department Conditions of Approval ~. General Public Correspondence, received since March 18, 2004 E. Final Public Works Staff Report and Recommendations, dated March 24, 20{}4 F, Report from 3RI1 Transportation Engineers {pending}, dated March 30, 2004 G. PACLAND Description of Retail I.1ses, dated March 24, 2004 _Tl_ ~~~;C(~!~'E~,I~;~I~~i+~ P~..-~~`~~'.~,~.~ ~~l~.i"B:~I~~`~,iS.!°~; ~' ~~~~"v;i~i'~ t$7~;.`~g ~}t'';4~'~pl~~~,J~L, ~. Yl }?~ i}'{?l'ilV;ll t)("t}]~' ~llc l~Illil ~'!lli C'~1>IIC' 1!I [)llt'. ~.'C'ilt' t)11 11()i lI } ~?- ,~l)()'~ ul?}i/ti~ Ill! s`3~7I)1lCflt.If)11 f;"71' E1 l'?1111(illlz? l)~C1111L Q1 111111{7{~ht._iti(~11 {,t)1~ isAt~i;siOI? ll<r~ l)C'~I? Cf:L'CIYC(} i),i ~h c t: 1 t Gr. 2. Tl?i; ~±hhrt>vltl ~>1 the ~crltativ~; {~11tr1 sham exhirtt iu i);.e ;y-car cry ,'~{~ri~ i t~, ;~f7t~?Sun cs, ail apt~lic:11 toil i-or IiI?al plat ~)r ~u? c,.~tensit)t? ilas ix~en rct;trivz~clhv the („ilv. [Zacihri)clrl F_'tlsetnc171.~rrccrnerts sha'1 }lc i)hi<lint~ci ;lriti t~ccorclcc3 {?1 i<>l~tt) i)r iu ~~,:)~?;uucii<?11 ~.~%ith the r,ccc)rcll~l~, o}~ a final t)lat. ~?~bc a}~{ilicitrtt sI?Ill; suhlrlit <1 co{ly i){- i}1c sari){){,sect l,!',[f'(;n1ln?s til tilt; C]t:%{aIIOI to I't_'li):'ll:lt]()Ii, ~. T1?~ tentatil~e ar~d IiI3<1l {Mats shall c1c{aict uiilit_v eatierl?cuts roc{t;cstcc'11>y tl~c: C`it~,r, l~.V ;lr?tl 4~r'P ti!atilral (.Tits. ~'~I?y c.il Ir?,>es t+:) utiiii'~~ lay<?Iit illcluc3irt._r, I11c I~ycllar?ts shall a~~t{uirt~ stllascc{trcrlt a{?{arov~l} 1>~thc rtspccti~ii Scr=Vicre pre>viclcl-. ~« The {?Ii.)tt'C:t l.llist c:oll?111 1\111 <il II171?i1cl?l)le loi:il, silt 2?tl{{ f~C~et'~~ 1"t't?111111Ti)r? ll~luill>?~, but trot Iitlliti~d t{?, rhosL of~<)I~f)1~, {)I)l~~~ti~'. i)1~:{~, I );L,,R~rS Iln~i l~i);:-?. Tli:; i{?}?licarlt shall Cahn?ii a zz?tarc zlt~tlilccl. liu?cl~c~,;ac I1ni1 irti`tt.tion 3~1an for ('its rvvle.t~% anil ;1jahro~~Iir IrI ct)ni~ulctlou ti~rt}1 l>u3l~lin:; i?~irl?It Inslac~cilurl anti slte. ,. ,. lnli) iVCnl~Ilt~. ~Iiit{ j)IIUl ;~1lllli 13:1:1,1{{C tllc ai'(Irtl()il t)i Stl~t°tt tlC;~ <31t>Il~°.t'~,l=i) ~.I'Ci;t lTOrlt~ c,.t In .?~i:~l)irlf? «'ltil tll' t II.V'~ iT'i'C t-)1'{311.1I111:;~' Ill.?ij i?1~1V ;.ll~<) lIiGfllt}G ifll; (-t',- ~c~-.ctrltii>rl uI-the 13car {;rccl< Ilc)<)1} lalai:I ti~llicll a'vlls clcstlc)~~ecl hti' tire. ~rl i)n:i?ini~ ~j?ri)IacrC} rllailrterl<lucc ~a1an is rct~tlirc~l t.o cl~surU 111c stir i~~'~iE}ilit~' a Ltttr~?cti~;crti~s~ {~t t}lc siti''s Z'C`i,~ili1~3I1. ~a. The alajalCslnt sl~rlll }?rclaar~ atld StIIaI>rit a uc~nlplete si`~Il 'pack~l~e' l~) ret'~cu- <lnll ~la~t-oval br tht: cite {?1<lI?13inf~ allcl huiIclir?~~ c3claartr~ctlts ~aric?~ tc~ the issuan;;c c) ~.tlv ~)ul1clln~, T?1;1'll]li~ {l)I `t()I-i:. I~II?]tt t)1~ lT~ '.V<1V til,'_~Ils. 7, 'I ilc afanllcilt~i: shall be ~~c:~pansll)e il) 1rI;IaIcII~1e1:` anll car ~,~.1T1~ i)J` tI'I11;tiI7C?1,<It10?': 1111j)I'Ci}.`cll?Clltti t}lat alb h~lIlt; il'Cialllrl;clltlCtl it1 tlil: ~ls't 1~iT1; `1i1t'C;l ~l:i-I-Iilt?r I'}IIr! ]91Ct1ICIli7~.;_ hilt: tl(?t hu]1tCCi :(?; { ~ I1C)I't}1 i~ULili(i t-~ T°~IIIII) 311?prUVCnIC.TllS, ?1 n1o~'tIl~ a ~I'o{~i)Sf:« ti-at~IIC ~is;llal tin 1'lst I'Illh ~tiC~l {uitl~lcl' ~:'~~'CSt IIII(1 CX)11Str"L1Ctltt~, ,: i'~i)1~' l}31}~}iC ~ilt~c;t t}Tzcrl~~ll the \'ti'al-~'Iart I~r{~I~c~iz; tc) C3c~-}>c i~t)ICi, ~) ci~nslttl~:ii:~~ a::v~.,~ trlltic si~~ala} I:t: I3cclai anti Illalllrit;k- I:t;~ li,` ~lu~? -k) 3~~utit:ilaaiin~ titiitfl c)tllcr~ ;1a ~11;W c±:irtiti tl~iil?ii c)I a tll;~.~r hrici't° n°, ~t i3cir C'rc~cl~ ai lici'}~~ 1~i),TCI is {):ir-1 cif I-5 intcr~;hlln.~~c- 13I1.Iaci,~ cn,~;rlts. _~~_ ,N $. `~ he hr~~je~i cte~~clOhcI' sha(1 inct)r~iOr~lti;~! X11(?r~~: rOI)tltit ~;t;t c)i~titc)nt1 ~ ~lcr irc~!tTllcni 21n{~ illh.Itl~atlOIl n1CtSti1CS 1I11iJ °hG SItC- C1 C: ,; 1,i?11. I'Oti1-GO115'tY~l1C'~l(311 f?Ctii I1)i111it;~a:11]l'iit ~I~HCIiCt'S (1~~~1'Sj <lild lilitiJatltiOi7 1Tlt'~!St!)~~-; tifY11I lnCltldtl_ i'?Lll aI'C' ,;i). IIiI)iiC(1 IO: c<)rlstructirl~.~ detentiinl ia~iliti~:~ ac}C:3utitt; !i? detain ~~t1 titl l~c~~(,~°nt t)l~ 11!i• twt)-vt~~t?' St01'Il~, lI]~i)Ien"leIltatlUn i?k t~'at(:1~ titll>1tV 110rllli10111. dC17Citi 113 'adtlitlt)ll 'LU 'i?<lttll~<I' sit)I~1r1 ti>v~aier hit) tiitcl~s', 2!cclnisitiOn Oi ~:! I)(?t? crt)~ic>I1 l;(>liti~c)1 ;)crlni {;?Ot3-C',}x CIiVCIO[),17{;nt i)1 S13'l'illli 1)Llltt'1'S i111i1 tl~.c: il?S~aI1211il1]? Ui C;iltl;l~ ~)<ltiiC1 1I15C1~~ti, il. ~ hC ah}~fTCant S~1a11 111Ti11 I)al~I:lllrr On ,`.4'310 iU tiiC 1Tltnliiiinl 1'~t1171I)C;1~ OL ~~I)2,CC`~ TCCIUFT"{;{.~ '. 1 n > b~ C'I'i`-1C 3?.t~~~.L>2(:. IZccitlcil~t, [}~c (3~-crall tlil~(~~nli Ell Illl;~c:~r~lt,t;~ ~tlr?acc c11 sttc~ l ~ 'lrr~Ix~3~ative ~i1~e11 tlLC d~wcit)pl~nr.Ilt. _ }~rO;tiil?lily 3~) [~011t~ (~:r~cta<. 1~ i~ il~tc3;clctl tll~lt ~)l~l`~'k)U~ n]C2151n~CS i{.)I ~tO1'll7 t~'lli'1- dC1C111.1t)Il21I1d!t)I' ti'2i11St)ti3'iatii.)I1 1i11I)lY>VL?i11C.t1tS nlaV (lccui)ti I<~r1c~ zlOi >_t5eii fc)r i)slrkinft,. (t. I' :c a,>i~iiLaLlt ~zlal l~f;~-c)ricllfi ~.llc° ~tll);;r ~:t~I,tcr bllili;~n,<- at)ii c~~l~resi}ontlin~, I~~lrkrlt; #c) i~lio 1~:a4i l'inc `~trct;t til `~iti•i~ the ai)I)c~arancc; oi~a `~cct)Ild [)i)1~ nti)~,vn't)n the ~,~i~tici~~ . . t_,i~thc lrcct'tiav. %lc[dltitmttliv, the af)f~Iicant ~1~aI1 It~<!he t1l~c~l~It~cturtll ~l1aa.~.;cs it) the SL11)C'1' il'i111"I' f?tl3idill' and 51if)()]'(f1311tC L:()I11111C'1'C;IaI Iltli;dlT?t, t(? IT1(?l:: ellct:t3~'c'y cll~hlltLSit; iht°. individual uses prOI?osi~d ~~~ithin ti~lr Suhcr i;clltcrand t(~ el~catc 1 ~>srcntr ,~Z'12:SP 11,~~+1((1CC' «'11h1I1 1t1C (~C~ C1[)f~I1;Ciit 21[ll~ 1}?(' COllll7ltil~llt}'". t~I~C'.f3itCCtlll'T11 CIir1I14~CS 1~1T`~' S1IhJCCt 1C) ~,lt~/ hi<InIllil'--,~ alld i?u1id11?~' ('l0j)a1-~TIICI]t I~i:~:'10--~,~' 2111(1 21t)j)3°t)i~ai. 11. ~~hc ~!})i`iicallt chili Ilot pr()rnc)te c)I~<111au ~~~ c~rili<.=ht i~eei~~:aii<)n,il ~%chi~•le f~.!rf;in~~~t~ X110 tiilli:titi ti1)Ct'lal at_'0(13i1I1lt1iltit(()Ilti GiIL IlladC; tt) (~l.~il;,?11i1t1' l;titi ;112i1i21!'l' thlt I)iil"I~1~1~ Sc? ply nc~i tt) create tln;tlie ter tlt~~i~,h3:ly ~c)11c1iticll~s. `!Ilia 2,,~I~lic<ln i(?~~>l~ rt;~c>rl~il~lt for the enC(~rcel~~ellt t>; this cout'iti( n. ~,. ~' le ~ eti c,i)i3ca~ s~~ai~ 1~~~ ~cspt)n~l~je z~1, iile ,~icl~fn anti c()nstrtu~i(~n i)i a Itlllcisctl;lecf t~+el-rta .Ind a ~~~all zli~r~!-; tide tic)rti~cl~h i7t~tlt~ti<lrv elf t1~lc i~~~tli)t~rt~,% (Flat t>~~ill ~u[~ficicl~ily Iltiti`~atc illli)at:i~ (lfnew rlc)isc atld li~llt ~_tci;i;I~aied l)v devc:lc)f~rncl~t on tl,c ~itc, 1?l,Lns s=Tail bi: ';u}}Initteci and ai~prc)~,~e.d t)v thi City t)I it)I~ tO ctlnslrtA;tii:)n c)t tl~c vw~1~ a~7d i~e~`~)L-i> 1>ttilt<ii11~ J~c.~l't~Ilits !re i~ucd t~>r arly n~~ })tlilciit~!,~ clrl tllc t)1-c>I~cr1~'. I3. T'hi~ dcveiof~cr ~Ilall al»ell(a the ectllxlnlic arlalvsi~ ?c> incltlcic 2ltaciitiOrlttl ai-risi~ ):ItiI11~SSC5 I~(7i f7r0VlO1aS V aCCf)llnti'd t(?1'; .S'~J< ;"'IflC'LZl ~L' (lCtr~li'<'.SS' tllf_' t?t)t;'(lti2li IITIIY2CI.S that the sLlpcr c;tzltet ~~'~i(i ha~~ i)n eat;I1 ct~lrtt)etin~a, hutiint_;~~~u?il thin Inodi;'v ils siIcct1011 t")l~teltantti lt1 an Cf~lt7Tt t:> CU111I?I1nlIlt ]~C91'~'tit(3E'.'ll ()l-I('3itCt~ 7111`~311e»ll:~, 1 All 17C'tit" ictl~ttt~ to t1,c PefII' I3Ic)5~c)n, 1'IarTl will he t~etltli?i~d fc~ alj~r}° it)l~ intli~~idtlat busini•~~ Ii;;en~c~ tier{~1I`:;}~ tllc ("it~,~ c>f ('cntl~a? Pt)inf. I}pis tGi?I t~n~lhle ic? (.;it>. t(? detenrlin~ °whiWtxtcritadividtli l L>>c~ bcinz; I?tt)n(lsccl ar~;cc?~.:>istcnt l~,~ith 111ia~~~C)nil~ tii~tri~~ au~i (;ou1d restlit in furthir 1)latu:in<~ llnt~.;'u~~ Luiiciin`~, d(:•i~arirrl~;lL z~~vi~u, -l® .attachment `D' .~lclclitional General Pu6Cic Correspondence R.eceived~ since ~1arc~i 18, 2004 ~~~ s~uane Massams MAR ~ ~ ~Of~4 2855 Ideritage I2.oad Central Point, OIL 97502 c~~ o~ C~~r~At ~o~€v~r Contras Point Planning Commission 155 South Second Street Central Point, ClR 97502 Dear Central Point Planning Commission, March 21, 2004 I do not believe Wal-Mart or any other "big box" development is appropriate for the Pear Blossom Plaza. Wa1-Mart Supercenters are clearly contrary to the Central Point Municipal Code, the Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Plan, and would have a detrimental impact on local businesses, downtown revitalization efforts as well as traffic flow throughout the area. Central Point Municipal Code. Chapter 67.44 C~4 Tourist anal office-professional district. 17.44.010 Purpose "The C-4 district is intended to provide for the development of concentrated tourist commercial and entertainment facilities to serve both local residents and the traveling public, and also for the development of compatible major professional office facilities," It is clear from this that the purpose of C-4 districts is to serve "local residents" and to provide "tourists" with "commercial and entertainment facilities." Nowhere does it say that the purpose of C-4 districts is to provide for anything beyond the needs of "local residents" (Central Point) and "tourists" traveling through the area. A Wal-Mart Supercenter is a regional shopping center meant to serve the much broader area of southern C7regon and northern California. It is clearly designed to be more than just somewhere convenient for tourists to meet their needs and for local residents to shop. As such, it is clearly not compatible with the purpose of C-4 districts. 17.44.020 Permitted uses. Nowhere within the Wal-Mart applzcation is there a complete list of uses that Was-Mart intends for the site. W its~out a list oI'uses the Planning Commission has no way of knowing whether the uses Wal-Mart has in mind are permitted in C-4 districts. For all the Planning Commission knows, Wal-Mart could be planning to open an adult video store or a brothel. The application must be denied until such time as Was-Mart provides a specific list ofuses for the site. This is especially important because typical Wal-Mart Supercenters contain uses that are not permitted within C-4 districts but are permitted within C-5 districts. According to 3.7.44.020 Bl8 "other uses not specified in this or any other district ..." could be permitted in C~4 districts. Ln other words, if a use is specified in another district but is not specified in the C-4 district it cannot be permitted in the C-4 district. Examples of such uses permitted in C-5 districts but not C-4 districts that are typical components of Was-Mart Supercenters include firearm sales, fire sales _~~_ ~~ ~~~~ and service, photo processing labs, medical services, hardware sales, feed, seed aild nursery and gardening materials azzd supplies. Wal-Mart's application indicates they ii~tencl to pursue most of these uses in spite ofthere being specifically prohibited in C-~ districts. * 17.A~~.02~ B15 Community shopping centers Corninunity shopping centers are defined "as a group of commercial establishixientsplonned, developed, owned, or managed as a unit." Section 1 x.08.365 further defines "shopping center" as "related in location, size anal types of shops to the trade area it sei~res; anti including an overall landscaping and parking plan and other design elements intended to tie the individual stores into the total "center" concept. The proposed t~Tal-Mart Supercenter is not a group of commercial establisl~rrients by any stretch ofthe imagination. It is one massive 200,000 square foot building totally out of scale and character with its neighborhood. The development has a relatively miniscule 10,00{1 square foot building and 20t} square foot coffee kiosk thrown in so that it resembles a shopping center. But the scale and architecture ofthe buildings is so different that it cannot be said that they have design elements in cozxzmon that "tie" them into "the total center concept." There is no guarantee that anything but the 200,000 square foot building will be constructed. We all know intuitively what a shopping center is and a Wal-Mart Supercenter is not a shopping center. Shopping centers have many businesses and numerous buildings. There may or may not be an anchor tenant in a relatively large box-like building surrounded by slightly smaller linear buildings normally located along the perimeter of the shopping center. The buildings may or may not be tied together physically, They afters have a connecting walkway away from parking lot traffic. Each business has its own entrance off a common parking area. This is what the definition of shopping center is describing, not the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter. A supercenter is none of the above. l:f anything, a Wal-Mart Supercenter is more closely related to a shopping mall than a shopping center. The Central Point Municipal Code sets standards for the conununity of Central Point. It does not set standards for the city of Medford or any of the surrounding towns. In this context, and as stated in 17.4.010, a community shopping center is meant to serve the local community of Central Point. Not Medford, Eagle Point, noz-them California, etc. A shopping center designed to attract customers from this broader area would be a regional shopping center. A Wal-Mart Supercenter, enormous as it is, is clearly a regional shopping cenfier. It is not a community shopping center. My dictionary defines community as "a group ofpeople living iii the same town, village, suburb, or neighborhood", A Wal-Mart Supercenter is clearly meant to attract customers beyond this def nition of community. Again, a Wal-Mart Supercenter is clearly a regional shopping center, not a community shopping center. Interpretation of a community shopping center at the scale to serve Central Point and not the region is clearly backed up by Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan that stresses Central Paint's regional context. It states "large retail centers exist in Medford" and states that Central Point should seek _~_ "small-scale industries and commercial development" and "small to miti-sized businesses." In other words, Central Point needs to find its own "niche markets" and not compete with tl~c large retail centers in Medford. A Wal-Mart ~upcrcenter is clearly not a small to nleciium-sized business and clearly is meant to compete with busi~resses thraughatat southwestern Oregon and northern California. Even though the proposed development may contain some of the uses permitted in the C_cl district, that does not make it a community shopping center. Mountain View Plaza is tl~e Type of community shopping center the Municipal Code calls for in C-4 districts. A Wal~Maz-t supercenter is not. Regional shopping centers such as Wai-Mart ~upercenters belong in areas zoned C-~. The Wal-Mart application shows a 2{~,4t}0 square foot outdoor sales area which is clearly prohibited under 17.44.60 B which states "ail businesses, services and processes shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure , . ," Central Point ~Cvmprehensive Plan: • Objective 1. Provide for an orderly and reasonable expansion of the Central Point urbanizing area. W al-Mart Supercenters overwhelm and dominate the physical landscape and economic base of any small community where they locate. This particular supercenter would overwhelm the easterr3 gateway into Central Point with a wall the length of 2 football fields. It would overwhelm local businesses and drive many out, just as they have done across the country. A recent study by stone (2002) stated that "new big box stares merely capture sales from existing businesses in the area." According to the Oregon Department of Transportation {O~7OT~ a supercenter would overwhelm. the existing traffic infrastructure from the day it opens. Clearly, this is not orderly or reasonable, • Objective 2. Encourage the enhancement of private property values and qualz'ty of life through a compatible arrangement of land uses. The only compatible use for any "big box" development is another "big box." Or perhaps an airport. Certainly not the residential development adjacent to the 600 foot long east side of the supercenter. Nor the planned residential development along the 400 foot north side of the building and the enormous parking lot. The planned setback., fence, and landscaping would do little to alleviate the noise from customer vehicles, garbage trucks, and freight trucks utilizing the truck routes around the pe~~meter ofthe parking lot adjacent to the existing and planned residential development, Twenty four hours a day. Parking lot and store lighting would be a constant nighttime intrusion on adjacent residential developments. The camping Wal-Mart permits on its parking lots would be of constant concern and a distraction to nearby neighborhoods. None of this would enhance private property values or the quality of life of the neighbors. _~~_ "Big box retailers and superstores often destroy attempts to create pedestrian-oriented communities and a sense ofplace and pride in...neighborhoods by use of unattractive building architecture and site layouts featuring huge expanses ofblack-top parking lots." ~Rodino 20{}3) This is a perfect description of the proposed supercenter. No wonder owners of expensive homes in the subdivision adjacent to the east side ofthe proposed Wal-Mart Superccnter have told me that since plans for a Wal-Mart have surfaced property values have decreased and people are already putting their homes up for sale. An enormous paved parking lot is hardly compatible with the Bear creek Greenway. As a frequent user of the greenway bike path I can tell you people do not want to see an enornous development nearby. We utilize the Greenway to get away from development, not to be surrounded by it. The area immediately east of the greenway has so much. potential for small creek side development that it would be a crime to turn it into a parking lot. Other communities have taken advantage of creeks and turned them into attractive settings with pedestrian walks, outdoor restaurants, etc. Why can't Central Point? Rather than a parking lot, make this area compatible with Qbjectives 2 and 8 as well as the Central Point Vision Statement by requiring development that is "sensitive to the environment" and an "attractive city with parks, open space, and recreational opportunities." This would be a much more compatible and environmentally sensitive land use for the nearby residential neighborhoods and the community as a whole than would an enormous paved parking lot. C}bjective 4. Provide well balanced. and convenient shopping opportunities for residents of the community. A Wal-Mart supercenter will not provide well balanced shopping opportunities for residents of Central Point. stead it will overwhelm the existing balance of shopping opportunities, drive existing supermarkets out of business, and force local residents looking to shop nearby to go to Wal~Mart, In many communities, supermarkets anchor local commercial district s and shopping centers by allowing local residents to buy day-to-day essentials and encouraging patronage of other nearby local businesses. Numerous studies indicate that the single greatest loss from traditional grocery stores is due to the superstore configuration of grouping discount retail and full-service grocery shopping under one roof Superstores draw customers away from traditional supermarkets, thus threatening the viability of entire local shopping areas. (Rodino 2003} Picture downtown Central Point without Ray's to draw people to the downtown core or Mt, View Plaza with a vacant Albet-tson's. Without either of these stores Central Point will not have "well balanced and convenient shopping opportunities for residents of the community," +- Qbjective S. Provide ease of access and circulation throughout the Community through an improved transportation system, and properly planned extensions to that system. A Wal-Mart supercenter will not ease access and circulation throughout the community. A Wal- Mart supercenter would increase traffic flow considerably. dncreased traffic means costly road improvements. Zt also means more traffic signals to control traffic flow. Even with wider roads, more traffic signals slow traffic flow, Period. Anyone who has driven through the new <;Big X" intersection on 1-lighway 99 in Medford can not honestly say that traffic flows easier or quicker _f~_ ~~c~.~.~ -~ ~ ~ c 2- because of the wider roads and increased n~.zznber of traffic signals. Likewise for the recently widened Siskiyou Boulevard in Ashland. Rather than facilitate traffic flow, the addition of more traffic signals has significantly slowed the flow of traffic. Traffic generation studies indicate that superstores are likely to generate more traffzc on a daily or weekly basis than other types of large stores. This increase in trips increases traffzc congestion and air pollution, while the acres of parking required to support auto-borne shoppers increase the urban heat-island effect and generate increased amounts ofpolluted runoff from parking lots. (Rodino 2fl03} C}D{~T says the proposed. development would increase traffic congestion, overload the traffic infrastructure, and back up traffic significantly. ff this congestion continues, a moratorium could be placed on new development in the area specifically meant to serve tourists and local residents. Eventually, taxpayers would be required to pay millions of dollars approximately $24l million for the I-5 interchange alone} in an attempt to improve the situation, in effect subsidizing Wal-Mart for exacerbating an already congested transportation system. _~~_ ~fi tz r? ~ ~;-f l ~----'' Ii'errarini anal Associates, Inc,, Economic and Do~vnto~vn Impact Analyses for Central Point, Oregon. On July 25, 2603, Central Point asked PacLand to furnish the City with "an economic impact analysis to aid the City in determining what affect a super stoz'e will have on Central Point's Downtown Revitalization efforts and existing businesses." PacLand contracted with Ferrarini & Associates to complete the analysis. The economic analysis Ferrarini & Associates provided is incomplete, riddled with errors, misleading, and filled with bias toward Wal-Mart. In other words, it is exactly the type of analysis one would expect from someone who is paid by the developer. It is not the type of unbiased analysis the City of Central Point needs in order to make a decision on the impact a Wal-Mart Supercenter will have on "Downtown Revitalization efforts and existing businesses." 1 have attached the Final Report on Research for B,~ Box RetaillSuperstore Ordinance prepared by Rodino Associates {Urban Revitalization & Real Estate Services} for floe City of Los Angeles {October 28, 2003} azzd submit fihat it is a more balanced report on the impacts of supercenters on downtown revitalization efforts such as underway in downtown Central Paint. A discussion of Ferrarini's report is important because it ties directly into Objective 1 ofthe Comprehensive Plan which is to "Provide for an orderly and reasonable expansion of the Central Point urbanizing area." In other words, is it reasonable to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter at a location where it will be in direct competition with downtown Central Paint businesses at the same time Central Point is trying to revitalize downtown businesses. This discussion also ties in with Objective 2 - "Encourage the enhancement of private property values and quality of life" as well as Objective 4 _ "Provide well balanced and convenient shopping opportunities for the residents of the community," In other words, will the development of a supereenter increase private property values, quality of life, and provide well balanced and convenient shopping opportunities for those residents who live in downtown Central Point`? It also ties in with 12.44.030 which addresses "potentially adverse and hazardous characteristics not normally found in uses of a similar type and size." On March 7, 2004, Galardi Consulting submitted a limited review of the Ferrarini report. I will concentrate on critiquing areas of Ferrarini's report that Galardi did not cover. These are my findings regarding Ferrarini's economic analysis: The analysis is incomplete. The City asked for an analysis of the impacts on its ``Downtown Revitalization efforts and existing businesses." At a minimum, Ferrarini should have analyzed all the existing businesses within the Downtown Revitalization. Area as defined in the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Instead, Ferrarini chose to consider impacts to a much smaller, select group ofbusinesses, leaving out impacts to most ofthe large Central Point businesses that will compete directly with Wal-Mart. For example they Left out "potentially adverse" impacts to Albertson's, Grange Co-op, and the ]Dollar Store, among others. • Ferrarini cited a paper by Kicks {1999} as being "the most current and valid" showing "that Wal-Mart does not have a negative impact on the communities it enters." "I`o the contrary, _~~_ j~c~ cue.. ~a ~~ -~ i Z__. this paper examines impacts to counties, not cazrzmunities - "What we seek to cletcrnxine is the net ecanomic impact within the counties that Wal-Maz-t lacated" {Hicks 199}. Implying that the results shawzz in this paper apply to downtown Central Paint is dearly using the results out of context. In fact the parer states explicitly "left unanswered here are questions regarding the specific impacts to town centers." In other wards, this paper does not pretend to answer the question Central Paint is asking; what affect will a Wal-Mart Supercenter "have on Central Paint's Downtown Revitalization efforts and existing businesses"? This paper does nothing to help Central Point answer the questiazzs it is asking. To say the results of this study apply directly to downtown Central Point is simply not true. In fact, another paper cited by Ferrarini {Stone 1 X9'7} says "After discount mass merchandisers operate in an area far an extended periad of time, peapie gravitate to these stores and, consequently, cause losses of sales to smaller competing stares." Naw this applies directly to downtown Central Paint and would include such businesses as Grange Co-op, Ray's Food Place, Pharmacy Express, the Dollar Store, Central Paint Florist, Dr. Asay {optometrist}, and Aibertson's, In other words, most of the largest retailers within Central Point's downtown revitaliza#ion area. It would also apply to some of the smaller stores that sell books and videos as well as Fair City Marke#. I have attached a report prepared by U.S. Representative George Miller, EVERYDAY LflW WAGES: THE HIDDEN PRICE WE ALL PAY FC}R WAL-MART {dated February l6, 2fl0~1} that provides addztional up-to-date information oz~ the true impact of Wal-Mart. Ferrarini claims that businesses in downtown Central Point already compete with Wa1- Mart, even though it is 4 miles away. Then they brush off concerns that having a Wal- Mart Supercenter next door will impact downtown businesses any more than another grocery stare. As they say in real estate, location, location, location. It is ludicrous to think a 200,t1OC1 square foot supercenter will have no impact on the downtown other than its convez~.ence for those who already shop there. A report cited by Ferrarini {Stone l99'7} purportedly backing up their contention that Wal-Mart would not have a negative impact on downtown says "After discount mass merchandisers operate in an area for an extended period of time, people gravitate to these stores and., consequently cause losses of sales to smaller competing stores." In other wards, if Wai-Mart doesn't drive competing businesses out immediately, their presence will continue to erode their competitor's customer base. The critical competitive advantage Central Point stores currently have on Wai-Mart is their convenience for local residents. If this competitive advantage disappears, so do these stores. Vacant downtown businesses will not increase private property values, quality of life, or provide convenient shopping opportunities for local residents. • Ferrarini claims they inventoried "all the businesses in the downtown core" as they defined it to "understand what kinds ofbusinesses are located there." They also used this inventory to demonstrate how healthy they believe the downtown area is. However, during their inventory they failed to count the number ofvacant commercial spaces accurately, rendering their conclusions moot. They claim one vacant commercial space at the time of their inventory but a more accurate count is S. These include: _~{}_ ~~~rt "~ ~~ ~~ o East % of the building at 123 Pine {formerly Lloyd's Barber Sho}~ --Razors Edge opened at this location this zrzonth} o Second floor of the Cowley Building {enough room for several businesses} o Rurtb anal Miller {Rostel} Building and its 3 business spaces formerly occupied by Brown's Hardware, Farmers insurance, and a martial arts studio. Na z~zatter how much we might hope a flourishing business opens in the fazmer Brown's Hardware location once renovation is complete, the fact is the 3 busizesses in the building are currently vacant and should Dave been counted as such during the inventory. Ferrarini vacancy rate: 1 -~- 68 = 1.5°!a Actual vacancy rate: 5 =- 68 = 7.4°I° if 5°l° is the "industry standard benchmark for a healthy market" as Ferrari.ni states, then the '7.4°l° vacancy rate at the time of the inventory was unhealthy. The vacancy rate within Central Point is volatile. Since the inventory was completed another downtown business has closed -Downtown Trading Corp. A business named Sasquatch Lames opened recently at that location. Other examples of inaccurate data in the inventory: v 'i'he report says their inventory included the area °`along Pine Street, from Highway 99 to ~`~ Street" when in fact the inventory shows they went all the way to Stn Street. Where else in the report did Ferrarini da sloppy work.`? o They failed to count several businesses occupying commercial space fronting Pine Street. These include: 1"iuman Bean 113 E. Pine • Tri-tip-B-B-Q food cart at Ray's ^ Human Bean 536 E. Pine Did Ferrarini fail to count these businesses because they were careless, because the businesses are small, ar did they ignore them because these businesses will compete directly with the new development planned by Wal-Mart? The fact is an accurate vacancy rate can be useful in deterrrzining the health of a market. But then Ferrarini goes on to imply that all 68 businesses they inventoried are equal when it comes to the health of downtown Central Point. This is a blatant misuse of statistics meant to deceive readers of the report, l would ask is Mark's Barber Shop equal in importance to downtown Central Point and its revitalization efforts as Ray's Food Place? is Mark's Barber Shop the downtown anchor that Ray's Food Place is? Do both businesses employ a similar number of people, do they have similar sales, do they have similar retail space and frontage on Pine Street, da they have a similar visual impact to visitors traveling an Pine Street, do they pay similar property taxes, and are the services they provide of equal importance to the community? loo, of course not. But this is exactly what Ferrarini implies when they state that only 3% of all businesses in downtown Cezztral Paint will compete directly with Wal-Mart. The importance of Ray's Food Center to the downtown core as identified by Ferrarini can be demonstrated by noting that in 1993 Ray's _~~_ i7r~ ~r~, ~ ~-~ I2.-- paid over 21 % of all property taxes within the downtown core. The owner of Ma~•k's paid less than .4 of l °lo of all downtown property taxes. Regarding Ray's and Pharmacy Express, Ferrarini states that the presence of a sul~ercenter "will not necessarily result in the closure of either store." A reasonable person would interpret this to mean that neither stare would necessary survive either, Ferrarini goes on to state that some locally-owned grocery stares in Medford have survived the arrival of national chains while others have not. Ferrarini fails to discuss the survival or faih~re of local pharmacies with the arrival of large competitors but those of us who live here saw Burton's Pharmacy fail with the arrival of Albertson's. Since there is the possibility both businesses will close, decision makers need to know what the consequences are if both businesses fail and the downtown. core no longer has a grocery store as an anchor or a pharmacy? Not mentioned anywhere by Ferrarini is the fact that if Ray's closes, so does the Wells Fargo Bank inside and the food cart outside. What ara the consequences of these additional closures and job losses? Rodino (2403) tells us some of the consequences of these possible closures. Superstores may cause substantial disruption to revitalization and planning efforts in Economic Assistance Areas [downtown revitalization areas] by driving out existing grocery stores that often anchor communities . , . In many conununities, supermarkets anchor local commercial districts and shopping centers by allowing local residents to buy day-to-day essentials and encouraging patronage of other nearby local businesses, Numerous studies indicate that the single greatest loss from traditional grocery stores is due to the superstore configuration. of grouping discount retail and full-service grocery shopping under one roo£ Superstores draw customers away from traditional supermarkets, thus threatening the viability of entire local shopping areas. This is the threat downtown Central Point faces with the development of a supercenter. The consequences would be a large vacant building and parking lot covering one city block, lower private property values, lower quality of life, and less convenient shopping opportunities for local residents all of which are contrary to the Central Point Comprehensive Plan. Ferrarini also claims that only two businesses {in the limited area of Central Point that they observed will compete directly with the new W aI-Mart development. This is an interesting claim since Wal-Mart has declined to state exactly what products they will sell and which additional businesses will be in the proposed development. Atypical Wal-Mart Supercenter development will compete with mare than 2 downtown businesses. I can easily count l 8 downtown businesses that would compete with a typical Wal-Mart Supercenter development and there are likely many more. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the maj ority of downtown retail businesses will compete in one way or another with the proposed development. Look outside the limited area Ferrarini analyzed and there are still more. * Ferrarini says all Pharmacy Express and Ray's need to do to survive is to "alter their merchandise, prices, and service levels" to remain competitive. _~~_ ~l ll~ ~ ~~ 17 .~ 1-low can anyone expect Pharmacy Express to alter their product line? Pz-cseriptioz~ drzzgs are prescription drugs. And does Ferrariiu truly believe they can lower their price to match those of a Wal-Mart Supez-center? They can compete on service but is that enough for a small pharmacy? Not likely. Neither can Ray's compete with Wal-Mart on price or selection. As for product line, Ferrarini suggests that Ray's might adapt a product line similar to Zupan's in Portland. They forget that the Central PointlMedford area is not a large metropolitan area like Portland. Nor does it have the range of socio-economic levels that Portland has that might make a store like Zupan's a success in Portland but a failure in Central Point. l~-Iere again they can compete on service but is that enough? Not likely with a Wal-Mart ~upercenter a short drive away. "superstores can and often do price their groceries as "loss leaders", with low prices set to attract shoppers to buy higher profit margin non-grocery items. Obviously non-superstore grocers cannot pursue this strategy since groceries are their stock in trade." {Rodino 2003} ~ would ask Ferrarini, how can Ray's ar any other local grocery store compete against these tactics? Rodino {2003} states that "a prevalent concern over big box retailers' impact on competing retailers is the practice of predatory pricing. Accordingly, a newly opened big box may artificially price its merchandise well below the competition for an initial period of time, say six months, while providing an initially large store staff to serve customers. During this initial period customers are lured away from the competition by the big box's temporarily low prices and outstanding services. When the competition can no longer exist on greatly reduced volume of business closures occur, eliminating competition, allowing the big box retailer to then monopolize the market, increase its prices and reduce its staff Once the competition is gone it is difficult, if not impossible to redevelop a healthy retailing market." How many Central Point businesses could survive against such predatory pricing tactics? Ferrarini says that Central Point "city officials should not be conceix~ed with change" because it will occur with or without a Wal-lVlart upercenter. But change is what this is all about. It is the job of city officials to control changes in the city to protect residents, businesses, and quality of life. That is why cities have comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. As stone {1997} says "shopping centers caused the demise of downtowns, most of which have never fully recovered." This certainly describes the situation in both Central Point and Medford. Maybe if city officials had been more concerned with change they could have avoided some of the adverse impacts that have occurred to downtowns throughout the country. Don't we learn anything from history? Bringing a Wal-Mart Supercenter to a small community like Central Point will be repeating past mistakes. This would be especially tragic since Central Point is just starting to make substantial improvements to its downtown. How can Central Point justify the substantial amount of public participation and revitalization planning at taxpayer expense and then be expected to "ignore change" that will likely render much of this effort and expense moot? _~~_ Ferrarini touts the number ofjobs a Wal-Mart Supereenter will create. Rodino (2003} has this to say about supercenters and jobs. "lf a ne~v store of any particular nature locates within that trade area consumer spending, with some exceptiozzs will not change, it will merely [bed redistributed from tivherever consumers had beezz spending to the new store..,4vera1l retail sales...will remain essentially unchanged...Further, ifthe new store is a big box retailer, retail sales as measured in dollars...and retail employment within the trade area may actually decrease due to the efficiency and pricing of large store formats...Good jobs, good pay, and good benefits should be the goal of an economy...and supercenters are not consistent with that objective...The lower labor costs of superstores contribute significantly to their ability to offer lower prices to consumers, ..It is axiomatic in retailing that larger store formats cart provide greater efficiencies to the retailer. Zn other words, the same volume of goods can be sold with a smaller labor force and overall lower overhead costs in large format stores than if the same sales volume were spread over several smaller format operations, This is part of the basic economics of large format stores -doing more with less can result in lower prices to consumers and higher profits to store owners. If this is the case, replacing retail sales previously generated by several stores with one big box retailer can result in a reduced number of persons employed in retailing within the trade area," Ferrarini's report also has some figures on payroll so we should look at superstores and wages. Superstores may increase the ranks of the working poor by paying low wages azzd providing very limited health care benefits, thus further burdening already strained local social sezvice and health care systems. (Rodino 2003} "fine 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,'750 per year-about $2,103 per employee...Aong Wal-Mart employees, some single workers maybe able to make ends meet. C}thers maybe forced to take an two or three jobs. ethers may have a spouse with a better job. And others simply cannot make ends meet. Because Wal-Mart fails to pay sufficient wages, U.S. taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab. In this sense, Wal-Mart's profits are not made only on the backs of its employees ~- but on the backs of every U.S, taxpayer." (lVliller 2004} I believe that says it all. Ferrarini offers statements from some civic leaders who taut Wal-Mart. V~lzen looking at the towns he mentions it is obvious that none of them are in the same situation as Central Point. That is none of them are the bedroom community for a much larger urban area. When Wal-Mart arrived, all the towns Ferrarini cited had a much larger and more economically viable downtown than does Central Point. Central Point has already lost most of its businesses to Medford. The arrival of a Wal-Mart Supereenter has a tremendous risk ofbeing the final nail in the coffin of downtown Central Point. I find it interesting that Ferrarini did not talk with anyone in Talent about their experience with Wal-Mart. Nor did Ferrarini talk with anyone from one of approximately 400 towns with a vacant Wal-Mart. "Most abandoned stores remain vacant for many years." {Rodino 2003} Envision Central Point twenty years down the road with a vacant Wal-Mart Supereenter. That sure wouldn't improve resident's quality oflife or increase private property values. _~4_ In conclusion, I have shown that the proposed. dal-Mart Supercenter is not a community shopping center and clearly flies in the face of the Central Point Municipal Code, the Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Plan, and would have a detrimental impact on local businesses, downtown revitalization efforts as well as traffic flow throughout the area. I belzeve that the critique of Ferrarini's Economic anti Downtown Impact Analysis provided by Galardi Consulting and the one completed by myself is a more balanced and realzstic view of the potential impacts to downtown Central Point and its revitalization efforts should a Wal-Mart Supercenter be approved. Based on this analysis, the approval of a supercenter presents "potentially adverse ... characteristics not normally found in uses of similar type and size {17.44.fl3C1}, it is not "an orderly and reasonable expansion of the Central Point urbanizing area" (objective 1}, it will not "encourage the enhancement ofprivate property values and quality of life through a compatible arrangement of land uses" {E~bjective 2}, nor will it provide well balanced grad convenient shopping opportunities for the residents of the Community" {Cbjective ~}. The Wal-Mart Supercenter application should be denied. Duane Mallams _~h_ ~c~ ~:~. ~ Z U ~ rte. 1 t t-r `' f r ~~~~~ r '~ F ~ Lr~~.r11r~ t ~ ~,,,,,.,r^"r ...~--°~ .~ spy ~~ ~ ...,.~.~-.~_,~-..---"'....-- In the surr~rner of 1993, my wife and I left our self employed jabs in Coos Bay, ©re. and moved to the Central Point area. We moved to be closer to family and to setup a brand new stare in Oregon called Wa1-MART. It was amazing to us that at this time this store would hire a pair of over 55 year old individuals. We met so many people and over the years we have become a farmily. We socialize together, are excited over weddings, new babies and different milestones in everyones lives- We also had fundraisers and contests to make money for different organizations in our area. Donations cominue today, with Tammy, our coordinator, handing out grants of all different monetary amounts to any non- profit organizations. The best part is that the mare she gives out, the more Wal-Mart gives her! We also sponsor The Childrens Miracle Network and that money stsys in our own conurzunity. We also hold a teacher of the year for a deserving teacher in our area. We have fishing derbys, baby days and bast a lot ofvarious activities in and around our store every year. And even though our children are grown, Wal-Mart sponsors a scholarship for a child of an associate every year. In Feb. of 1994, I suffered a heart attack and then had to have a double bypass surgery.l4n 1997, I had prostrate cancer and surgery and in 20fl4 I had an abdominal aortic aneuresym which resulted in surgery. Each time my Wal-mart insurance paid for everything and my short and long term insurance helped pay for the everyday living expenses. It was a vv~onderful thing not having to worry about my paycheck plus all the great support of all my WaI-Mart family. In ~t3f~3, my wife had surgery which resulted in all medical and all prescriptions being paid at 1{~fl°lo. To us, this is certainly a marvelous perk for working at Wal-Mart. We also are able to buy stock in our company and Wal-Mart matches our amount by contributing a certain percentage. We also have profit sharing and 401k far our fang term needs, such as retirement. Although Wal-Mart came to us later in life, there are tremendous opportunities for the younger individual ~rilEling to put forth a real effort in learning a business from the ground up. From floor associate to department manager to assistant manager to store manager, it is all there. Whatever you want to achieve, it is there. Lately, there has been a lot of negative publicity about the Wal-Mart stores in general. Well, the old saying of one bad apple in the barrel goes true. At our store, we are taught from the very beginning that there are certain things you cannot do which results in coaching and even termination. It is your responsibility to not let anyone tell you or make you do something that is questionable. If you do these things then you have to suffer the consequences. We have been blessed with the opportunity ofworking in our Wal-Mart store and even though retirement is loan upon us, we will continue to support our store to the fullest. ~~ ~ ~ zoos 4 4J ~i.' ~~9 i<-.'~''3 ~- ! {3 j A,.17~ r ice' ~ f' ~ ~~}~ My name is Bobbie Mills. I am an l l year resident of Central Paint and 1 am also a senior citizen. As a senior citizen, I am concerned about making sure 1 get the best deals for my money. For me, that is Wal-Mart. Their prices are the best always and the quality is good. I can buy name brand products at lower prices. In a supercenter ~ would be able to enjoy many services at one location.... pictures ofmy grandchildren being developed at the Photo center. Banking if 1 choose to do so. Maybe get my hair done or buy a fishing license or new plants for my yard. At the same time I can get my car serviced or new tires put on my car. ~ am a member of the Grange Co-op because there is some birdseed that I like and cannot get it at ~Vai-Mart. I also buy some of my plants there because unfortunatiy, Wai-Mart cannot carry everything) I also buy the coupon specials at Rays and Albertsons but basically they are too expensive and ~ go into Medford for my grocery needs. The Supercenter is a big store but ~ can sit down and rest on the many benches around the store. I would save on gas and wear and tear on my car because ~ wouldn't have to travel clear across town. Yes, there will be traffic jams at certain times of the day but a person can get used to it. Central Point is growing and with each residential home comes at least 2 more cars. I live in a Mobile park that is adjacent to I-5 and we are used to the traffic that goes by. My park is also adjacent to the big Albertson's center. Z remember when it was being considered and people were wondering if Freeman Rd. would be able to handle the traffic it would generate. Weil, it has and there are no problems. A few weeks ago, there was an article in the Tribune about the Central. Point Little League needing donations for water and other things. The Medford Wal-mart that same day, called a lady whose name was mentioned, and started the paperwork for a donation of one thousand dollars. Wal-Mart has also donated to organizations at Crater high, The Chamber of Commerce and the Dare program. Wal-Mart sponsors Teacher of the year and Childrens I~tiracle Network every year. We are treated to ail kinds of music when the Jackson County Fair is on and when the new ampitheater is built, I bet there is lots of people parking at the Supercenter and walking over to the festivities. The bottom line is, I live in Central Point and ~ would like to spend my money in Central Point ~~~ BAR 2 ~ 2~0~ G[TY dF G:NTRAI. Pt~tNT ~~ ~~K=ri~ ~ ~ ~ ~1.Sc~~ .... ~ ~ Mail "Iiibune, Sunday, Ivtarch l4, 2009 The Maley ;Foaf? ' Rcs;rernl~er Shakespeare? ` I.erreni~cr 'As ~`dir LiTee.1"t''' Zrz I'ti_r~ht~iluiTi rla}~s, ~via7s ~vere:the only; persy~(e svho co:rld gef away ~vztli, tellzzig~ :fte> truth to the Krug or Queen 2"fze t~ritle3r :Fool fells tlae truth abti;it i~ztrestirzg :and•trrzpes yoir'll.Taugh at! . the. iva} to ilie bark:. , , r :~ The Wal-Mart 11~anster Wal-Mart (:NYSE: WMT} recently reported its fourth-quarter and full- year results, featuring a IZ percent year-aver-year jump an annual rev- enues, toppzng a quarter of a trillion dollars: Thaw are fantastic results from the wand's No. I retailer. Sales at Wal-Mart stores increased 4.4 percent in the quarter, only to be surpassed by a b.7 percent gaze at Sam's Club stares. International operations continued to boom, with sales up l7 percent in the quarter and year. Every bat as important, much of thzs growth flowed to the bottom lzne, as the company's net cash position nearly doubled to $5.2 billion. In a conference call, management noted that apparel had been marked down to get Ynventory in line for spring merchandise. But gross profzt margrns were better than forecast and increased for the ninth time in I0 quarters. V4lal-Mart's performance should. frighten its peers both in supermar- kets and broader retail. Safeway, Albertson's and Kroger all have narrower margins and would die far Wal-Mart's 25 percent increase an supermarket sales far the quarter. Wal-Mart's operating margzns are nearly double those of Costco, Target does manage higher margins, but also has more debt. All this stellar financial performance doesn't come cheap. With a I'fE ratio around 29, Wal-Mart's execution is clearly reflected in the stock prig. Still, with guidance calling for mare double-digit earzzings growth, retail investors may find value in Wal-Mart. . _ _ ,, ,, ,,.x x+r rxxx x~ x x. xr a p ~:xr i. :v, ).., j 'i'~t1 f-.~ 4~ {-tJV'T CITY C?;~ ts~~t f ~.~~.. _='_; ~ii~•;~; ~,... f ~,, / C ' t i t f ~J,{,r`(.~.L%L~-°Gr c...':.-..-L^G~'-G.-fGf~_ ,_..t:.-/4..- ~,L fj` l~ fr'-f/~~~G'_, .,,+~f ,I~v ~:_u~:~ .~_-_ t 7`- ., ,~ ,.~..~U/x--GG-~ ~~--~'3rr.- r~z.- - ~Z~:.L.x:_.~--r~' ffz=;~,~.--~-~-., ---•-~ ~_ ,. ,l ,, .t'. 1_ ; rf'(._,_„c.Y.!/' ..--1~1~~..Grt.°'! ,~,1...-{-C..,~-~`~..^f1.-G; ~..--~.... ~'~':~c'_~---~Y"~.`i~.~, .. ~ ..f c' ,f .% ~. ~ , .,f / t 'j 7 `~ ; -.-~;z~-~~~rr~'l ~'~ir."`y~ r~~~~-err-~-.~"~ f~ ~ ., .-= ~' ~~ -~-'='~Z~- ,,~>..~`r%, ~.-.cam' ~/`~~ v~~--tom: ; /f~~'' ~i~~` ;' ~k' ._ v ~ r /~ .rr j i r: I j.y^,~,; ,rte.:=-~sf~ ;r-zr~l _~ ! ~J' .~-~~- ~l I L "i ~/;! l ~~- <_..r ~ ~t,r_., ~ r i ~;` x t f, ,~ ~uudia Gloe~[works 1 ~ 1 E3 TWIN ROCKS L~`lRlljE CENTRAL POINT, C}R 975Q2 PHONE 041)773-5989 ~~ MARCH 22, 2004 CITY flF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMM€SSION 1 ~~ ~. 2"~' STREET CENTRAL POINT, QR 97502 DEAR PLANNING CC}MMISS€ON, I AM WRITING IN REGARD TO `~`i-IE PF2C PC)SE[~ ~111ALMART A'i" THE E. PINE STREET AC~1~ ~-IAMERIG€{ ROAD SITE. I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THIS S€TE BEING USED FOR ANY SUCH HL.IGE BU€LD€NG OR BUSIriIESS. I AM EQUALLY OPPOSED TO A I-{OME QEPOT ST©RE [3B[NG BUILT ON THAT 5[TiM. ~T 1S MY UNI~ERSTA€~]DING THAT THE SITE iS ZONED FOR SEVERAL SMALL BUSI14tESSES OR A STRIP MALL. THIS ~S MY PREFERI~NCE. AS A RESIDEItiiT [N THE VERY NEAR VICINITY OF THIS LOT C FEELTHAT 1tVOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS ANLJ THE PEOPLE OF CENTRAL POINT TO HAVE SMALLER BUS€NESSES OR A STRIP MALL ON THIS SITE. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN ALSO REACH ME AT MY HOME AT ~C4-5898. THA[~IIC YOU FORY01d}~TIME. S C; I-I~'I"INE t~VdNER/R ~~~ ~~~ 2 3 204 CITY CAF C~NT~q~ POtlti#T _~~_ March 1 ~, 2t}D4 Central Paint Planning Commission 155 South Second Street Central Paint, {)R 975{l2 Re; Wal-Mart Supercenter Council Members; 1 would have to title this "A Letter In Futility" because that is how we felt after attending your Pla~~ning Cam.€nissian Meeting last night. It was obvious from the start that you had made up your mind, Mr. Humphrey. Not only that, when the Cauncilwaman stated that she had been against Wal-Mart from the beginning, that set a negative tare far us. It was obvious to the untrained eye that you willfully set out to discredit Wal-Mart anal their intentions where the City of Central Paint is cancemed. Mr. Hathaway, attorney fax Wal-Mart, presented all the facts including letters that the public had not been made aware af. We would describe them as "shady deals,°' but what da we Icnaw? We are only tax paying citizens with na say in the final outcome. 1t is time far the City of Central Paint to arrive in the 21~` century. What have you gat against new jabs, new tax revenue, help fax our schools, and a retailer that is willing to help with the traffic problem and promote better business far our downtown retailers? 'You were ready and willing to approve a I SO,fl00 square foot Name Depot with half the services to the community, if that. WaI-Mart can provide so nruclz more, yet you persist irz your clouded view of the situation. Yau had already given approval to Naumes far 20t1,(3tltl plus square feet of buildings, and Wal- Mart is in that range plus they have been willing to fallow up with studies you have requested and even paid far them, which they were not required to da. Wal-Mart is willing to help deal with the t~~affic issues also. What's the downside? Slap with the head trip! Give the citizens of Central Paint a say in the ntatterl F went to school in this fawn and graduated from Crater, we are tax paying participants, and we feel that you are "railroading" this business. It would be a big financial mistake to let a business of this caliber get away: a #1 Fortfute 5{l~ carnpany! Nat only da they care about this community, they will be a great asset to it if you will stag with the nonsense anal approve them. Sincerely, =~~ ~ ~~:~ Dave & Razy Smith 555 Freeman Raad #226 Central Point, Clregan 975{}2 cc; Wal-Mart Corporation, Medfaxd Mail Tribune ~~ MAC ~ ~ ~~~~ _~~_ ~~ ~ ~. t G ~~~ -~: ..._..._..w .,.._...._ _._......-__w..„..~,._.._. ,„.-~ /~ }~~__ Z ~ t .~: . ~~~-~' ~.~_ ~ w ,j ~~. ,e„~c..~~..,, mot., ~...~....~..~~..~~..~„ .. ~ ~ . ~~ :~_ :,• i`~ y.. Y is°s r i ~ r ;. _ ,~. :~~"'` _.d.~~,a,~.~, ~'~~ 'l {Y~~ ` six ~~ 1~AR 2 3 Zoos ~1~'Y C7~ C~t~ITRA~ P~Ih~(?` .... ~ ~ _ €a ,~ 7 ~~ '} _~: e`: ~- `s~ n, `~' _ s COAL t~N~ CC)AL~T1t,~N 39625 Almen Drive Lebanon, C}regon 97355 Phone: 541-258-6474 Fax: 541-258-6814 goad a~paeifier.corrt March 19, 2004 Torn. Humphrey, Community Development Director City of Central Point 155 South 2`~ Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Wat Mart dupers#ore, Pear Blosst~m Pig Dear Tom: ~~~~~~~ MAR 2 2 ZOQ4 CITY QI' C~IVTFIAL t'p{~-~- The Goal (hoe Coalition {Coalition) is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide assistance and support to C}regonians in matters affecting their communities. The Coalition is participating in these proceedings at the request of and on behalf of its membership residing in .laclfson County. The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Goal C}ne Coalition; Central Point First; and Becca Croft, as an individual.. - The .purpc}se of this letter is to address the two issues identified as the subject of dais March 1$ Plarnung _ Commission meeting: I;1) whether the proposed. development zs a "community shopping center" as described in Central Point Municipal Code {CPMC} 17.44.020(13}{15}, and {2} whether the proposed .development should be referred and treated as a conditional use under GPMC 17.44.030(A){20) because it "exhibits pateratially adverse or hazardous characteristics not nonx~aily found in uses of similaz type and size." L The proposed deveoopmenn# ins no# a '"community shopping center," and includes a mul#iitude of uses no# allowed in the C-4, Tourist and +CBfee-Pro#'essional disirict; and cannot be approved without a concurren# zone change. A Wal- art Su rstore is not "a ou of commercial establishments" and therefore does not meet the definition of "community shogping.enter " The proposed Wal-Mart Superstore can be approved only if it is a "community shopping center." "Shopping center" is defuaed by Central Point Municipal Code section 17.08.365: CEaampioning the role of citizens in decisions affecting the livabikty of Their comrrrunities anct the sustainable use of the natural environment _~~_ .~L~Cy%- ~ ~-~ ~' ~entrat Pgint Wal-Mart GOAL. ONE COAL.IT#Ofd • Page 2 °``Shopping center' means a group of cornrnercial establishments planned, dsveloped, awned at managed as a unit; rslated in location, size and types of shops to tl~e trade area it sezvss; and including an overall landscaping and parking plan and other design elements intended to tie the individual stares into the fatal "center" concept." No specific use has been identifisd for the 1U,240 sq. ft. building, or measures proposed to ensure that it will contain a "canunsrcial establishment." The location, size and types of potential "shops" are not in a balanced relationship to each other at to the area served, and notl~iz~g ties them into a "center." The Wal-Mart Superstars is by far the darsunant element, and the other "shops" are at best an afterthought. Still less is a Val-Mart Superstate a "community shopping center." A Wal-Mart Superstars would draw from anal depend on a regional market, from as much as SU or Fa0 miles away. It has natlaing to do with and is not meant to primarily serve the local. earzununity, or to provide tourist and entertairunsnt-rslated facilities as envisiansd for the C-4 zone. The proposed. develogmsnf is therefore not a "community shopping center." The diverse uses are to be contained within one 203,091 sq. ft. building. Ths only slsmsnts of the proposal plan that could conceivably males the proposal a "group of commercial establishments" ors the free-sl:anding 1 {7,2#lfl sq. ft. building and the 2C1f} sq, ft. coffee kiosk. The usss within the 10,200 sq. ft. freesl:anding building ors not identified. Construction of one small anal ons tiny struct~xres in conjunction with a 204,000+ sq. ft. big box general merchandise and grocery stare is not nearly snough to qualify the project as "a group of commercial establishments" at a "carnrriunity shopping center," with design elements designed to tie the individual stars into the "center" concept. lets retie "communi sho in center" to includs the ra sed develo merit would not be consistent with the ss of the C-4 district. The purpose of the C-4 district is "ta provide far the development of concentratsd tourist canatnercial and entertainment facilities to serve both local residents and the traveling publicC.]" A W'al-I~iart Superstore is not a tourist attraction, but rather abig-box retail that draws from a regional. ix~arket A Wal-Mart Superstore simply is not a "community shopping center" which would serve as a rziagnet for tourists by gtovid:ing a variety of unique and sntsrtaix~unng shopping experiences, as envisioned by CPMC 17.x.41.4 and CPMC 17.44.024{f3~{ 1 S). Inte rstin "communi sho in center" to include the ro ssd dsvslo msr€t would not be consistent with other ravisions ovein the C--4 district because it would t}ermit many uses not allowed in the C-4 district The applicant's narrative at g. 1 states. "The proposed retail uses are perix~itted outright in the C-4 district as identified in Central Paint Code Section 17.A~4.424," hleither a general merchandise stars, a grocery stars, nor a combination general merchandise-grocery stare ors listed as a permitted use in Central Point Cods {CPC) 17.44.020{A), Profsssianal and financial; or B, Tourist and entertainment related facilities, Championing the rote of citizens in decisions affeetr'ng the tivabitity of their corrtrnunities and the sustainable use o~the natural environment Central t'oint Wa1-Mart Gf3AL C7-N~ COA~C?N • !'age 3 "Corrununity shopping centers" are identified as a permitted facility in the C-4 zone. CPC 17.~I.020(B}~15) provides, in relevant part: "Community shopping centers, defined as "a group of coznznercial establishments planned, developed, owned or managed as a unit which rr-ay include any of the permitted uses in this section and zxtay also include the following uses: "a. Supermarket, «~ ~ ~x "c. Sporting goods, "d. Books and stationary, "e. Gifts, notions and variety, "f: Florist, "g. Leather goads and luggage, `~. Pet sales anal related supplies, "i. Photographic supplies, ~_* ~ "o. General apparel, "p. Shoes and boots, t~~ * ~ "r. Jewelry, "s. Clocks and watches, sales and service, «:~*~ "u. Bicycle chap, "v. Audio, video, electronics sales and service, «,~ ,~ ~ "C)tlter uses nt~t specified in this or any other district, if the planning commission finds them. to be similar to the uses listed above and compatible with other permitted uses and with the intent of the C-4 district as provided in Section 17.61}.14t}." CPMC 17.44.t}2{)(B}(15} thus authorizes a "eoznznunity shopping center" as a facility, and lists specific uses which may be allowed within a "community shopping center." In stating ~vrhich uses a "eozntxxunity shopping center" ma}s include, CPMC 17.44A20(B)(15) excludes uses not listed. The CPMC ] 7.44.02~{B) lists of permitted uses include many of the uses found within a Wal- Mart Superstore, "Sporting goods" under J.'7,44.02t~(Bj(15}{e) does not authorize "Sporting goods sales, including fsreaartns," which is specifically identified as distinct use under CPMC 17.46.CJ20(C}~27). ~CJses occurring within a Wal-Mart Superstore identified in the CPMC as uses permitted outright in the C-5 zoning district but not listed as allowed either outright or conditionally in the C-4 zone include photo processing laboratories; fire sales and service; wallcovering, floorcovering, curtains, etc.; hardware sales; feed, seed and fuel; electrical and plumbing supplies; nursery and gardening materials and supplies; art and engineeruxg supplies; pet sales; furniture sales; and paint and related equipment and supplies.. "Recreational vehicle overnight facilities" is listed as a use allowed conditionally under CPMC 1'7.4f.030{2). Championing the rolo of citizons in decisions af~octing the iivabifity of theft c;oommunities and fhe sustainable use ot'the natural environment Cezztrat Point Wat-Matt Gt)A~. GNE Ct~Al.t"f 1©N ~- Wage 4 The proposed development would allow uses that are not listed or are not permitted in a "community shopping center" under CPMC 17.4~.(32~(l3). The proposed development therefore does not meet the definition of"community shopping center." Even if the pragased develagment is Found to be a "community shagging center," allowing uses within. a "community shopping center" that are not listed. in CPMC 17.4~.E}2Q{A) ar (l3~ rewires planning commission review and approval pursuant to CPMC 17.44,020~8)~l $). Irate retie "communi sho in center" to include the ra sed devela meat would not be consistent with the CPMC because a Wal-Mart Su rstore is a use consistent with and allowed. in the C-S district. The proposed use is a use allowed in the C-5, Thoroughfare Camrnercial District. CPMC 17.46.'010 states the puzpase ofthe C-5 district: "The C-5 district is intended to provide for commercial and business uses that are mast appropriately located along or near major highways ar thoroughfam~s, and are largely dependent upon highway visibility and e<~.sy vehicular access " The C-5 district permits outright all of the uses found within a Wii-Mart Superstore, including uses not allowed in the C-4 district. CPMC 17.46.020~B~ lists pernxitted personal services: " 2. Photo processing pickup stations, " 3. Photo processing laboratories, cc*~* "13. Automobile and truck service stations and repair shops[.]" CPMC 17.46.020{C} lists permitted retail outlets: " 2. Tire sales and service, ~z*** "~. Wallcovering, floareovering, curtains, etc., «:~ ~ ~ "6. Hardware sales, " Supezmarket, «,~*~ "1 ~}, Drugstore, "11. Feed, seed and fuel (within enclosed structure, "12. Electrical and plumbing supplies, ~s*~* "15. hlursery and gardening materials and supplies, Lz*** "17. Art and engineering supplies, x~~ ~ ~ "I9, Sit-down restaurants, KGB * ~ Championing the role of citizens in decisions affecfing fhe livabilify of their communifies and the sustainable use of fhe natural environment Central Point Wal-Mart ~dAi C?NC C©AUT1C?N • Page 5 "23. Florist sales, "~~-. Pet sales, "25. General apparel, "2G. Furniiture sales, "27. Sporting goods sales, including ftrearms[.j" CPMC 17.46.0402} idenfiif es "F.ecreatior}a1 vehicle overnight facilities" as a use permitted conditionally in the C-S district. CPMC 17.46.040(13} identifies "Paint and related equipment and supplies," and CPMC 17.46.04014} identifies "Cleaning and janitorial supplies," as uses permitted conditionally. Because the proposed development would include uses specif~eally allowed in the C-~ district, the CPMC coot be interpreted so as to allow those uses in the C-4 district where they are not specifically listed. as permitted and where, in at least one instance, a use (spoz~tang goods sales, including firearms} which would take place within the proposed development is specifically not permitted in the C-4 district. Approval of the a~t~lieation requires a concurrent zone change. Because the proposed Wal-Mart Superstore development is not a use permitted in the C-4 district, approval of the application requires concurrent amendment of the zoning map to change the zoning district designation from C-~4 to C-5. CPMC Chapter 17.$8 governs amendment of the te~.t of the zoning ordinance or to the zoning map, An amendment to the zoning map must be initiated by resolution of intention by the plaru7ing commission or the city council, or by application of one or more property owners or their agents. CPMC 1.7,88.{}20, Approval of a zone change requires findings based on facts presented that the zone change best serves the public health, safety, welfare and convenience. CPMC 17.88,040(D}. 2. The proposed development must he trcatcd as a conditional use. Even if the proposed development were deterrmined to be a facility allowed in the C-4 zone, the facility or uses pertnittecl are only permitted subject to planning commission review and approval under CPMC 17.44.020(18} or CPMC 17.44.{}30~A}~2(}}. Many of the proposed uses are not among those listed as permitted under CPMC 17.44.Cl20. The proposed development would thus not be allowed outright in the C-4 district. CPMC 17.44.030 governs conditional uses. CPMC 17.44.030(A}(20} authorizes. "Permitted uses that are referred to the plating comnssion by city staff because they were found to exhibit potentially adverse or hazardous characteristics not normally found in uses of a similar type and size." Championing fhe rate of cifizens in decisions affecfing fhe livabilify of (heir communifies and fhe susfainable use aF fhe nafura! enviranmenf Central Point Wal-Mart GbAI. UNE Ct]ALMCIN • Page 6 As discussed above, it has not been estab~ishc.~ that the proposed development is a use permitted in the C-4 zone, The proposed development is not a "community shopping center," and includes many uses that are not specifically listed as permitted in the C-4 zone. City staffhas referred this application to the planning comrr~ission for review. Evidence in the record indicates that city staff believes that the proposed development potentially will result in adverse traffic impacts not typical of a "community shopping center," Therefore the application is subject to the conditional use review provisions of CPMC Chapter 17.`76. Allowing a development that includes a multitude ofuses not specifically listed, and some that are explicitly not allowed, in the C~4 district would obviously ~xolerrtially have adverse cons~uences, because unlisted or not allowed. uses would have characteristics not normally found in uses specifically allowed in the C--4 district. CPMC 17.440t}20(B}il8} authori~s: ``l8. Qther uses not specified in this or any other district, if the planning camtnission finds them to be similar to the assess listed above and compatible with other perntted uses and with the intent of the C-4 district as provided in Section 17.60.140.,5 CPMC 17.440020(B}~18} thus permits uses not specifically listed only through planning commission review, and through a process which rec}uires findings of compatibility and of compliance with other approval criteria. Thus the proposed development is not a use allowed outright. The proposed development can only be approved through a discretionary approval process, and is subject to CPMC Chapter 1.7.76, Conditional Use Permits. Alternatively, the proposed development could possibly be approved in the C-4 district through the platu~ed unit development process. CPMC 17.44.030(B} allows for uses other tlxar- those specifically listed: "Uses other titan those listed above may be F~~zittedd in a C-4 district when included as a component of a commercial, tourist, or office-professional. planned unit development that consists predominantly of uses permitted. in the zone and is planned and developed in accordance with Chapter 17.68:' CUNCLUSIUN The proposed development does not meet the definition of "community shopping center." The uses that would be allowed are not uses that are permitted in the zone without planning commission review. Therefore the application cannot be approved. Respectfully submitted, .Tim l~ixector Championing the role of cifi.zens in decisions affecting the livability of their communities and the scrsfainable use of fhe natural environrrtent K. Mallazns 2855 Heritage Road Central Point, OR 97502 March 22, 2004 Central Paint Planning Caznmission 155 Sautlz Second Street Central Point, ClR 97502 ~~~~~~~ M~~ ~ 2 2004 Dear Central Paint Planning Commission, GITY C3F G~NTRAl. PC}iNT The proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter development an the parcel in Map 37 2W02D Tax Lot 100 is incompatible with the E3bjectives in the Central Paint Comprehensive Plan and is in violation of the Central Paint Municipal Code. It should not be approved. Central Point Com rehensive Plan Objective #1 of the Comprehensive Plan calls far "orderly and reasonable expansion of the Central Paint urbanizing area", A Wal-Mart Supercenter at proposed location would create major transportation problems as described in the OI~OT report and would harm existing businesses. That is neither orderly nor reasonable. Objective #2 states that commercial developments should "enhance private property values and the quality of life ofresidential properties immediately adjacent". This proposal would degrade the quality of life and lower property values ofxesidents of Central Point East and other subdivisions along 1-lamrick Road due to the increased noise, traffic congestion, lz'ghts and the unattractive view. Objective #~ calls for developments at an appropriate scale fczr the eomrn~znity. The scale of this proposal is way beyond what the community could support. It would be appropriate for a regional shopping area, Objective #5 states that developments should "enhance ease of access and circulation throughout the community". This proposal would further overload and disrupt the flow of traffic in an area that is already severely congested. Objective #8 calls for developments to "ensure protection and enhancement of existing natural environmental features". The proposal would add 18 acres of impervious surface immediately adjacent to Bear Creek and offers only minimal storm water management. This would contribute to a degradation of water quality in Bear Greek which supports Coho salmon, currently listed under the Endangered Species Act, The large amount of pavement would also increase the urban heat island effect on the surrounding area. Central -Paint Municipal Code .......The proposal froze PacLand for the dal-Mart Supercenter does not specify exactly and in detail what the specific uses would be. V~ithout such a list or floor plan there is no way the Planning Commission can evaluate the proposal and ensure that ail the uses will be those that are permitted in ~-4 districts, Therefore the application is incoxxznlete and cannot be ruled on in its present form. Complete written statement of all the uses that will be included in the proposal is very important because typical Wal-Mart Supercenters contain uses that are not permitted in C-4 districts but are permitted uses in C-5 districts. According to 17.44A20 ~B 18} "other uses not specified in this or any other district..." could be pez~mitted in C-4 districts. This means that if a use is specified in another district but is not specified in the C-4 district it cannot be permiried ~ the C-4 district. Examples of such uses permitted in C-5 zones but not C-4 that are typical components of Wal-Mart Supercenters include fire sales and service, hardware sales, feed, seed and nursery and gardening materials and supplies. Tire sales and service should also be prohibited due to 17.44.060 General Requirements for C-~ districts. It states that "no use shall be permitted which are found to be harmful to persons living or working in the vicinity by reason of odor, fumes, dust, dirt...noise, vibration, illumination or glare, or are found to involve any hazard of fire or explosion". Tire service creates large amounts of noise and dust and a fire that involved stored. tires would produce large amounts of toxic smoke. It is not an appropriate use adjacent to residential areas and is undoubtedly why fire sales are restricted. to C-5 districts. It is also undoubtedly why tires sales are distinguished from auto parts sales in the lists of permitted uses in the two districts. One of the permitted uses in the C-4 zone is-1?.44.020(8.15} community shopping center, defined as "a group of commercial establishments planned, developed, owned or managed as a unit". Municipal Code 17.08.365 fuz~ther def nes a "shopping center" as ` ;related in location, size and types of shops to the trade area it serves; and including an overall landscaping and parking plan and other design elements intended to tie the individual stores into the total center concept. The proposed Wa1-Mart Supercenter is not a shopping center or a group of establishments. It does not have a meaningful number of individual stores. It is one huge structure, totally controlled by Wal-Mart with two comparatively tiny buildings included as an afterthought, The Supercenter building at 200,000 sq. ft. would be 20 times larger than the 1(},00{} sq. #~. building and 1000 tames larger than the coffee kiosk. That is not a design that "ties individual stores into a total center concept". There is actually no guarantee that Wal-Mart will even build the two smaller buildings, further evidence that this proposal does not really mean to be a shopping center. Leased businesses inside the Supercenter would not constitute a group of establishments or andividual stores. They would be totally under the control of Wal-Mart with regards to their hours, and the merchandise or services they provided. In fact, if Wal-Mart were to close the Supercenter they would be out of business. Intuitively we all know what a shopping center is. The Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan were written for the community of Central Point, Therefore zoning in the Municipal Code that refers to the "community" refers to Central Point. The trade area also refers to the community of Central Paint. Therefore a community shopping center must be appropriate in scale to the community of Central Point. The proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter is not. This proposal must be subject to conditional use because it has adverse characteristics not nai~aally found in uses of similar size and type. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation report both the northbound ramp at Pine Street and the intersection of East Pine Street at Hamrick Road would fail on the day the Supercenter opens. This level oftraffic volume would not be generated by a conununity shopping center that captained a variety of establishments whose peals uses would be on different days and times from one apother. A community shopping center would not have the volume of track delivery traffic that a Wal-Mart Supercenter will generate. Truck traffic from the Pilot Truck Stop and Reddaway facility are already a major factor in the congestion along East fine Street. According to the t~regon Department of Environmental Quality and Rogue Valley Council of Governments this proposal has characteristics that would create adverse impacts on water duality and anadromous f sh habitat due to the large area of impervious surface created by the parking lot and mipimal storm water management. They cite recent agreements that have committed Central Point to new, stringent construction and storm-water management measures. Poor management of storm water runoff in this development will make it more difficult to meet the new requirements and cause future developments to bear more of the burden. A community shopping center built at a scale appropriate for Central Point would be smaller and would not require such a large parking lot. tt could be designed to include more landscaping and natural areas, including mitigation measures to control storm water runoff. For all of the above reasons, the proposal by PacLand for a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Central Point is incompatible with the {Jbjectives of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan and is in violation of the Central Point Municipal Code. It should not be approved.. Signed, (Katy Mallams~ .~~~_ March 19, 20~J4 City CP Central Point ~,.5 5 S 2D Central Point , C7R . 9'75 0 2 Attn: Tom Humphery Planning & Zoning Department Sub: xazardous Impacts & Other Factors Ref: Wal-Mart Supercenter ~~~ ~aR ~ 2 ?Q~~ ~rry o~= c~~~-~a~. ~ornr7 Z commend and support your position and stand on the proposed Big Box Wal-Mart Supercenter. I feel it is a detriment to our small town in a number of ways. Hazards z~~. Impacts : 1.} Such a .large-parking surface area that will have numerous vehicles most. of them older than five years leaking fluids, oil, transmission fluid, anti-freeze etc that will run off to storm drains and Bear Creek over time will pollute. Zarge clean up cost will result. 2} Storm drains other than what is new may be to small and have to be replaced to handle the rain fall run off. Who pays for that. 3} Increased number of vehicles in the thousands per day will cause pollution from exhaust contamination from long idle periods. we need clean air not more suspended particulate matter and hydrocarbons to deal with. 3} Containment of hazardous service bays. We can not contaminated. fluids from Wal-Mart vehicle allow our ground water to be Traffic Impact :. I know a lot has been sand about understand why those in favor of m 'or traffic jarn as a problem. of vehicles that use th~,s area f surface streets is quite large. it becomes a nightmare. this problem and T can not this Big-Box don't see this Can any given day the number ~'om l-5 and surrounding Now put Wal--Mart there and As tra~~ic becomes a substantial problem the Big Rigs that buy ~ue1 at the Pilot truck stop will not pull in and get caught up in long delays. Time is money to them. Down time will nat. be put up with. Impacts to loc~~. bu~e~s -.-- Wal-Marts study that local business will not be impacted is a joke. To name a dew that may shat their doors or lay o~~ workers. Rays Market Albertsons Market Grange CCU-DP Pi~.ot Truck Stop ~n summation T urge you and all City elected o~~icials to reject this proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter. " c rely ichard R. Carter 5705 Cold Stage RIB. Central Point, C}R. 97502 of traffic on Hamrick since just 1 year ago is so bad, my son can't crass the road to go to his friends house in the Meadows. This existed long before the bridge retro-fit project. lt's just the flow of ears and large diesel trues with trailers going through a small area designed for Tess traffic. Putting stop lights in a few areas will not change that. if senior citizens think they are going to walk to Wal-Mart for convenience, they are braver than 1. Central Paint is not ready for a superstore of this magnitude until streets all over the city are improved to match C4NTRt~LLEI~ growth, Everyone would like to see something go in that vacant lot to benefit us all, but 1 hope we choose wisely what we allow there. The issue is not whether we want Wal-Martin Central Perrot. The issue clearly is whether or not the small site considered, and it's surrounding area is sensible for a superstore of this size. Albertsons works well where it's at because the streets leading in and around it are not used as a major access ter other surrounding cities for commuters that pass through. There is no traffic exiting the freeway, emptying into an intersection by Albertsons. There are no major trucking companies located by Albertsons either. Obviously there is no comparison ter traffic from Pear Blossom and traffic that goes through :East Pinel Hamrick Road. It could be a very costly mistake for our beautiful city years down the road when Wal-Mart is here, and not obligated to do any more to appease the city with our rapid growth problems. 1:t can't be the only option. ft bothers me that Pro-Wal-Mart spokespeople have used the argument that Wal-Mart rs community orientated by contributing money to schools, donating to local organizations, and funding various events, making our city a better place to be. They have said Wal-Matt offers great job opportunities, competitive pay and benefits. These are all wonderful sounding possibilities that could sway anyone who wasn't sure where they stood rn their decision, but unless it is written in a contract, I don't thinkf would use rt for consideration in deoidrng whether we would want this huge store in our city. What guarantees support for local activities and what would stop Wal-Mart from bringing their own higher payed skilled labor to open this store, and have nothing to offer the people of Central Point other than the lower payed less- desrrablejobs? Wouldn't that be a disappointment! f hope an un-bias decision can be made based on facts presented and the desires of what local citizens want for our community. I don't think anyone from Medford, Portland or anyplace else can make a statement ern what they think is best for our town or its vision. They won't have to live with the consequences. Everyone wants a healthy economy and controlled growth. We need to ensure one meets with the other without an adverse effect. Thank You For Your Consideration, G~~~~~~ Margaret Bogue _~~_ Tom Nurnphre From: Jessica Van Auken jcoura0e2succeed c~yahaa.carn] Sent; Sunday, March 21, 2004 ~ 0:10 AM To: jazzmyn_biu cz yahoa.corri Subject: Fw: Wal-Marf - Know where you are shopping What every American needs to ]snow about Wal-Mart The owners of one of America's premiere retail corporations is comprised of five of the ten richest people in the world, all Pram the same family. 'T`heir personal wealth eclipses $100 BILLION dollars. Last year the companies CEO was paid a coal $11.5 million, mare than the annual. salaries of ?6S of his employees combined! The company's profits are over $7 BILLION annually. In these difficult economic times how do they da it? - This campany runs ads featuring the United States flag and proclaims "We Buy American°. In 2001. they moved their worldwide purchasing headquarters to China and are the Zargest importer of Chinese goods in the US, purchasing aver $10 BIT,LION of Chinese-made products annually. Products made mostly by women and children working in the labor sweat snaps China as famous for. - 'T'he average Wal-Mart employee in the UB makes $7.22 per hour! These employees grass under $11,000 a year. The company brags that 70~ of their employees are full time, but fails to disclose that they count anyone working 28 hours a week or mare as full time, -- There are na health care benefits unless you have worked for the campany far two years. With a turnover rate averaging above S0~ per year, only 38~ of their 1.3 million employees have health. care coverage. In California alone it's estimated that the taxpayers pay over $20 million annually to subsidize health care benefits far Wal-Mart employees who get Wane from this behemoth corporation, - According to a report by PBB's "Now" with Ball Moyer, Wal-Mart managers are trained in what government social programs are available for these "employees'T to take advantage af, so that the campany cars. pass an those costs to you and me. It allows them to not only keep their $7 BILLION in annual profits, but to do sa by substituting benefits they refuse to provide with benefits paid for with taxpayer dollars. - This campany holds the record far the most suits filed. against it by the Equal. Employment Opportunity Commission. A lawyer from "Business Week" {not exactly the bastion for supporting Lobar} said, "I have never seen this kind of blatant disregard far the law." 'T'hey had to pay $750,000.00 in Arizona for blatant discrimination against the disabled3 The judge was so incensed that he also order them to run commercials admitting their guilt. - The National Labor Relations Berard has issued aver 40 formal complaints against the corporation in 25 different states in just the past five years. The NLRB's top lawyer believed that their labor violations, such as illegal spying on employees, fraudulent record keeping, falsifying time cards to avoid paying overtime, threats, illegal firings far union organizing etc., were so widespread that he was looking into filing a very rare national complaint against the company. Nearly 1 MILLION women are involved in the largest class-action suit every filed against a corporation. Although women make up over 6S°s of this corporation's work force, only 10~ of them are managers. 'The women who have become store managers make $16,400 a year TtESS then the men. - Wal-Mart sometimes forces employees to work after ordering them to punch out. In Texas aline this practice of "wage theft" is estimated to have cast employees $30 million per year. Wage theft err "off-the-clack" lawsuits are pending in 25 states. In New Mexico they paid $400,000,00 in one suit. and in Colorado they had to pay $50 MILLION to settle one class-action case brought against them. In Oregon a jury found them guilty of lacking employees in the building and of (arcing unpaid overtime. - G7ith 4,400 stores they practice ==predatory pricing." They come into a community and sell ~~~_ their goods at below cost until they drive local businesses under. Once they have captured the market the prices go up. Locally awned and operated businesses competing with Ydal-Mai°t put virtually all of their money back into the community which helps keep tlxe local economies vibrant. Wal--Mart sucks the money out of the local commun~.ty, decreases vrages and benefits and ships the profits out of state. - Wal-Mart does not buy locally ar bank locally. They replace three decent paying jobs in a community with two poorly paid "part-- timers". Tn Kirksville, Missouri when this company came to town, four clothing stores, four grocery stores, a stationary store, a fabric store and a lawn-and-garden stare all went under. Eleven businesses are now gone. (The above information can be found in "Thieves in High Places", Tames Hightower, The Penguin Group, New Xork, NY, 2003 p. 166 - 193.E Now you know Itxow they can claim, "Always low prices.°' wal-Mart is the largest corporation in the world, larger than General Motors and Exxon Mobil. It will reap over 250 billion ~.n sales in 2003, which is larger then the entire grass national product of Israel and Ireland combined. It has over 1.3 million employees. It sells more groceries, jewelry, photo processing, dog food, and vitamins than any other chain in the world. Wal-Mart is owned by the Walton family. Whey will also never see a dime from my wallet again. Please feel free to circulate this memo to everyone on your email lists. Only we, the citizens of this great country can stop this race to the bottom. „Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world, indeed it is the only thing that ever lxas.° Explore these empowering websites coordinated by Fred: www.momentoflove.org - Every person in the world has a heart www.WantToKnow.info - Revealing major cover-ups & working together for a better world www.gcforall.org - Building a Global Community for All www.weboflove.org - Strengthening the web of Love that interconnects us ail Together, we are creating a new paradigm of love and cooperation on Earth --- Ta subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list of inspiration anal education (avg, one or two emails per week}, send an email to fredburkst~earthlink.net with "subscribe 1" or "unsubscribe l" in the subject line -- Do you Yahoo?? Xahoot Finance Tax. Center - File online. File an time. http:J/taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html _~~_ C.A.Galnin 744 Cardley .Ave Suite 100 Medford (~R 97504 ~y name is Cris Galpin, my address is 144 Cardley Ave., Suite#100 Medford CSR 97504. I moved to the valley over 40 years ago and during much of that time ~ have been a part of the business community of Central Point This business has involved property development, including Hampton place, Walnut C-rove, Beebe Woods, Mountain View Center and currently the clean up and development of the old Mill site on Hwy 99 south of pine street. My comments this evening are being primarily limited to issues identif ed in the public notice for this hearing. ~ am not going to concentrate on the merits of the application, as we will all be given that opportunity at the scheduled March ~{~~~ meeting. My concerns, along with many other business members of our con~.munity, is that the recommendation of staff concerning this application may be based on personal feelings or bias. ~ respectfully request that the planning commission view the issues independently and make decisions without regard to whether the proposal is for a Wal Mart, or a dome Depot, or any other assortment of retail users. I believe the city should apply their requirements in a fair and impartial manner and concentrate on properly mitigating any impacts for "whoever" is involved on this commercial property. I own residence property directly across the street from this center and I own business properties in town which will compete with this center. However, that is irrelevant. The City's land use code should be applied fairly, consistently and equal to all applicants. Personally 1 a~n not against the Wal Mart proposal. ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~~_ This property has been zoned for commercial use long before the resent flood of residential development in the area. Wal Mart is a good community supporter and provides excellent tax revenues, which support the community, provides jobs to people like the elderly who can't get jobs just anywhere, has expressed willingness to contribute dollars to the street system in addition to the already existing street SDC fees, and is prepared to design a architecturally unique building plan for the neigh hood. Will others be as cooperative and as generous? I have a winter home that is built in a development, directly across the street and adjacent to the loading docks of one of the largest Wal Mart Super Centers ever built. It's quite, totally landscaped, and I couldn't ask for a better neighbor. ~ hope the planning commission will focus on "how" the user should go on this site and not `who' should go on this site. _~~_ .attachment `E' FinaCPu6lic 1~Vorks Staff Report & Recommendations Dated .~vlarch 30, 2004 a~ -d .r ~~ . .~.+ ity of Central Point 'ublic Works Depaz ~ment FINAL PLTBL.~C ~4RKS ~ST~iP'F` R~'PQRT c~'t ~iE~`t~M.t~I~N.D~ T~DN~` TO; Planning Con~tnission FROM: Public Works L)epartment Robert Pierce -Director ..Inc Strahl -City ~'ngineer Chris Clayton -Deputy .Director SUBJECT; Proposed Pear Blossom Retail L~eveloprnent (207,502 -~ Sq. Feet} . ApRlicant Pacland 10121 SE Sunnyside Read, Suite 215 Clackamas, Oregon 97015 A .gent Pacland 10121 SE Sunnyside Road, Suite 215 Clackamas, Oregon 97015 PrOper~r/ 37 2W 2I~ Tax Lot 100 X20.5 Acres} Zoning C-4 Tourism & Ol'~ice RQGert fierce Public rf'c~rks Direetvr Rick Bartlett SuRervisar Ghrzs Clayton Deputy Director ,Toe S`trahl City Engineer Mike Qna Technician Greg Graves Technician Karen Roeber Secretary II Mar~~arita Munoz JBCYetary _~0_ Pear l3tossorrr Itetait I~eveto~rnerrt Prrbtie tf'drks Staff Ite~nart Page ~.2 Pur~vse The comments and recommendations contained in this Staff Report submitted for the March, l8~zi Planning Commission is based on the information currently available. As relevant studies and analysis are completed and become available, the City of Central Point Public Works Department will provide additional recommendations and information regarding the proposed development. The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant {hereinafter referred to as "Developer"} regarding City Public Works Department (PWD} standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposal and to gather information from the DeveloperlEngineer. A City of Central Point Public Works Department StaffReport is not intended to replace the City's Standards & Specifications. Staff Reports are written in con,~unction with the City's Standards & Specifications to form a useful guide, The City's Standards & Specifications should be consulted for any information not contained in a Public Works Staff Report. Standard S eel tcativns and Goals The Central Point Public Works Department is charged with management of the City's infrastructure, including streets, waterworks, and storm water drainage facilities. In general, the Department's "Standard Specifzeations and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction" shall govern how public facilities art; to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Works Department, Central Point Public Works is committed to working with the Planning Department and developers to assure that all developments are adequately served by public facilities. Public facilities not owned or maintained by the City of Central Point include. Power {PP&L}, Gas {Avista}, Communications (Qwest}, and Sanitary Sewer ~RVSS}. In working together it is the Department's expectation that the developer will feel free to call on the Department whenever the standard specifications are not, in the developer's opinion, adequately meeting the needs of the development. The Department will listen. to the developer's concerns and work with the developer to achieve the best outcome. However, the Department is not obligated to assure a profitable development and will not sacrifice quality, public safety, community standards or other concerns for the purpose ofrcdueing cast to the developer. It is always the developer's obligation to provide the public improvements necessary, as determined by the Public Works Department, to serve the development. The Department and the developer also have an obligation to assure that public facilities are t:onstnicted so that other properties are not adversely impacted by the development. ~.~f_ Pear 131ossont Retail llevetcr~srtent 1'ublie TYarks Staff Reporf Pad', e #J' l3evelypntent Plans --- RecZ„~tir-e~l Z~far•tttatiatt Review of public improvcrnent plans is initiated by the submittal of 3 sets of plans that are at a minimum 9S°lo complete. The plans shall include those of other agencies such as BC~SA or Jackson County Roads Department. Following plan review, the plans will be returned to the Developer's engineer including comments From Public Works Staff. In order to be entitled to further review, the Applicant's Engineer must respond to each comment of the prior review. All submittals and responses to comments must appear throughout the plans to be a realistic attempt to result in complete plan approval, Upon approval, the Applicant's Engineer shall submit ~S~ copies of the plans to the Department of Public Works. In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and prof le for streets, water, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, storm drainage calculations, storm drainage basin map, erosion control plan, utility and outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffzc studies, legal descriptions and a traff c control plan. Public Works Permit A Public Works Permit will only be issued after the Department Director approves the final construction drawings. After approval, the fees associated with the development will be calculated and attached to the public works permit. All fees are required to be paid in full at the time the Public Works Permit is issued, except Public Works Inspection fees. After project completion during the final plat application process, the Public Works Inspector will calculate the appropriate amount of inspection time to assess the developer. Before the final plat application is processed the developer must pay the relevant inspections fees and bond for any uncompleted improvements (as determined by the Public Works Director), Plans I. Three sets of plans at 95°1Q complete stage axe to be submitted for review by the Public Works Department ~. 4nce approval is achieved the Developer shall submit five sets of plans to the Public Works Department for construction records and inspection. 3. The Developer's Engineer shall document changes to the approved drawings made in the fzeld. A mylar and digital copy of the f nal "as-built" drawings will be required before the final plat application is processed. 1'ratectiyn n~'Existin~ Facilities The locations of existing facilities shall be shown on all applicable construction drawings for Public Works projects as follows: _b~_ fear BLassorn Retail Deveto~rnertt Prslatic T ~ar•ks Staf, f Re~rort Page #6 classifies the prapased development as conditional use based an ifs proximity to Interstate S, and existing traffic congestion in the nartheast partian of the City. 5. At a recent status meeting with JRH the City was provided with same preliminary recommendations which, if accepted, would seem to significantly improve traffzc flow and provide multiple points of access to flze prapased development. These do not appear to add unreasonable cost to the proposed development, yet appear to reduce traffic volumes on .Pine Street, imprave connectivity to other streets, and enhance the desired concept afconnecfed street systems in the surrounding area. These recommendations will be made as part of the final report presented by JRl'1 Transportation Engzneering. Public Works reconuxnends that the Planning Commission consider these recommendations in its deliberations on the prapased development. Stt~rrr:.7)rain ~- Grt~und T3Jate~ - ~la~rd .Plain 1. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer's Engineer to investigate the drainage area of the project, including the drainage areas of the channels or starrn sewers entering and leaving the project area. if a contiguous azu~exed drainage area of given size exists, the engineer may use information that has formerly been established if it includes criteria for the drainage area at complete development under current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. If the City does not have such informafzan, the engineer shall present satisfactory information to support his storm sewerage design. The engineer shall also be required to pravide all hydrology and hydraulic computations to the Public Works Department that are necessary to substantiate the storm sewer design. The storm wafer sewer system design shall be in conformance with applicable provisions of C)regan DEQ, DSL and 4DFW and United States CQE and consistent with APWA Starrrz Water Phase lI requirements. 2. The propased development places improvements and structures within or alters the IOCI- year flood plain associated with Bear Creek. The development's location adjacent to and within the Bear Creek flood plain also indicates potentially adverse or hazardous characteristics due to flooding that would not normally be found in a use of a similar type and size located elsewhere in the City. It is recommended that the Developer be required to have a 1 C}0-year flood study analysis performed, The flood study must provide findings which indicate what affects the placement of the proposed improvements and structures have an the base flood elevation and flood zone boundary; and what affects the modification of the floodplain elevation and flood zone boundary have on the existing facilities and properties surrounding the proposed development. The Developer's engineer shall determine the existing base (load flaw rates and the base flood evaluation contours, and illustrate the existing boundaries ofthe flaodplain and flaodway fora 1C1(?- _bb_ f'~~~rr ~i'/assr~r~r Trrtuil LJrrrln~rl~erzf 1'uht'ie F~'ar'Ics S't~rjf I~~~~ort ,: , , yctll "ba>c r`l~>ot.' ~;t~.?1m . ,:~1!#~lss~'ac{<;tc,C~ ~.~~itll ` ? ~ ~.~aa~ ~'rcc}; tllr~al,;~,l 1 1,~ ,1f1~~~t~'cl pr~~l~x;r,tcs, ,~ llc, CoI1titl~Ut'tloll dr2t1' ill;?. ~il(Ill 11~d1T'atC Y~iG 1~C~.SC(i 1)iIS(', ~1lUUC~ C1C~<ltlt)3; LO1).otll~~ TU;iI botlndaT ies ol~tlie floc>dlaltlill alld 11ood~.~~~ly cx{xa;tc~d to o~:cur fullos~~ilas~, 5}Ie ct):tahlctioTa. ty~ any dcvcli~Ialncllt ~._ itlliu t}l~.? ic3cntilicd lrlcxl zon{~ (tllso r~cerrcd to ~ls tllc ~ ~'11~c~a of` ~lacc:ial P11>od I1.1ral~d"), it.clts~ilils; allay al~c<;fctl t (a ~~.rtaiicllt a1C~iti. '1`]se sIl(~>rnltltls_,~a (k'tt`t7lalu~d ilk gals ~tt;cly L, ill ~liso be tsscd to cletclsllirlc s1Lt11il1lllul iini:~hcd fllar)r e}cvLTiiolls 1~>r ala~;~ st, t?t;turc> tll<:lt ~~~: ili be lalaccd ~x.~it'slill tllc art:'a o1's{~cci,Il flood l,tltirci. 71sc {'ity c:)t C cntral }'oin€ ['tlb}ic.; ~'~''orks 5t<Illiiarcls ~4:- ~laccifl:;~:ltic~il~ sll~>tllil lac cc)il~;slltd fvr s}accslic 1111( Cs11~tu)T1 xe~>~u-d1llt~ tlsc clcsl~~n and constrtlcul)11 <~f-storlla dram Iclatcd ~_ > cc»~1facallcTlts. 4. 'I~1Tis Clc;'t',lol~nlc°1It laI-o}loses aciciing <lxatlt 1. ~ tlclcs o~ islllaetti iolss surf<lcc; tt> t}lc situ. Disc:}1~Tr~~ita`; storm rlllaoi~l'cllrcctly #o I3c~lr Creek fiosl>, tfais develolaccl site coldci Isavc fill; f<allowill~.; inllaacts: '' Clc,licl- ]xatcntial for Il~sc~<}in.~ in dear Creek Illtroducti~:asl ol~Ixallutarsts, st.ch as oil a;ac~ dirt froth ~tltc~llat~hilcs, directly io t11~ creek I.1C.rcEiSlllr, tlaf; tf,11 s)C.ittilt' GI Ll~c ~`;1 111 13C'iii't_~T"CC~, ,I.1lc loc:ltioll ~,~ijac:cnt to dear Creek ]a-c.scnts ~tltl`. C1 ~e ~z; atet- c{ua}its; issues tll~;t «>oulcl nc;t 11C t>rescalt iIl <l silllifat` duvc~t'~tal:~lellt built clsel~ ll~.re. in tlac City. Ctll~rclltly illc~ t `it~''s st.Illdard5 loI~ ti1olIII C11;~lIt1S {~i~ IIOi 1~C;gtlli"C- {lctCllti011 of-~ioi1T11Vtil el- ~1~11Crc tlil° clr~lltilll'.l' facilities 21rt' ~id~cluatc. l'las is ccarrcctly stlfct:i iIi t}?c cic~~~clcalac;r's rclx>ri alld tllc <Ic;~ c~cala~,r is <11ahs~lrcr?tly not {alallrsin:; to install cletelltioll fa~ilitics or 1v~1tcl- qualify l£lcilitics tea rcducu pcatclltizll llc`~<Tti~ c itll{xlcts oll tllc crock. I-Io~~-ever, tllc City is noti~, sul~jcct to .til'I)LS ~° ~'hasc I( rcclltil-t;illcllt5. ~I,}IC.c regtlirelllcnts aI-c clc.sit~ncd tea lilaaii c1i5c11r1I~,'c n,~stor ~vat;l ti t}a~Tt tC'11C1 to af`fett Stl't'alllti I1'olll cltlaer a l{tlallij' t7r 11 (julllltlty' titianllli?lIlt. 1~13e (.~ltV }las leci;Iailti' entered i11to a`;ICCnaealt ~,vitla IZolue Valley Saver Scrti~ices (It4'~) tc~ rraanaf:,c. the 1'}laic:.[I let{tliT~cllacnts. W1-itten. Ill~ut fionl RVS shoulc} lae tabtaillecl 1CI~rvc tea tc stc>tn, °~'atcr qualify isstlc:s associsltc:cl ~~~itll this dcvelolalncnt. "I'ilc z-'itti laas not vc~i crcaiccl standards fc)~ dc~~'c1o{x°rs tea col;.{lly t~~iils i ll~lc II and tsloe t~()t }att~'C all' \~'a}Jii3 c\"~1111a1C' t}lt' lnl{?aC15 t:)I~(.il~C;}1<ll'S?lIi!? Stl)I1T1 l;%atc'i frolIl ~liCll<? }~114?C i;~xaperti ions ~tlrfacc ~lircctly islto Bear t`1 col;.. I1 ~cel1?s ill){~ro1?ri::ltc t}lerLtore, to roc{uc.~{ ~e1{a froul {)rcataal })1:Q and-cal- sue.}1 Icdc,ra} ag~~ncics as nlati~ be able to 1?rovi~}c i1l~ormatioll ~j 11ich tl;c (_'itv alai 1ZVS can tTSC- t~:) cvllu~ltc tllc~sc~ cn, il-tasanlclltal in1l~~lcts from the hrtahcasccl clove}~,f~snlcnt. Shr.nl}d ill,alificd Slate or I~cdcl-<11 a«cllcics rccomlllc;lltl 1.1~-}'I 111C~';tli~~5 &S 1L~ti'~S tt) IIi11)roVG l~~atki' C1t1a11tY' O"i dLlC'11t1U[1 ~115111~ to 'ti(:~11~ ~~OCl;ilsr 1T11i3aCt~, lllc'~e rl;i;(.)111111(.',Iilt±li(allti ;;llt)tlli.~ (:oT1Cli1loil llllllia'l'i~ oil fil the C1eVelta~acr ftJr iracorlas.>a~atio.I ;nto i}lc° tal<tlls. ~fstolrs~w~l(crdt;t~:~zlti~)ls ~arac#icc~, ;vllicls irs~olve 1}IC lrirs,dticiitan o) ru;?of~t~a <,ulas~'~'ace l0+~"#1onS, 1il~C 1)Ilf~a(y~;c:I_ ~~ 1S 1'l°t'i3111111~:;11dCil tilili tl `}10=o1'~!b Ul.kl"",S l;c CU;itlllCtC(1 to ,t~slir:'. tl~.ti.. Iavllutll):; ~,~, s11 T1~?i lac, ititit3tiii ~_:cl ;l?t~ ~:fit:at?~l~l 'l.~ac (;i~u s;; alt:r, ., _II c oaf _~j_ Pear B'tossvzzz Retcrit Devetopttzent Pubtie Ff'orks StczffRepcrtt 1'cr~>e #9 1~'atet• & Sever Water and sanitary sewer facilities appear to be adequate. The developer shall submit plans that are consistent with the City's and Rogue Valley Sewer Services' standard specifications for review and approval of the agencies. Permits from these agencies shall be obtained and all fees paid prior to the start of any construction. Trunsnortatfan Two traffzc consultants and the C3regon Department of Transportation have provided information about the traffic impacts ofthe development of this property. There are several discrepancies between the opinions offered by these traffic experts. However, all agree that the impacts on traffic congestion of this development will be extreme unless mitigation measures are taken. It is the City's responsibility to assure that appropriate steps are taken to minimize adverse impacts to traffic flow for the safety and convenience of its citizens. Accordingly, the developer shall submit plans which meet the City's needs for the proper flow and management of traffic under full development conditions. These plans must address and reconcile issues, as they relate to safety and convenience of the traveling public, raised by the traffic experts mentioned above to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Public Works will work with the developer's engineers and planners during the review process to evaluate mitigation measures in a timely fashion and to propose alternatives where appropriate. Wherever an appropriate nexus exists between the impacts of the development on traffic in the vicinity of this improvement and mitigation measures proposed to address these impacts, the developer shall be responsible for the proportional cost of implementing the mitigation measures. Written agreements between the developer and the City related to the cost of improvements shall be negotiated by the developer and Public Works and presented to the City Manager for approval. Stot~rrt .Drarna~e The issues raised in the preliminary staff report related to water quality, flooding, and ground water impacts are potentially serious from the standpoint of protecting the health anti safety of citizens and the environment. Accordingly, the developer shall provide all necessary studies to assure the City that this development will not have adverse impacts on surface or subsurface waters and will not adversely impact the environment. These studies maybe shared with appropriate State andlor Federal agencies for their input and advice to the City. Sett:tear=y The City of Central Point Public Works Staff Rcport addresses the City's concerns relative to the proposed developments potentially adverse impacts. However, the Public Works Department flocs not typically establish specific conditions for the Planning Commission to approve, historically, the City's Engineering Division leas been given the authority by the 1'lani~ing _~~~ Fear I3toss~rrrr Re#ail.t7evelr~prrrerr# Prcbtic FfarksStaff Report Frxge #.~ t1 Comznissian to negotiate required improvements, relative to proposed dcvelap~~ents, duri~~, the course of the improvement plan review process. The Engineering Division will use all the resources described in this Staff Report to equitably impose mitigation of adverse impacts resulting from the proposed development per the City of Central Paint's Municipal code as wells as Oregon's governing statutes. _~g_ .attachment `~' ~"R.~-C transportation engineers Dated: ~larcf~ 30, Zoo4 .~ttachr~ient ~' 2Jo 6e distributed at meeting _~j~_ .attachment `G' PacCanc Correspondence Proposed `Uses for 1Nal-~v(art & Potential ?enants 1...~~LLt1 G~ 1j L/~A3.1 l~tJGtl ~iV JJt1 }.Al k~FULU ~.,J .,}4+J 1~t1~~ t ~1 L Tarn Humphrey Frain: Scott Franklin ~sfranklin~ia pacland.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 7:13 PM To: Tom Humphrey Cc: Dan E3oultinghouse; Hathaway, Greg; crachuckcx gwest.net Subject: Central Point Pear Blossom Plaza Uses Tom As requested by the Planning Commission, Dan Bouitinghouse from my office, provided you a list of uses for the Retail 'A' portion of the proposed development. That list included the following potential uses: Retail 'A' Sandwich Shop Beauty Salon Hair Care Tanning Salon Pizza Piave Bank Video Rental Additianai uses that could occupy pardons of this building include Real Estate Offices; insurance Company Gffices; Professional Photo or Art Studio; Travel Agency, etc. All of these uses are identified as permitted uses within the C-4 zone. As l indicated during the March 18th Planning Commission hearing, these uses will be market~iriven, and may occupy varying portions of fire Retail 'A' shops building. Based on our discussion with the broker, there is already some interest in portions of the building, but as you can imagine, it would be premature to confcrm the exact name of those specific retailers before those negotiations were complete. Nonetheless, the uses within these shops must comply with the provisions of the C-4 zone. The coffee kiosk is self explanatory, and would fail under the "beverage stand" category under the C-4 zone. Following are uses that will appear in the proposed Wal-Mart building: Wal-Mart Buildin Typical ''Supermarket" uses including, bu# not limited to: bakery, delicatessen, health foal, grocery, etc. Typical "Department Stare" uses including, but not limited to: toys, sporting goods, apparel, home entertainment, jewelry, hardware, office supplies, etc. Automobile vehicle parts sales and repairs As 1 indicated a# the March 18th hearing, there will be a number of lease tenants within the Wal-Mart building. Typical tenants within the Wal-Mart building include: Bank Hair Salon Optical Sit-Down Restaurant {not adrive-in) Portrait Studio Each of these uses are separate lease tenants/establishments, and are not Wal-Mark owned. Each of these uses _~~_ 3/24/2Qt}4 t~cntrat to~nc tear ~tossozn Y1aza Uses ~~age z oz ~ are allowed wi#hin the C-4 zone. As wi#h the Retail `A` building, exact names of specific lease tenan#s cannot be provided, as lease negotiations would no# typicaUy be finalized un#il after land-use approval is ob#ained. Again, the uses within the Wal-Mart building would need to conform to the provisions of the C-4 zone. l #rust this list addresses Planning Commission's goes#ionslcancerns regarding the uses tha# are anticipa#ed for the proposed developmen#. if you have any additional goes#ions, please let me know. Thanks, Scott Franklin PACLANC} 10121 SE Sut~nyside Rd., Suike 215 C1ac€camas, OR 97015 Office: (543} 859-9500 Fax: {503} 859-2227 ~~~_ 3/24120(}4