Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council agrees to advance draft comprehensive plan and include planning-commission parcels
Summary
After a public hearing, the council voted to move the city's draft comprehensive plan forward as drafted and to include specific parcels recommended by the planning commission; staff said the motion is nonbinding until final adoption following county and state review.
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Battle Ground — Following a public hearing on Dec. 1, the Battle Ground City Council voted to advance the draft comprehensive plan and include parcels recommended by the planning commission for further review.
Planning supervisor Sam Krumick introduced the hearing and asked the council for a consensus motion to move the draft plan forward with the parcels identified in the staff report. Krumick said the draft remains nonbinding until it completes county and state review and formal adoption.
Several members of the public testified. Marty Miller, who identified himself as a longtime local property owner, urged the council to include the parcels because existing half-street improvements and other infrastructure make completing the streets and utilities practical. "When I take a look at Wapiti ... the way they have laid that out and what we're looking for long term, I think that that is more embraceable of what you folks' vision is," Miller told the council.
Council members discussed whether to seek R-3 (lower-density) or R-5 (higher-density) designations; staff said the planning commission did not specify R-3 or R-5 and that environmental review had been completed for the site-specific parcels included. After discussion, a council member moved to advance the plan draft as presented and to include the planning-commission parcels. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
Staff will return with final adoption materials and additional vetting after the county finalizes its review; council members noted that changes are possible before final action.
The action is procedural: advancing the draft sets the city on the next step toward formal adoption, not a final zoning determination.

