HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 04 06 AIS SpringfieldOregonSpeaks Planning Commission
Agenda
City Hall
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
541.726.3610
Online at www.springfield-or.gov
Due to State-wide orders regarding social distancing and large gatherings, this meeting will be available via phone
and internet using Zoom Meeting. Members of the public wishing to attend this meeting electronically can call in or
attend virtually by following the directions below. This information can also be found on the City’s website.
From your computer, tablet or smartphone
https://zoom.us/j/99650109398?pwd=dlYzQVI0OUJwNmhzS2VIcXQ0U0NaUT09
Meeting ID: 996 5010 9398; Passcode: 980449
Dial by your location
+1 971 247 1195; +1 206 337 9723
877 853 5247 US Toll-free
Oregon Relay/TTY: Dial 711 or 800‐735‐1232.
Give the Relay Operator the area code and telephone number you wish to call and any further instructions
All proceedings before the Planning Commission/CCI are recorded.
To view agenda packet materials or view a recording after the meeting, go to SpringfieldOregonSpeaks.org
April 6, 2021
_____________________________
6:00 p.m. Work Session
______________________________________
______________________________________
CALL TO ORDER
ATTENDANCE: Chair McGinley_____, Vice Chair Landen _____, Koivula _____, Gill_____,
Bergen _____ and Salazar_____.
WORK SESSION ITEM(S)
1. Main Street Safety Project
Staff: Molly Markarian
60 Minutes
ADJOURNMENT
Community Development Director:
Tom Boyatt, 541.744.3373
Comprehensive Planning Manager:
Sandy Belson 541.736.7135
Management Specialist:
Brenda Jones 541.726.3610
City Attorney’s Office:
Kristina Kraaz 541.744.4061
Planning Commissioners:
Sophie McGinley, Chair
Andy Landen, Vice Chair
Michael Koivula
Grace Bergen
Kuri Gill
Matt Salazar
Planning Commission Agenda
April 6, 2021
Page 2
UPDATED 9/18/2019 bj
April 6, 2021
_____________________________
7:00 p.m. Regular Session
______________________________________
CONVENE AND CALL TO ORDER THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING
COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE: Chair McGinley_____, Vice Chair Landen _____, Koivula _____, Gill_____,
Bergen _____ and Salazar_____.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE REGULAR SESSION AGENDA
In response to a request by a member of the Planning Commission, staff or applicant; by consensus
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Testimony is limited to 3 minutes; testimony may not discuss or otherwise address public hearings
appearing on this Regular Session Agenda
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 20, 2021 Regular Minutes (Marcola Meadows)
March 16, 2021 Work Session and Committee for Citizen Involvement
REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION
BUSINESS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Upcoming Planning Commission meetings, committee reports, or other business
BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ADJOURNMENT
Springfield Planning Commission
Work & Regular Session
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
WORK SESSION‐ Convened at 6:00 p.m.
Planning Commissioners: Chair Sophie McGinley, Vice‐Chair Andrew Landen, Michael Koivula, Kuri Gill, Grace Bergen,
and Matthew Salazar.
Council Liaison: Councilor Damien Pitts
Staff: Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Brenda Jones, Planning Commission Assistant; Kristina Kraaz,
Assistant City Attorney; Mark Rust, Senior Planner.
Item: Springfield Development Code Update Project – Quarterly Update‐ Senior Planner Mark Rust
Asst. City Attorney Kraaz explained the Oregon Government Ethics Law which requires public officials to declare
potential or actual potential of interest before discussing a topic in a public meeting.
McGinley‐ Own no property in Springfield and has no potential conflict of interest.
Landen‐ Owns property in Springfield and has a potential conflict of interest.
Gill‐ Owns property in Springfield and has a potential conflict of interest.
Koivula‐ Owns property in Springfield and has a potential conflict of interest.
Bergen‐ Owns property in Springfield and is a Real Estate Agent and has a potential conflict of interest.
Salazar‐ Owns property in Springfield and is a Real Estate Agent and has a potential conflict of interest.
Mark Rust, Senior Planner presented his staff report regarding the Development Code Update Project‐ Quarterly update
with the planning commission. Included presentation slides.
Topics discussed:
Phase I‐ Housing code
Density and Lot Size
Defining Housing Types (attached v. detached)
Parking
Siting Standards and Design Standards
Alternative Siting and Design Standards Process
Phase 2‐ Employment Lands (commercial and industrial) code
Phase 3‐ Other Code Sections (“Everything else”)
Project Schedule‐ new updated schedule
Next Steps
The Planning Commission asked clarifying questions, Mark responded where appropriate.
Adjourned at 6:50
Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) – REGULAR SESSION – Convened at 7:00 p.m.
CCI Members: Chair Sophie McGinley, Vice‐Chair Andrew Landen, Michael Koivula, Kuri Gill, Grace Bergen, and Matthew
Salazar.
Council Liaison: Councilor Damien Pitts
Staff: Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Brenda Jones, Planning Commission Assistant; Kristina Kraaz,
Assistant City Attorney; Mark Rust, Senior Planner.
Business from the Public – None.
Item: Development Code Update Project – Revisions of Community Engagement Plan
Request to approve a revised project schedule as part of the Community Engagement Plan for the Development
Code Update Project. Senior Planner Mark Rust
Committee declaration of Potential Conflict of Interest:
o McGinley‐ Own no property in Springfield and has no potential conflict of interest.
o Landen‐ Owns property in Springfield and has a potential conflict of interest.
o Gill‐ Owns property in Springfield and has a potential conflict of interest.
o Koivula‐ Owns property in Springfield and has a potential conflict of interest.
o Bergen‐ Owns property in Springfield and is a Real Estate Agent and has a potential conflict of interest.
o Salazar‐ Owns property in Springfield and works for a real estate developer at Cornerstone Community
Housing, because of this he has a potential conflict of interest.
Mark explained to the Committee of Citizen Involvement why it is necessary to update the Community
Engagement Plan Schedule.
Commissioner Bergen moved to adopt the proposed timeline extension as presented by staff; seconded by
Commissioner Gill.
Motion Passes 6:0
Report of Council Action‐ None
Business from the Planning Commission/CCI
o McGinley‐ Lane County has their on‐line Bicycle Transportation Open House going, if you are interested
in sharing your thoughts it is open until March 22, 2021.
o McGinley‐ Reminded the Committee about an email that Sandy Belson sent out related to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development is recruiting for a Committee on Community
Engagement.
o Gill‐ Lane County has a position open for one of their Transportation Committees.
Business from the Development and Public Works Department‐
o Sandy will be out of the office for the next Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for April 6, 2021.
Adjourned: 7:30 p.m.
Springfield Planning Commission
Regular Session
Wednesday, January 20, 2021
Note: On March 2, 2021, the Planning Commission approved the minutes for the first portion of the meeting including Item 1:
Formal Interpretation of Terms Requested by Springfield Utility Board: 811-20-000248-TYP2. The remaining portion of the
minutes starting with Item 2: Marcola Meadows Master Plan Modification: 811-20-000248-TYP3 is presented to the Planning
Commission for approval at the April 6 meeting.
Planning Commissioners: Vice-Chair Kuri Gill, Sophie McGinley, Andrew Landen, Grace Bergen, Michael Koivula and Matthew
Salazar. (one open position)
Absent: None
Staff: Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Brenda Jones, Planning Commission Assistant; Kristina Kraaz, Assistant
City Attorney; and Andy Limbird, Senior Planner.
Council Liaison: Leonard Stoehr
Each Planning Commissioner introduced themselves to our new Planning Commissioner Matthew Salazar.
Vice Chair Gill took a few moments to thank Commissioner Sherwood for his service as Planning Commissioner.
Business from the Audience- None
Item 1: Formal Interpretation of Terms Requested by Springfield Utility Board: 811-20-000248-TYP2
Kristina Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney read the Statement of Rights.
Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chair Gill
Vice-Chair Gill asked each Planning Commissioner to disclose any ex-parte contact and/or conflicts of interests:
McGinley: No conflict of interest or ex-parte contact.
Landen: No conflict of interest or ex-parte contact.
Gill: No conflict of interest or ex-parte contact.
Bergen: No conflict of interest or ex-parte contact.
Salazar: No conflict of interest or ex-parte contact.
Koivula: No conflict of interest or ex-parte contact.
Vice-Chair Gill asked if there are any challenges from the public to the impartiality of the Commissioners or objection to the
jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to hear the matter before us? None
Staff Report
Andy Limbird, Senior planner gave a brief introduction and orientation as to the site that is subject to this Formal Interpretation
request. This property is in Glenwood on East 22nd Avenue just east of Henderson Avenue and abuts I-5 along the Southern boundary.
This site was subject of the Site Plan Review for an electrical system sub-station, the conditional approval was subsequently appealed,
it was heard by the Planning Commission for this particular property being inside the City limits. Other portions of the project that are
outside the City limits were concurrently heard by the Hearings Official. After the Planning Commission and Hearing Official
decisions were issued the matter was subsequently appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals. After a lengthy period of review, and
Covid intervened, the Land Use Board of Appeals issued their opinion which remanded the decision to the City of Springfield, with
the request to address some deficiencies in the arguments. Among these deficiencies was clarification of terms that were used in the
decision, specifically the definitions, of wetlands, water quality limited watercourses, and watercourses, all of which have different
meanings and specificity within the City’s Development Code.
The natural resources map that the City has published on the Springfield website indicates that there is a non-locally significant
wetland on the property that was identified through the application materials and other water features within the project area.
City of Springfield
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2021
Page 2
Kristina Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney, provided an overview of the criteria for Formal Interpretation. The first part of the criteria is
to look at the text and context of the code itself and include sections and chapters where specific terms were used. The code then
allows but doesn’t require the City to use legislative history to support an interpretation. Legislative history helps to show what City
Councilors who adopt Code amendments were considering and what the code would have meant at the time it was adopted. If the text
and context of past Code amendments and recent history are not helpful, then the City would rely on common dictionary meanings of
terms. There are plenty of clues in text and context in prior legislative history from this application, so there is no need to resort to
dictionary definitions. The staff report concludes that the criteria are met, and the definitions are consistent with current and recent
past practice. The request from Springfield Utility Board (SUB)is to interpret the meaning of the terms “watercourse,” “riparian area”
and “water quality limited watercourse”, as these terms relate to the water quality provisions of Springfield Development Code
Section 4.3-115. The Code section is included in the commission’s appendix to the staff report along with Sections 4.3-110 and 4.3-
117 that are referenced in the staff report.
Ms. Kraaz explained that the Code uses the language in describing what certain riparian area regulations apply to the watercourses
shown on the City’s water quality limited watercourses map. Ms. Kraaz identified the version of the map that the City currently has
posted on its website, which was compiled in July 2019. The current map was created using the original map that was adopted by the
City Council on July 2002 and dated August 2002 which was the effective date of the ordinance. However, the current map has
updated base line information. Essentially, the underlying tax lots and street configurations that have changed and have been updated.
Kristina showed the original August 2002 water quality limited watercourse map. This version is the only version that has been
specifically adopted by the City Council as part of the Development Code referenced in Ordinance 6021. The Code specifically states
that the map cannot be amended unless by action of the City Council per Ordinance. No Ordinances have amended this map since
Ordinance 6021, which was adopted in 2002.
Ms. Kraaz provided a summary of the current mapping, the difference between the map adopted by Ordinance 6021 and the map
shown on the City’s website, and the changes to various Code sections arising from new policies and regulations adopted since 2002.
The subject Code sections 4.3-110 and 4.3-115 have been re-numbered since 2002 but the content is substantially the same in those
sections. Kristina stated she was not aware of any text changes to SDC 4.3-115 between July 2002 and now.
The staff report concludes that the official version that relates to the Development Code and referenced in the Development Code is
only the 2002 version and not the recently published versions. The LUBA opinion states that definitions of “Watercourse” and
“Water Quality Limited Watercourse” that were added by adoption of Ordinance 6021 are very broad. Springfield Development Code
4.3-110 includes very specific criteria for identifying a water Quality Limited Waterways and the context doesn’t support the
conclusion that every item listed in the broad definition of “Watercourse” would be “a watercourse shown on the Water Quality
Limited Waterway map” that is subject to setbacks. The conclusion is that “shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse map”
means specifically those bodies of water that are labeled with the blue, green or orange lines as Water Quality Limited Watercourses
with specific flow rates, or their tributaries, and are identified by name or callout. Ms. Kraaz advised that it doesn’t support the
conclusion that every body of water on the map was intended to be treated as a Watercourse on the Water Quality Limited
Watercourse map and is subject to setbacks in Section 4.3-115.A.
Ms. Kraaz also provided an overview of the legislative history and noted that there were comments at the time regarding the Pierce
Ditch, which is subject of the second item on the public hearing agenda for tonight’s meeting. ……. Elements of the water quality
limited watercourse mapping and regulations were explained by Ms. Kraaz.
Kristina stated that there is also a question about what “Riparian Areas” mean. These regulations show that there are different
meanings of “Riparian Area” depending on the section of the Code. For purpose of Section 4.3-115, Riparian Areas are those
associated only with delineated portions of the WQLW Map, which is interpreted to mean only those identified by a call-out on the
adopted map. Kristina stated that the Code uses different categories of “riparian area” depending on the context of the section and that
the regulations in question are found in Section 4.3-117. She also summarized the standards in Section 4.3-115 and how these were
applied to the SUB Electric substation project on the property. The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed at length the local
wetland inventory that includes a site shown on the subject property before it was adopted in February 2011 by Ordinance 6265.
Andy commented that the City received one (1) written comment regarding the Wetland feature on the property. Notification for this
item was posted on the subject property, the local newspaper, the City website and mailed to adjacent neighbors. Andy also received
at the end of the business day today a submittal by the applicant consisting of several technical studies that had been performed
previously regarding wetlands and analysis of riparian areas. This material was added to the webpage for the meeting, but he doesn’t
believe this gave the Commissioners sufficient time to review this material.
City of Springfield
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2021
Page 3
Commissioner Gill asked for questions from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Koivula asked about the procedural finding. He also asked about Attachment 3 page 25 of 188, which appears to have
some pages missing, and item 6 appears to have some pages missing.
Brenda reviewed the documents and all the pages are included.
Commissioner Gill asked if there were any other questions from the Commission. None
Applicant Presentation:
Attorney Michael Gelardi representing Springfield Utility Board; PO Box 8529; Coburg, Oregon 97408
Gave some background on what has happened to SUB’s Glenwood Project since the City approved it, and how this relates to
the specific proceeding tonight.
Mr. Gelardi started with Spring 2019 when SUB applied for three (3) land use applications to implement the Glenwood
Refinement plan to improve the electrical infrastructure needed to serve redevelopment of the Glenwood area. Staff
approved all three (3) of the permits, all three were appealed to the Planning Commission and the Hearings Official. The
Planning Commission and Hearings Official affirmed the permits. These permits were then appealed to the Land Use Board
of Appeals (LUBA), this was right as the Pandemic started.
The Appellant brought 24 different issues before LUBA, one of the issues was about the wetland. Mr. Gelardi refers to these
as the three tiers of issues, the first tier was about Planning and Zoning, is the SUB project consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for Glenwood, and the City’s Glenwood Zoning rules. LUBA determined that yes, it is consistent. This
is important because all the decisions the City makes flow from those decisions.
The second tier of issues was about Natural Resource Management. The main one that got the most attention was about tree
cutting. The Appellant made a variety of arguments that all amounted to: SUB was proposing to cut too many trees,
specifically, in order to have a 100’ clear zone around the transmission line for fire safety. LUBA rejected those arguments
as well.
There were two other Natural Resource issues: 1) The Geotechnical studies. LUBA also affirmed the City’s decision, but
the opponent has appealed that decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals. This is in front of the court now and Mr. Gelardi
will be arguing the case on January 21, 2021; and 2) The Wetland. SUB has appealed this issue to the Oregon Court of
Appeals, and this is in front of the court now, they will be arguing this case on January 25, 2021.
The third tier of issues in front of LUBA were really about the specific design of the transmission line and the aesthetics of
that design, and whether those aesthetics were consistent with the City’s goals or the Refinement Plan for the Glenwood
Riverfront. LUBA remanded several related issues about aesthetics, those issues are coming back to the Springfield Planning
Commission in the remand proceeding.
Mr. Gelardi provided an overview of wetland development which is regulated by Federal, State and Local law, also by the Clean
Water Act on the Federal level and by the Removal Fill Act on the State level. He noted that the City has been inventorying wetlands
for over 20 years. Mr. Gelardi also summarized the status of the wetland on the SUB site, which were determined to be locally non-
significant under Goal 5, when the City inventoried Glenwood wetlands in 2010, and the applicable state and federal regulations that
apply to wetlands in general. Mr. Gelardi concluded by stating that he believes LUBA has made a mistake in their ruling. The City
now has an opportunity to adopt a Formal Interpretation as a way to fix the issue, assuming the Planning Commission makes the
interpretation that SUB has requested and as staff has laid out in the report. SUB requests that the Planning Commission forwards this
Interpretation to the City Council to have them ratify the decision. Under state land use law, if the governing body of a local
government makes an interpretation of their own local code, then the courts must defer to that interpretation, if it’s plausible.
Kristina wanted to let the Planning Commission know that the Planning Commission Packet is complete, not missing any pages.
There was mis-scanning with page 23 where an additional page cut off after it, but the whole ordinance is completely loaded in
SpringfieldOregonSpeaks.
Questions from the Commission: None
Public Testimony: None
City of Springfield
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2021
Page 4
Staff Comments:
Andy added that a Wetland Delineation was prepared by the applicant and they must obtain wetland fill/removal permits. As
Mr. Gelardi pointed out, obtaining permits from State and Federal Agencies tends to be far more onerous than the approvals
issued by the Cities because there is a very high bar that is set for Wetland removal.
Commissioner Koivula asked Andy about the 2010 delineation of the insignificance for this wetland, whether there is anything in the
package that shows how this was done, and who makes that determination.
Andy answered that would be part of the Natural Resources Study that was done for Glenwood. They would be comparing it to not
only to other wetlands in the area, but also wetlands elsewhere in the City.
Kristina replied that a consultant did prepare the findings for the Glenwood Natural Resources Study. The criteria for declaring a
wetland significant are in Goal 5 regulations. Applicable state law requires a determination of significance to be made, and it is
adopted via ordinance by the City Council.
Ms. Kraaz clarified that this formal interpretation is not to decide whether this wetland is significant or not significant. That
determination has been made and could be examined through a comprehensive plan amendment process but not as part of this Formal
Interpretation.
Commissioner Salazar asked staff about the WQLW map that is generally available on the website that is useful to staff and the
public. Mr. Salazar commented that if it is different because of the base layer data that has been added to the map that was adopted in
2002, those differences are more in style than substance, but are the differences enough that it be worth asking City Council to
consider a new ordinance to adopt?
Andy responded that the City’s Environmental Services and Comprehensive Planning Divisions that have been working on updating
the Wetland Inventory.
Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager added that if the Planning Commission makes a decision affirming that staff has
been interpreting the terms as we have been using them, and Council does as well, she doesn’t think that there would be a reason that
we would need to update the WQLW map and then have Council adopt it. The City is in the middle of an inventory project that is not
specifically to look at a WQLW map update, but depending on the findings by the City’s consultants, there could be changes to the
WQLW Map required to conform with the current project. Council would be asked to approve any WQLW Map amendment.
Commissioner Landen asked when it first appears on a diagram where someone thinks it’s a riparian area and if it wasn’t a designated
riparian area, why would it be now, what has changed?
Kristina answered that, when the map was initially adopted in 2002, the wetlands in Glenwood had not been inventoried in the way
they were later in 2010. The ordinance was adopted in 2002 with a map that was published, and it showed the local wetland inventory
that existed at that time. In 2010 the City updated the local wetland inventory by Ordinance and added this property as a locally non-
significant wetland and it became part of the local wetland inventory as a non-significant wetland. At some point after 2011 the City’s
GIS division republished the 2002 map on the Springfield website. Because this was now part of the base layer of the local wetland
inventory, those sites in Glenwood appeared on that map. This supports the interpretation that those wetlands are for reference and
not a watercourse on the WQLW map because they are considered just a base layer that the City updated later without formal
ordinance amendment. If the Commission disagrees with the reasoning in the staff report, to the Commission could alternatively
conclude that this is not “a watercourse on the WQLW map” simply because it was never added to the 2002 version by formal
amendment.
Commissioner Landen asked Kristina to define a non-significant wetland.
Kristina responded that it’s not directly relevant to tonight’s interpretation and then explained what Goal 5 requires.
Commissioner Gill asked for the consensus of the Planning Commission whether to close the public hearing and record.
Commissioner Landen proposed to close the public hearing and public record. His questions have all been addressed.
City of Springfield
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2021
Page 5
Commissioner Koivula recommended to close the written record but would like to extend the public hearing until the Commission is
able to review all the new documents submitted into the record.
Point of clarification from Kristina, that the Planning Commission cannot close the record and leave open the hearing. The Planning
Commission can close the hearing and the record and then deliberate at a new date, if needed.
Kristina took some time to explain to the Planning Commissioners what is and what is not part of this Interpretation Request.
Mr. Gelardi also explained what documents he submitted into the record and then explained why.
Commissioner Koivula responded that after Kristina’s and Mr. Gelardi’s explanations, he no longer needs the record to be held open.
Commissioner Gill reminded the Commission that she needs a motion to close the Hearing and the Public Record.
Commissioner Koivula so moved and it was seconded by Commissioner Landen.
Commissioner Gill took roll call for the recommendation to Close the Public Hearing and the Record.
Commissioner Landen- Aye
Commissioner Bergen- Aye
Commissioner Koivula-Aye
Commissioner McGinley- Aye
Commissioner Salazar- Aye
Commissioner Koivula would like to delay deliberation of the Planning Commission to the next meeting so that he can read the
additional information submitted into the record.
Commissioner Landen was able to read most of the new materials and does not need extra time.
Kristina wanted to give the Planning Commission a heads up that the decision made on this Interpretation will also affect the decision
they make on Item 2 for tonight. She recommends that the Commission wait to make final decision on the other item tonight until
they make an interpretive decision on this application, so that the Commission can make those two decisions consistently.
After some conversation from the Commissioners, Commissioner Gill’s understanding is that the Planning Commissioners would like
time to review the additional information before making a decision.
After much discussion regarding Planning Commission dates, it was recommended that this Interpretation item be scheduled to
February 2, 2021 for deliberation.
City of Springfield
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2021
Page 6
Item 2: Marcola Meadows Master Plan Modification: 811-20-000248-TYP3
Kristina Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney read the Statement of Rights.
Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chair Gill
Vice-Chair Gill asked each Planning Commissioner to disclose any ex-parte contact and/or conflicts of interests:
McGinley: No conflict of interest or ex-parte contact.
Landen: No conflict of interest or ex-parte contact.
Gill: No conflict of interest or ex-parte contact.
Bergen: Has a potential conflict of interest as a Real Estate Agent and no ex-parte contact.
Salazar: No conflict of interest or ex-parte contact.
Koivula: No conflict of interest or ex-parte contact.
Andy Limbird Senior Planner presented his staff report with a PowerPoint. The developer of the Marcola Meadows neighborhood
initiated a Metro Plan amendment and Zone Change that was approved by the City Council on November 2, 2020 upon adoption of
Ordinance 6422. The Applicant is now proposing modifications to the Final Master Plan to bring it into conformity with the adopted
Metro Plan diagram amendment and Zoning Map amendment, and to implement the developer’s vision for the neighborhood.
The Applicant is requesting to amend some of the conditions of approval. Staff might be okay with some amendments but some of the
conditions are there for a reason.
Testimony from the Applicant:
AKS Engineering; Marie Holliday; 12965 SW Herman Road; Suite 100; Tualatin, Oregon 97062
Testimony in support of the Application: None
Testimony neither in support of nor opposed to the application: None
Testimony opposed to the application: None
Summation by Staff:
Andy submitted that staff is amendable to revisions to conditions 9 and 10 but not to 3 and 5.
Assistant City Attorney, Kristina Kraaz is okay with conditions 3, 5 and 9 but wants to work with staff and the applicant
regarding condition 10.
Rebuttal from the Applicant:
AKS Engineering Monty Hurley, PE, PLS; AKS Engineering; 12965 SW Herman Rd Suite 100; Tualatin, OR 97062
Planning Commission Question:
Kristina Kraaz recommended that the Planning Commission wait to make a decision regarding this application until the
Planning Commission makes their decision regarding the Formal Interpretation of Terms requested by Springfield Utility
Board 811-20-000248-TYP2.
The Assistant City Attorney and staff answered the Planning Commission’s questions regarding why the decision of these
two applications should continue to a date yet to be determined. Application 811-20-000248-TYP2 should be decided prior
to application 811-20-000225-TYP3.
Commissioner Koivula requested that the Planning Commission delay the decision regarding application 811-20-000225-TYP3 until
staff and the Planning Commission can review the additional information that was submitted late in the process.
There was a discussion on what the timeline would look like for these two applications to get a decision from the Planning
Commission.
City of Springfield
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2021
Page 7
Commissioner McGinley moved to close the public hearing and to keep the record open for an additional 7 days for public comment
and then another 7 days for rebuttal by the applicant prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by Commissioner
Salazar. Approved 6:0.
Next Public Meeting dates:
February 2, 2021 for application 811-20-000248-TYP2
February 17, 2021 for application 811-20-000225-TYP3
Approval of Minutes:
December 15, 2020- Motion to approve minutes as written by Commissioner Landen and seconded by Commissioner
Koivula. Approved 6:0.
Report of Council Action:
January 4, 2021 – Commissioner Koivula
Business from the Planning Commission:
Election of Chairperson, Vice Chair and Committee Appointments- After some discussion, the assignments are as follows:
o Chair: Sophie McGinley
o Vice-Chair: Andy Landen
o Council Liaison: Kuri Gill
o Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee Liaison: Andy Landen
o Community Development Advisory Committee Liaison: Mike Koivula
o Governance Committee for Development Code Update Project: Sophie McGinley and Grace Bergen
Business from the Development and Public Works Department: Sandy Belson discussed
Wetland and Riparian Project and asked the Commission to check-out their new website.
Housing House Bill 2001 Implementation.
Adjourned: 10:40 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/6/2021
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Molly Markarian/DPW Staff Phone No: 541.726.4611 Estimated Time: 60 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and
Facilities ITEM TITLE: MAIN STREET SAFETY PROJECT
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review draft solution ‘toolbox’ and recommendations and community feedback and respond to discussion questions to inform drafting the Main Street Facility Plan.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Since the November 2019 Planning Commission Work Session, the project team developed and sought feedback from advisory bodies and the broader community on comprehensive safety solutions for Main Street. The purpose of this Work Session is to: discuss the draft solution ‘toolbox’ and recommendations; and seek Planning Commission feedback to inform development of the Main Street Facility Plan.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Fact Sheet #4 – Recommendation and Solution Toolbox
Attachment 2: Draft Work Session Slideshow
Attachment 3: Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION: At the November 5, 2019 Work Session, the Planning Commission provided feedback on
an initial set of possible infrastructure solutions to improve safety for Main Street. In response to feedback from elected officials following the fall 2019 review of these initial concepts, the project team made process adjustments to capture more in-depth feedback on
each of the possible infrastructure elements prior to developing comprehensive safety solutions. With that, the project timeline was pushed out and planned community engagement delayed, as shared with Planning Commission in a February 24, 2020 email
update. Soon after launching the second major round of community engagement, COVID-19 rapidly changed the way many of us work, live, and interact with each other. In consultation with elected officials, the project team re-evaluated the planned approach for addressing continued community concerns with traffic safety. With these adjustments, the project team then developed comprehensive safety solutions for Main Street, shaped by community input to date, as shared with the Planning Commission in a November 30, 2020 email update. Attachment 1 highlights the recommended safety solution toolbox that is described in more detail in Tech Memo #15 – Refined Alternative Solutions. This winter, the project team sought feedback on the comprehensive safety solutions from project advisory committees, business and property owners, focus and civic groups, and the broader community. Attachment 2 presents community feedback themes, and
Attachment 3 outlines key discussion questions. Staff will review the solution toolbox and community feedback in more detail during the Work Session and seek Planning Commission input to inform the development of a draft Facility Plan in summer 2021.
1Fact Sheet #4 Solution Toolbox and Recommendations
MAIN STREET SAFETY PROJECT |20th Street to 72nd Street
open
What is the Main Street
Safety Project?
Springfield’s Main Street is consistently ranked
as one of the most unsafe city streets in
Oregon based on the severity and frequency
of traffic crashes. The Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT) and the City of
Springfield must address this problem to save
lives, reduce injuries, and lessen property
damage due to crashes.
The purpose of the Main Street Safety Project
Planning Phase is to select infrastructure
solutions that will make Main Street safer
for people walking, biking, driving, and
taking transit.
The selected safety improvements will provide
for the movement of goods and people,
support the economic viability of the corridor,
accommodate current bus service and future
transit solutions, and complement traffic safety
education and enforcement.
Timeline
•Winter 2020/21: Stakeholders will
review the draft solution “toolbox” and
recommendations at the Strategic Advisory
Committee meeting, focus groups, and forums
for adjacent property owners.
•Spring 2021: The Planning Commission,
Governance Team and City Council will
review the draft solution “toolbox” and
recommendations to give input.
•Fall 2021: The project team will consider input
and draft the facility plan for Main Street.
•2022: Anticipated - City Council will adopt the
final plan.Project area
Project contact: Molly Markarian City of Springfield
541-726-4611 | info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org
mainstreetsafety.org
Main Street Main Street
28th Street58th Street69th StreetVirginia Avenue Daisy Street Hwy 126DMV
Bob Keefer Center Fire Station
Riverbend
Elementary
Thurston High School 72nd Street20th StreetN 42nd StreetFire Station
Ridgeview
Elementary
Join the Conversation
Visit www.mainstreetsafety.org to:
•Learn more about the safety problem and
solution “toolbox” and recommendations.
•Follow and comment on the project as it
moves through review, revision and approval.
•Sign up to hear about events and ways
to comment.
Attachment 1 Page 1 of 5
2Fact Sheet #4 Solution Toolbox and Recommendations
Building a Safer Main Street: One Example
In the attached graphic sheet, you can see how Main Street could look with roundabouts, raised
medians and changes to street cross-sections. It’s just one example of using the current “toolbox”
of solutions—a flexible approach that would allow adjustments later, as needed.
Safety Improvements from Previous Studies
We recommend:
• Making low-cost, systemic safety upgrades identified in previous studies, including better street
lighting and fewer driveways.
• Accommodating Enhanced Corridor transit as defined in the Main-McVay Transit Study.
Tools Approach: Adjustability, gradual change, location
Raised medians can do the most to reduce conflicts
and move turns to safer locations. They can also make
pedestrian crossings safer.
The recommended use of raised medians would:
• Reduce crashes by nearly half, and limit out-of-direction
travel for business access to about 30 seconds on
average (when combined with roundabouts).
Adjustability: Most of Main Street would get raised
medians, but we would adjust their locations to meet the
needs of all users. Some of the Guiding Principles include:
• Keep openings at major intersections.
• Allow left turns and U-turns at minor streets where possible.
• Keep left-turn access to major traffic generators.
• Allow for emergency vehicle access.
Using roundabouts instead of intersection signals would:
• Improve safety at major intersections.
• Reduce congestion.
• Make U-turns easier when raised medians are present.
• Enable freight trucks to make make U-turns.
Gradual change: We don’t yet have funding for
roundabouts. As we acquire funding, we would add
roundabouts in phases. The final plan would discuss which
intersections should be prioritized for upgrades based on
the project goals and objectives.
Street cross-section upgrades would balance
improvements for walking and biking with property
impacts. For most of Main Street, the cross-section
would be four feet wider on each side.
Location: The plan includes cross-section variations for
location-specific constraints and property impacts—not
“one size fits all.” Also, the plan recommends constrained
cross-section upgrades at first, with minimal widening.
Meeting community values
We drafted recommendations with feedback
from project committees, decision makers, and
the broader Springfield community over the past
two years. The recommendations achieve project
goals and objectives by:
• Adding roundabouts and raised medians to
reduce crashes by 48 percent—16 fewer fatal/
injury crashes per year.
• Adding roundabouts also to limit out-of-
direction travel for business access to about 30
seconds on average.
• Replacing traffic signals with roundabouts to
reduce intersection delay by up to 40 seconds
on average.
• Widening the street by about four feet on each
side, to add walking and biking separation
from cars—and including raised medians to
improve pedestrian crossings.
• Upgrading Main Street’s look and feel,
making it a vibrant place to live, work, shop
and travel through.
• Planning for flexibility and gradual changes
as funding becomes available, rather than
building everything at once.
Attachment 1 Page 2 of 5
3Fact Sheet #4 Solution Toolbox and Recommendations
PASSENGERCAR U-TURN ALLOWED
PASSENGERCAR U-TURN ALLOWED
PASSENGERCAR U-TURN ALLOWED
PASSENGERCAR U-TURN ALLOWED
PASSENGERCAR U-TURN ALLOWED 36T SH T37T SH T3S 7T SH T3S 8T SH T38T SH T38T PH L39T PH L4S 0T SH T40T SH T41S ST T4S 1S ST T
MAIN STREET
MAIN STREET42N SD T4S 3R SD T43R PD L44T SH T4S 4T SH T4S 6T SH T
112266BB
112266BB
EXISTINGFLASHING BEACONCROSSWALK
Balanced Width
A
A
PROPOSEDFLASHING BEACONCROSSWALK
PROPOSEDFLASHING BEACONCROSSWALK
EXISTINGFLASHING BEACONCROSSWALK Matc Lh ine)thgirevoba(Matc Lh ine)tfelwoleb(Index Map
Springfield
CCoonncceepptt DDrraawwiinngg
– Not to Scale –
N
OR 126 MAIN STREET SAFETY STUDY
Springfield, Oregon
EXAMPLE CORRIDOR CONCEPT
(36TH STREET TO S 46TH STREET)
In the graphic below, you can see how Main Street could look with roundabouts, raised medians and changes to
street cross-sections. It’s just one example of using the current “toolbox” of solutions—a flexible approach that
would allow adjustments later, as needed.
For more information on the current “toolbox” of solutions, see page two of this Fact Sheet or
visit www.mainstreetsafety.org.
Building a Safer Main Street: One Example
Attachment 1 Page 3 of 5
4Fact Sheet #4 Solution Toolbox and Recommendations
MAIN STREET51S ST T5S 1S PT L5S 2N SD T5S 2N PD L5S 3R SD T54T SH TCHAPMA LN N
112266BB
PASSENGERCAR U-TURN ALLOWED
PASSENGERCAR U-TURN ALLOWED
A
Balanced Width A Active Transportation Enhanced B
B
Existing memorial relocationwill be determined during afuture design phaseEXISTINGFLASHING BEACONCROSSWALK
PROPOSEDFLASHING BEACONCROSSWALK
PROPOSEDFLASHING BEACONCROSSWALK
OR 126 MAIN STREET SAFETY STUDY
Springfield, Oregon
EXAMPLE CORRIDOR CONCEPT
Index Map
Springfield
CCoonncceepptt DDrraawwiinngg
– Not to Scale –
N
(51ST STREET TO 54TH STREET)
In the graphic below, you can see how Main Street could look with roundabouts, raised medians and changes to
street cross-sections. It’s just one example of using the current “toolbox” of solutions—a flexible approach that
would allow adjustments later, as needed.
For more information on the current “toolbox” of solutions, see page two of this Fact Sheet or
visit www.mainstreetsafety.org.
Building a Safer Main Street: One Example
Attachment 1 Page 4 of 5
5Fact Sheet #4 Solution Toolbox and Recommendations
OR 126 MAIN STREET SAFETY STUDY
Springfield, Oregon
EXAMPLE CORRIDOR CONCEPT
Index Map
Springfield
(51ST STREET TO 54TH STREET)
CCoonncceepptt DDrraawwiinngg
– Not to Scale –
N
OR 126 MAIN STREET SAFETY STUDY
Springfield, Oregon
LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
BALANCED STREET WIDTH CROSS SECTION
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCED CROSS SECTION
Legend NPOTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS:
ADD LANDSCAPE STRIP
ADD DELINEATORSTO BIKE LANE
NARROW BIKE BUFFER
THREE-LANE SECTION
Index Map
CORRIDOR REFERENCED ON PREVIOUS PAGES
MAIN ST
DAISY ST HWY 12658TH ST69TH STS 71ST STBOB STRAUB
PKWY51ST STB ST
66TH ST54TH STS 67TH ST71ST STS 53RD STS 52ND PL72ND STS 72ND STS 70TH ST65TH ST68TH ST65TH PLS 51ST ST52ND PL63RD ST64TH PL62ND PL60TH PL71ST PLS 63RD STMOUNT
AI
N
G
AT
E
D
R
B ST
D ST
B ST
57TH STASTER ST
A STA ST
C ST
C ST
70TH STMAIN ST 28TH ST42ND STDAISY STS 28TH ST30TH ST36TH ST33RD STC
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
A
V
E
49TH STOREGON AVE 40TH ST20TH ST21ST STS 38TH STS 32ND ST38TH PLS 41ST STA ST
48TH STS 34TH STS 40TH STS 43RD ST43
R
D
P
L25TH STS 40TH PL44TH STVIRGINIA AVE
GEM AVE
S 44TH ST35TH STS 46TH STD ST
WESTERN EXTENT OF PROJECT ROADWAYEASTERN EXTENT OF PROJECT ROADWAYExample corridor
concept (36th to
S 46th St) shown on page 3
Example corridor
concept (51st to 54th St) shown on page 4
The graphic below shows where in the corridor different design treatments are proposed and where there may
be flexibility to allow adjustments later, as needed.
For more information on the current “toolbox” of solutions, see page two of this Fact Sheet or
visit www.mainstreetsafety.org.
Building a Safer Main Street: One Example
Attachment 1 Page 5 of 5
PLANNING COMMISSIONWork Session
April 6, 2021
Attachment 2 Page 1 of 27
AGENDA
Project Process
•Purpose, timeline and milestones
Draft Solution Toolbox and Recommendations
•Toolbox elements
•What we heard
Discussion
•Do toolbox recommendations meet expectations/direction?
Next Steps
Attachment 2 Page 2 of 27
PURPOSE STATEMENT
Attachment 2 Page 3 of 27
PROJECT CONTEXT
Winter/Spring
2021We’reHereAttachment 2 Page 4 of 27
PROJECT CONTEXT
What is a Facility Plan?
•pulls together analysis, outreach and design concepts
•expression of community’s values
•design framework for project development
•refines Springfield Transportation System Plan
•allows agencies to proceed with detailed design and
construction
Attachment 2 Page 5 of 27
PROJECT CONTEXT
Safety
Increase the safety of Main Street for all users
Business Community
Support the viability of existing and future businesses
Mobility
Ensure people and goods travel efficiently and reliably through the corridor
Transportation Choices
Create a multimodal environment that connects people and destinations
Vital Community
Support the vitality of the community and its vision for Main Street
Feasibility
Develop a plan with a clear and achievable approach to implementation
Community Priorities
Goals & Objectives Evaluation Criteria Draft Recommendation
Attachment 2 Page 6 of 27
PROJECT CONTEXT:
Why are we doing this?
Attachment 2 Page 7 of 27
PROJECT CONTEXT:
Why are we doing this?
Attachment 2 Page 8 of 27
Intersection
Control
Raised
Medians
Street Cross
Sections
Recommended
Solutions
RECOMMENDATION OVERVIEW
Comprehensive solution toolbox and
draft recommendations
•Simplicity
•Flexibility
•Gradual change
•Location-specific: not one size fits all
Simplicity
Attachment 2 Page 9 of 27
STREET CROSS SECTIONS:
Short-Term Recommendation Simplicity
Attachment 2 Page 10 of 27
STREET CROSS SECTIONS:
Long-Term Recommendation Simplicity
Attachment 2 Page 11 of 27
STREET CROSS SECTIONS:
Long-Term Recommendation Simplicity
Attachment 2 Page 12 of 27
STREET CROSS SECTIONS:
Long-Term Recommendation Simplicity
Approximately 4 Blocks:
Active Transportation Enhanced
Attachment 2 Page 13 of 27
STREET CROSS SECTIONS
Simplicity
Attachment 2 Page 14 of 27
RAISED MEDIAN FRAMEWORK
Openings for
left turn lanes
Mountable edge
design for emergency
vehicle access
Simplicity
Attachment 2 Page 15 of 27
RAISED MEDIAN FRAMEWORK
•Raised medians can reduce crashes by 35%on Main
Street (48% when combined with roundabouts)
•31 seconds average out-of-direction travel
Simplicity
Attachment 2 Page 16 of 27
INTERSECTION CONTROL
Roundabouts prioritized into tiers
•Improve safety at major intersections.
•Reduce congestion.
•Make U-turns easier when raised medians present.
•Enable freight trucks to make U-turns.
•Location-specific design determined in next phase
Simplicity
Attachment 2 Page 17 of 27
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Strategic Advisory
Committee
Focus & Civic Groups
Chamber of Commerce:
Government Issues Committee
City Club
Board of Realtors
Twin Rivers Rotary
Springfield Rotary Club
Downtown Languages
LCOG Disability Services
Advisory Council
Timber Pointe Senior Living
Local Access Forums
Other Comment Feedback
Attachment 2 Page 18 of 27
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Common
Themes
Local Access Forums
Focus/Civic Groups
Broader Community
Strategic Advisory Committee
Attachment 2 Page 19 of 27
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK:
Common Themes –Project & Process
Largely heard -
•excited about and understand need for project
•appreciate process and outreach efforts
•questions regarding data, deliverables, stages, outcomes
Some shared -
•frustration with project speed or outreach approach
•questions regarding project cost and funding
•feedback regarding phased implementation.
Attachment 2 Page 20 of 27
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK:
Common Themes -Toolbox & Recommendations
Largely heard -
•positive feedback on toolbox & recommendations:
•roundabouts good way to improve safety
•pairing roundabouts with medians is critical
•medians may require driving farther but worth it to
improve safety and save lives
•in favor of sidewalk upgrades and more bike separation
•concerns about access and site usage impacts for adjacent
residences and businesses
•questions on elements, potential property impactsAttachment 2 Page 21 of 27
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK:
Common Themes -Toolbox & Recommendations
Some shared -
•concerns about medians and roundabouts:
•people not knowing how to walk or drive through
roundabouts
•it takes time for public to learn how to safely navigate
roundabouts
•concern with out-of-direction travel with medians
•concern with freight delivery with medians
•phasing and design flexibility will minimize impacts
Attachment 2 Page 22 of 27
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK:
Common Themes -Other
Largely heard -
•observations of behavior types at pedestrian crossings
•desire to increase traffic enforcement for all
•desire to decrease posted speed limit, especially in
eastern segment
•need for improved lighting
Some shared -
•hope for transit design integration
•utility relocation questionsAttachment 2 Page 23 of 27
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Common
Themes
Local Access Forums
Focus/Civic Groups
Broader Community
Strategic Advisory Committee
Attachment 2 Page 24 of 27
DISCUSSION
Do toolbox recommendations meet expectations/direction?
Will toolbox provide enough flexibility to address safety throughout the corridor?
Are we missing something? Do we need to change something about any of the individual elements?
Special considerations or conditions for how safety upgrades should be phased?
Other avenues for outreach we should pursue or additional groups we should reach out to for feedback?
Attachment 2 Page 25 of 27
Spring Main Street Governance Team
Springfield City Council
Summer Develop Draft Facility Plan
Fall TAC, SAC, Public Outreach
NEXT STEPS / NEXT MEETING
Attachment 2 Page 26 of 27
THANK
YOU!
Contact
Molly Markarian
Project Manager
info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org
Comments
Project Website
www.mainstreetsafety.org
Attachment 2 Page 27 of 27
Planning Commission Main Street Safety Project April 6, 2021
Discussion Questions
•Do the draft toolbox and recommendations meet Planning Commission expectations and
direction to date?
•Will the toolbox provide enough flexibility to address safety during implementation throughout
the corridor?
•Are we missing something? Do we need to change something about any of the individual
elements?
•Are there special conditions the project team should consider for recommending how
improvements should be phased?
•Are there other avenues for outreach that the project team should pursue or additional groups
that the project team should reach out to for feedback on the draft recommendations?
Attachment 3 Page 1 of 1