Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting Miscellaneous 12/11/2007 -". tv' es' approved by the Sprrngfield Plannrng Commission 12-11-2007 City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGIELD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 19, 2007 The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon on Tuesday, June 19, 7:00 p.m., with Frank Cross as Springfield Planning Commission Chair. All~NDANCE Present were Chair Frank Cross, Vice Chair Bill Carpenter and Planning Commissioners Gayle Decker, Dave Cole, Steve Moe, Johnny Kirschenmann. Also present were Development Service Director Bill Grile, Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger, Planning Secretary Brenda Jones., Kitti Gale, David Reesor, Andy Limbird and City Attorney Joe Leahy and members of staff. ABSENT . Lee Beyer PLEDGEOFALLEGD\NCE . The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Frank Cross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner C..u ~enter, seconded by Commissioner Kirsch". .I....ann, moved to ai-i" Dve the minutes of the June 5,2007, work and regular session as written. The motion passed, 4:2:0, commissioners Cole and Moe abstainingfrom the vote. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE Commissioner Cross determined there was no business from the audience. OUASI-JUDICAL PpBLIC HEARING Commissioner Cross reviewed the public hearing rules. · Site Plan Review Tvoe II - St. Vmcent De Paul - DRC2007-00024 - At the June 5th public hearing, the Planning Commission was asked to hold the record open for seven (7) days. The Commission closed the public hearing and left the record open for seven (7), which ended at 5:00 p.m. on June 12, 2007. One June 19'2007. · / J Date Received. /).../ 11/:Jo()7 Planner: Al I / MlNUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19,2007 Page 1 -t:-::, St. Vincent De Paul submitted a Type II Site Plan application on April 11, 2007, requesting tentative approval for a 3-story retirement facility for individuals 62 years or older and at or below 50% of Are Median Income. The Planning Commission held a work session and conducted a public hearing on June 5, 2007 on the applicant's proposal. Four people spoke at the hearing and four ' documents were entered into the record. One person requested that the written record be held open and the Commission complied with this request. One written comment was submitted to staff by the specific date of June 12, 2007. Staffs response to the written comment, and to specific question raised by the Commission are found in attachment 2. The applicant submitted formal rebuttal written material by the specified date of June 14, 2007. Commissioner Cross called for ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest. He ~oted he had worked on the Community Development Advisory Committee, which recommended tJ;1e use of Community Development Block Grant funds for the project to the City Council. He failed to mention it at the last hearing because he had not recalled it at the time. He did not think that would bias his decision in any way and would continue to vote unless there was a significant objection. Commissioner Carpenter indicated he had bicycled by the property on S Street, but did not speak with anyone. Mr. Leahy asked Commissioner Carpenter to share his observations. Commissioner Carpenter said he observed a narrow street where cars were parked opposite each other on both sides of the street. The street had looked rather narrow. He indicated, in response to a question from Mr. Leahy, that he had not taken measurements. He had counted the number of vacant parking spaces at the nearby Fred Meyers and counted 60 spaces. Ms. Gale recommended approval of the project. She deferred to Gary McKenney of the Public Works Depfu.l.J.uent, who had some clarifications to offer. Mr. McKenney recalled a question from Commissioner Carpenter regarding accident reports on 5th Street between U and Q streets, and reported there had been three in the last five years. Two accidents, one in 2002 and one in 2003, occurred on 5th Street about 100' north of Q Street. A third accident occurred in 2007. Commissioner Carpenter had reported he had witnessed an accident, but staff research found that it was very minor and did not require an official report. Responding to a question from Commissioner Carpenter, Mr. McKenney said th~ information about the number of accidents provided to the commission was a result of miscommunication between him and Ms. Gale. Commissioner Carpenter asked if staff had looked through the same police data base to find about other minor accidents that might have occurred. Mr. McKenney said his department did not get that information about every time a police officer arrived on the scene from the Police Depfu.l.J.uent. His understanding was that if someone called the police and the accident appeared to rise to the legal reporting thresh9ld, the police would respond if possible. He believed that the police would also respond to a lesser accident if possible. If they found the accident did not MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19,2007 Page 2 'meet the reportable threshold, the officer would fill out an information form as a courtesy to the driver. Commissioner Carpenter noted the accident mentioned in testimony and asked if that occurred in the last five years. Mr. McKenney indicated he had records back to 1999 and he found no reference to an accident at the intersection of S Street. Ms. Gale provided the commission with copies of a document entitled City of Springfield Standards Specification. She said the Public Works DepfuL..uent thought it important the commission have an opportunity to see the document and understand that the construction process, which was not part of the site plan review, was governed by codes and specifications and included inspections throughout the construction process. Commissioner Carpenter referred to the minutes of the hearing.and a statement on page 7 that indicated the company planned to provide off-site parking. He asked if that statement was accurate. Mr. Leahy recalled that the contractor indicated he could provide off-site parking and carpooling for his employees. Ms. Gale recalled that the contractor indicated off-site parking was a possibility. Commissioner Cross asked if the commission was able to request that the contractor control the activity of personnel going in and out of the site. Mr. Leahy said he thought the answer was yes, but he asked the commission to recognize the City had a Public Works Depa.L Lwent that would oversee the construction activities. He said nothing wrong with including a note in the findings asking the Public Works Depa.L L.luent to monitors the traffic during the construction period to ensure it was safe. He advised against telling the department how to do that, however, to ensure it had sufficient flexibility to address the needs of the neighborhood. Commissioner Carpenter believed Mr. Leahy's statement was contrary to the, staff response to 4, which indicated the commission could condition or deny the application to provide alternative'construction access. Mr. Leahy pointed out the commission did not have a construction plan to review, and expressed concern that the commission would want to see a construction plan with each site review application. Commissioner Carpenter said the commission received testimony about what he termed a 'worst case' scenario of 90 workers entering the site daily through a single residential street if "we don't do anything." Mr. Leahy asked if the Public Works Depfu Lwent indicated that presented a safety issue. Commissioner Carpenter acknowledged it did not. Mr. Leahy suggested that the commission lacked information to that effect on the record, and that staff indicated the streets could adequately serve the site. Commissioner Carpenter said that analysis was based on peak hour use, not times when construction traffic would be using the streets. He speculated that when the end of the day was reached on Friday afternoon, "those 90 vehicles would be out of there in like, ten minutes." Mr. Leahy reiterated his suggestion for giving the depaJ.L..uent flexibility. Ms. Gale solicited additional questions. There were none. , MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session Date Received: I,J,PI/2ot>7 Planner: AL ' / June 19,2007 Page 3 Commissioner Cross called for commission comments. Commissioner Cole believed the plan for the project was good and he did not see a conflict with the governing criteria. The applicant was not exceeding density standards and while he thought the parking could be an issue he did see it as a barrier to development. He pointed out the City could not deny the applicant access to the public street based on its width. Outside of parking and the trash location, he saw no issues, and he thought the trash issue had been addressed by the applicant's screening plans. Commissioner Moe indicated he had reviewed the minutes of the public hearing. While he would prefer to the see the project closer to downtown, he had been surprised by the projected amount of vehicular traffic, which was less than he anticipated. He pointed out that construction would require only a brief time and then the contractor would be done. Commissioner Moe thought that once completed, the project would be a nice addition to the community. Commissioner Decker said the land was zoned for the project and the City could not deny people access to their property from a public street. She encouraged the Public Works Department to do what it could to mitigate the impact, but she did not think construction traffic was within the commission's purview. She thought the design acceptable and saw no reason to deny the application. Commissioner Decker said she was surprised people would think such a population would create a greater traffic load as most of the low-income individuals who came to her clinic used RideSource or other means of transport as they lacked the means to own automobiles. She thought the project was a fine one and wanted to see it happen. Commissioner Decker said her house was one of the first in her neighborhood, with the result that she had lived with construction for some time, and she acknowledged construction could be challenging, but eventually it can to an end. Commissioner Decker indicated support for the application and said she was not interested in adding conditions as she thought the staff recommendations adequate. Commissioner Kirschenmann agreed with Commissioner Decker. He thought that the applicant had met the criteria. He commended the work of staff. Commissioner Kirschenmann said his major concern was the potential of conflict between children using the street and construction vehicles, and hoped the Public Works Depfu Lment was able to protect the small children and residents of S Street. Commissioner Carpenter agreed that the project was a great development, and very well-located between grocery stores. He had some concerns about parking but was more comfortable with the information provided. He recalled that the MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19,2007 Page 4 commission received testimony indicating that the proposed parking was inadequate because of the growing number of "younger and more active" senior citizens and couples that own two vehicles and some recreational vehicles. He acknowledged that the residents of the development were at 50 percent of median income, but suggested it was possible they could buy cheap cars and drive. However, he liked the fact of one space per unit and was comfortable with the proposed parking. He had been concerned about overflow parking on holidays but hoped some residents would not have vehicles so there were no parking complaints. Commissioner Carpenter asserted that the applicant had expressed willingness to add additional parking if parking became a problem, and advocated for a condition that stipulated that if the development generated five or more complaints in a year's time, it would trigger a commission discussion of converti.ng the garden area into parking spaces. Commissioner Carpenter also called for the addition of a condition that he asserted would protect the neighborhood during the, construction period, first outlining a scenario that he suggested would result in 90 automobiles spilling out of the neighborhood during a short period of time with the potential for conflict with traffic on residential streets. Commissioner Carpenter dismissed the idea that carpooling would occur. He said that the residents of the area should not have to be inconvenienced. He proposed that the commission require the contractor to contract with the owners of private parking lots in the area for parking for the construction work force rather than at the construction site, such as the Fred Meyer lot. Commissioner Decker, seconded by Commissioner Moe, moved . that the commission approve this application with the findings and conditions contained in the staffreport. Commissioner Cole said he would encourage the applicant and contractor to ''be neighborly" but he did not see the commission gained anything from placing further restrictions on the application. He said that those in the construction business were good at such logistics. He said that the site would accommodate more parking before it was paved and landscaped, and many of the workers on the site would have service trucks that contained needed equipment. He did not think the condition proposed by Commissioner Carpenter was practical and recommended the city allow the construction to proceed so it happened in the shortest possible time, limiting the impact on neighbors. Commissioner Cross thought the zoning appropriate and staff did not appear to see a problem with the parking. He acknowledged Commissioner Carpenter's concern about construction traffic but indicated he did not believe it was the place of the commission to restrict the flow of construction traffic in and out of the site. Datel Received: 1~~l..ho()7 Planner: Al I MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19, 2007 Page 5 Commissioner Moe suggested that if there was a problem with traffic, it would be a safety depa1.lment, and the police and fire depa1. U1.1.ent would be involved and would address the issue. He was not concerned about the construction traffic. Commissioner Carpenter said he wanted the City to prevent the first accident from happening rather than having to responding to it, and he thought the condition he proposed the way to accomplish that. Commissioner Cross expressed appreciation for the concerns voiced by Commissioner Carpenter. / The motion passed, 5:1; Commissioner Carpenter voting in opposition. Mr. Leahy said that staff would share the concerns expressed by Commissioner Carpenter and ensure there was a traffic plan. He pointed out the applicant was also present and heard the concerns, and suggested that they would be mindful of them. . Vacation of Public rieht-of-wav - Citv of Snrinmeld - LRP2007- 000lq The item was continued from June 5, 2007. A Public Hearing for the proposed vacation was held on June 5, 2007 and the written record was held open for an additional seven days following the hearing. Seven people testified in favor of the proposed right-of-way vacation and two people submitted testimony opposing the vacation and requested that his previous testimony submitted on March 26, 2006 for the Justice Center Discretionary Use and Zone Change requests be entered into the public hearing record (attachment 4). Additionally, Mr. Olson submitted written testimony opposing the proposed vacation during the extended public hearing record (attachment 5). - Commissioner Cross asked for any ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest on the part of the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Moe responded that he worked on the campaign for the proposed public safety facility but he did not think that would affect his ability to make an impartial decision. Commissioner Carpenter said that he had written an editorial against a new jail a few years ago but had no ex parte contacts. Commissioner Cross said he was a member of the Justice Center Advisory Committee as a representative of the commission but that would not prejudice his decision. Mr. Limbird said at the request of Scott Olson, an individual offering testimony in opposition to the vacation of B Street, additional written testimony provided for MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19,2007 Page 6 the previous discretionary use and zone change application was included in the record, and provided to the commission as Attachment 4 to the staff report. Mr. Olson also provided additional written testimony opposing the proposed vacation; that was provided to the commission as Attachment 5. Mr. Limbird recalled a question from Commissioner Carpenter at the last meeting regarding the potential for a public sidewalk in the mid-block alley north of the B Street vacation parallel to the vehicle travel area, and referred the commission to a memorandum from Jim Poulston, the assistant project manager for the Justice Center, which was labeled Attachment 6. Mr. Limbird referred the commission to Attachment 7-5, an additional map of the B Street area. Mr. Limbird recommended approval of the vacation request based on the draft findings. Commissioner Cross asked how much time would be lost to the motorist or pedestrian by rerouting traffic to C or A streets. Mr. Limbird suggested the answer depended on the origin, destination, type of traffic involved, and speed at which the individual traveled. The out-of-distance direction documented in the staff report was from 300 to 600 feet, so the time lost could be mere seconds for a vehicle or as much as a minute for a pedestrian. Responding to questions from Commissioner Carpenter, Mr. Limbird confirmed that total lost right-of-way was approximately 66 feet. He further indicated that a three-foot sidewalk would not meet City standardS for sidewalks. The sidewalk would have to be at least five-feet wide for Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. Commissioner Carpenter said the memorandum provided to the commission indicated the City could accept a three-foot sidewalk. Mr. Limbird concurred. Commissioner Carpenter referred to Attachment 6-2, which was a map of the parking area, and recalled hearing that there would be a loss of six parking spaces if a three-foot sidewalk was added. Mr. Limbird concurred. The parking spaces would be lost because they fell below the minimum width for a usable, serviceable parking space, which was typically nine feet wide. Another option to retain the parking was to minimize the landscaping strip to two feet or none. Commissioner Carpenter asked why staff proposed to eliminate the parking spaces shown on the map rather than the parking spaces in the far northwest and far northeast corners. Mr. Limbird responded that the Police DepaJ.lwent needed to maintain a two-way traffic in the driving aisle within the parking area. There must be a minimum consistent width to accommodate two-way east-west traffic. He believed that minimum width was 24 feet. He reminded the commission that another issue that was discussed was the need to maintain sufficient space for the expansion of the ancillary building at some point in the future. Date Received: /~~/~tlL Planner: Al MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19,2007 Page 7 Commissioner Cross closed the hearing and solicited commission comments. Commissioner Cole said that some of the testimony the commission received suggested the issue was one of supporting or not supporting the Police Depfu LlUent. He reminded the commission the issue was about vacating a right- of-way, and the question to resolve was whether the criteria were satisfied by the application. He emphasized the gravity of the decision and the importance of right-of-way to Springfield citizens. Commissioner Cole said the issue was whether a greater public benefit was gained from the vacation than by retaining the existing right-of-way. Commissioner Decker agreed with Commissioner Cole. She said the commission must balance the issue of the safety of the police officers, or the convenience of travel. She thought the trade-off favored the Police Department. Her personal opinion on the issue of the Justice Center was immaterial; she believed the center would be located on the site in question, and in order for the development to work in a reasonable manner, B Street must be vacated. Commissioner Decker moved that the application be approved as presented. Commissioner Kirschenmann expressed support for public safety services and said he believed staff looked at every other option. The application met the criteria and he thought from a safety standpoint represented the best scenario. He also expressed appreciation to staff for working to save Springfield money. Commissioner Moe did not want to see B Street closed but recognized the footprint needed for the Justice Center. He said he supported the application. Commissioner Moe expressed the desire that the center had more of a public face on A Street as opposed to B Street but acknowledged the phased construction created the situation. In regard to the traffic, Commissioner Moo hoped that someday downtown Springfield was busy enough to consider one-way streets; at that time, people would have to driving two blocks to travel around a block which was very similar to what would occur with the Justice Center. Commissioner Carpenter anticipated the City's decision would be appealed and wanted to minimize the potential success of the appeal. He said that staff indicated that travelers would be diverted 150 feet out of the way to the alley, which would carry vehicles, and that was a concern for him because of its impact on pedestrians, bicyclists, and those traveling in wheelchairs. He did not think the staff justification was the proper one as he did not consider the diversion a safe alternative. For that reason, he had inquired about including a sidewalk in the project. He agreed there were compelling reasons to approve the application, but did not think the commission could claim there was an adequate pedestrian corridor without a paved strip of land for the wheelchairs. Commissioner MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19,2007 Page 8 Carpenter said he was willing to approve the application but would require the street be left open for two or three years with a potential sidewalk installed later, and the landscaping reduced two feet, or would require the project to have a paved sidewalk on the south side of the existing alley. Commissioner Cole believed the commission was ''being painted into a corner" by the proposed design. He said the commission needed to consider the long-term. He said the street would not be opened once closed, and it was a collector street rebuilt at considerable cost not long ago. Commissioner Cole thought B Street one of the best streets to get through downtown as it reached all the way to 16th Street. He was concerned about diverting traffic off South A as the City had no good place to direct the traffic. He thought the street was more useful as a City street than for its planned use as the Justice Center. He said the Justice Center needed an interconnected parking lot, but eliminating B Street was not the way to accomplish that. Commissioner Cole said he would oppose the application as he did not think it met the criteria related to greater benefit. He perceived the change as providing a lesser benefit and did not think the public was being served by the application. Commissioner Cole acknowledged that the City was quite far into the process, but he continued to believe the community should not "give up" B Street. Commissioner Moe seconded the motion. The motion passed, 4:2; Commissioners Cole and Carpenter voting no. . Metro Plan/Refinement Plan Man Amendment and a concurrent Zonine Man Amendment - The item was continued from June 5, 2007. During the June 5, 2007 hearing, the Planning Commission received testimony from one citizen, Nancy Falk, who testified opposition to the proposal. During her testimony, Ms. Falk requested that the record be held open for seven days. The Planning Commission granted the request and instructed staff to leave the record open until Tuesday, June 12, 2007. The applicant agreed to provide a rebuttal statement to any new written testimony by June 13, 2007; both letters have been included in this packet. Staff received one written testimony from Lauri Segal, Goal One Coalition Planner, On June 12, 2007. A written rebuttal to Ms. Segal's letter was then submitted by the applicant the following day, June 13, 2007. Both letters were received within the specified deadlines as noted in the Planning Commission public hearing on June 5,2007. Staffs response and excerpts from Ms. Segel's letter and the applicant's rebuttal letter have been provided in the attached report in order to summarize the issues and to provide ease of review by the Planning Commission. Copies of the two letters in their entirety are attached for reference and review in addition to the excerpts and staff responses in the report. The attached report is provided to supplement the original staff report which was Dat~ Received: /0//2aJ7 Planner: Al I I MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19,2007 Page 9 provided in the Planning Commission packets for the July 5, 2007 hearing. The applicant requests approval of a Metro Plan/Refinement Plan Map Amendment to the East Main Refinement Plan Commissioner Cross asked the commission to declare any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Commissioner Cole indicated a conflict of interest due to his wife's employment at PeaceHealth, and excused himself from the hearing. He noted this was his last meeting as a commissioner, and bid the commission farewell. Mr. Reesor directed the commission to the written comments received since the last meeting and the rebuttal comment submitted by the applicant. He noted the staff response to the written comments from Lauri Segal of the Goal One Coalition and the applicant, included in the meeting packet. Mr. Reesor recommended approval of the application. Responding to a question from Commissioner Carpenter, Mr. Reesor indicated that PAPA stood for Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment. Commissioner Carpenter observed that representatives of the Goal One Coalition did not attend the public hearing, although the person that requested that the record be held open was a member of that group. He said it seemed somewhat out of keeping with procedure to allow potential testimony from someone not in attendance at the hearing. Commissioner Cross closed the hearing and asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that Light Industrial zoning might be a thing of the past, and he believed the community had an adequate supply because of changing market conditions. The same might be true of Heavy Industrial land. He had no objection to the application, and anticipated the development of a medical center that would provide community jobs. Commissioner Moe indicated support for the application and said he would like to see more medical facilities in the area. Commissioner Decker believed that commercial zoning was more compatible with this area. She agreed with Commissioner Carpenter that Light Industrial could be a thing of the past. Commissioner Kirschenmann supported the application. Commissioner Cross commented staffs outstanding work on the application. He said that while he thought the property in question suitable for the intended use, MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19, 2007 Page 10 he thought the community needed to be careful not to give up too much Light Industrial land. Commissioner Carpenter, seconded by Commissioner Decker, moved to recommend approval of the applications to the City Council, with the findings and conditions as discussed. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECfOR Mr. Grile thanked commissioners Decker, Cole, and Moe for their service on the Planning Commission. REPORT OF COUNCIL AL.l.lON Commissioner Carpenter reported that the council had the first reading for the Marcola Meadows development and presented a plaque to Ms. Crae for her life-time of giving to the City of Springfield. BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION Commissioner Decker thanked the staff for their professional expertise and support, as did Commissioner Moe. Commissioner Carpenter thanked the outgoing commissioners for the knowledge and experience they had given so graciously. Commissioner Carpenter asked that staff bring the Bicycle Plan back to the Planning Commission for review, and to indicate to the commission when the plan was last revised. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Cross adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. (Recorded by Brenda Jones and Kimberly Young) Date Received:. 10h7 Planner: AL I MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19,2007 Page 11