HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023 06 06 Minutes WS & RS W_PPPlanning Commission Minutes – June 6th, 2023
Approved 6/21/23
Attest by S. Weaver
1
Springfield Planning Commission
Minutes for Tuesday, June 6th, 2023
Work Session 6:00 pm
Meeting held in the Jesse Maine Room and via Zoom
Planning Commissioners Present: Chair Matt Salazar, Vice Chair Grace Bergen, Andrew Buck,
Seth Thompson, Steven Schmunk, Alan Stout, and Isaac Rhoads-Dey
Excused Absence: None
Staff: Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Sarah Weaver, Community
Development Administrative Assistant; Kristina Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney
Chair Salazar called the Work Session of the Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m.
WORK SESSION ITEM(S)
1) Planning Commission Parliamentary Procedure
Kristina Kraaz / Staff: gave a presentation on the public meetings and land use hearing process
(see PowerPoint presentation).
The Commissioners discussed Roberts’ Rules of Order and determined that adhering more
closely to Roberts’ Rules would help focus discussion and sort through potentially complex
issues.
Due to time constraints, the Commission decided to resume the discussion of the Work Session
Items (Planning Commission Protocols, Reports on Council Action, and Committee Assignments)
during the next meeting on June 21st.
ADJOURNMENT – 7:02 p.m.
7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Public Hearing
City Council Chambers and via Zoom
Planning Commissioners Present: Chair Salazar, Vice Chair Bergen, Andrew Buck, Seth Thompson, Steven
Schmunk, Alan Stout, and Issacs Rhoads-Dey
Staff: Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Mark Rust, Current Planning Manager;
Andy Limbird, Senior Planner; Sarah Weaver, Community Development Administrative
Assistant; Kristina Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney
Chair Salazar called the Public Hearing of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes – June 6th, 2023
Approved 6/21/23
Attest by S. Weaver
2
PLEDGE OF ALLIAGENCE – Led by Vice Chair Bergen.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – Approved
• April 4th, 2023 – with corrections
• May 2nd, 2023
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE – None
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
1) Public Hearing for Discretionary Use Permit and Site Plan Review for EC Cares
Educational Facility (811-23-000060-TYP3)
Staff: Andy Limbird, Senior Planner
Kristina Kraaz, City Attorney, read a brief statement regarding conflicts of interest.
Potential Conflicts of Interest:
• Salazar – stated that he has a potential conflict of interest since he works for Homes for
Good, which has projects with the applicant. For this reason, he has ex parte contact
with the applicant. He requested guidance from the Assistant City Attorney as to
whether he should participate in the deliberations.
Kristina Kraaz: confirmed that if a commissioner has an actual conflict of interest, he/she must
recuse themselves from the deliberations and voting. If there is only a potential conflict of
interest that would not bias them as to their decision-making, they may continue with the
deliberations and vote on the matter.
• Salazar – confirmed that he only has a potential conflict of interest and has no bias that
would influence his vote on the matter. He stated that, if there were any operational
details that he is personally aware of that would influence his decision, he would declare
it during the question-and-answer period of the discussion.
• Bergen – has a potential conflict of interest. She is an active real-estate broker in the
community. She has no ex parte contact or independent knowledge.
• Buck – has no ex parte contact or independent knowledge. He has a potential conflict of
interest as a commercial insurance agent practicing in the area.
• Thompson – has no conflict of interest, no ex parte contact or independent knowledge.
• Schmunk – has no conflict of interest or bias.
• Rhoads-Dey – has no bias, ex parte contact or independent knowledge, but has a
potential conflict of interest since he is an active real-estate broker in the community.
• Stout – has no conflict of interest, bias, independent knowledge or ex parte contact.
Planning Commission Minutes – June 6th, 2023
Approved 6/21/23
Attest by S. Weaver
3
Chair Salazar: asked if there were any challenges as to the Commission’s impartiality or the
jurisdiction about the item before it. Hearing none, he called on Staff to present the staff
report.
Andy Limbird / Staff: gave a presentation on the Discretionary Use Permit and Site Plan Review
for EC Cares Educational Facility (see PowerPoint Presentation). Staff identified that some
landscaping and bicycle parking deficiencies needed to be addressed by conditions of approval
for the site plan.
Chair Salazar called on the Commissioners to pose questions to the applicant.
Stout: Why are they using modular buildings for classrooms instead of building their own facility
on the property?
Judy Newman / Applicant: Since they are an education program funded through the
Department of Education, they do not have the authority to pass bonds or buy real estate. They
are allowed to purchase modular units within the terms of their contact.
Public Testimony
In Favor
• None
Neutral
• Curtis Phillips, 916 G Street, Springfield, OR 97477 – He has stepchildren living with him
near the proposed facility. This is a busy street and measures should be taken to slow
the traffic down and make the street safer for children.
In opposition
• Michael Mcilrath, 85809 S. Willamette Street, Eugene, OR 97405 / owner of property at
862 G Street, Springfield, OR 97477. He is in opposition to the proposal. He provided a brief
historical overview of the neighborhood and expressed concerns about the EC Cares school
locating on G Street. He is concerned that the property could ultimately convert to a high
school, if the discretionary use permit was approved. He also submitted written testimony and
pictures.
Buck: Would like more information about the high traffic times and how the high school closure times
will affect traffic near the property.
Judy Newman / Applicant: EC Cares is flexible about their session times. There are morning and
afternoon sessions and the pickup times can be adjusted to not coincide with other school release
times. By law, the children attending the school are bussed to the facility. They work with the bussing
companies to make the start and stop times work best for the traffic.
Planning Commission Minutes – June 6th, 2023
Approved 6/21/23
Attest by S. Weaver
4
Stout: What is the long-term plan for that section of the city between the G street residential area and
Springfield High School?
Andy Limbird / Staff: There is a parcel on 7th and G is owned by the school district and zoned
neighborhood commercial. City staff have not received any plans for that property. The
property to the east across 8th Street is also vacant and owned by the school district. It is zoned
R-1. These properties have not factored into this site review. They could be developed as a
residential property or a daycare, anything that would fall under the listed uses for that zone
type, or the School District could potentially sell it. If the Commission is interested in
discovering the plans for those properties, staff could request more information from the
school district.
Buck: What kind of information were you interested in gathering from the police department
and other possibly entities?
Andy Limbird / Staff: We are requesting traffic information and the results of enforcement
action, if any. The suggestion by public comment is that there is a speeding issue on the street.
Conversely, there is also the suggestion that there is a congestion problem, which is
diametrically opposite to the complaint of speeding. The Commission is asked to consider
whether this is an environment that is appropriate for the listed and proposed use. Staff would
like to know: Does the proposed use increase the propensity for traffic problems, decrease it, or
will it have no effect? Will there be a need for mitigation to address concerns of pedestrian and
traffic use? All these issues are worthy of consideration and factor into our information
gathering.
Thompson: Is there any applicable criteria that is not met in this application and do you believe,
based on your findings, that there are any conditions in the application that could not be met?
Andy Limbird / Staff: Staff wants to review the information submitted at the public hearing
along with supplemental information from the Springfield Police Department and the City’s
Traffic Department. Staff also does not have any conditions that could not be met by the
application. However, staff would like to present to the Commission all the facts gathered,
including the supplemental information after the packet had been compiled. Ultimately, staff
may propose mitigation that would address concerns expressed during public comment.
Suggestions made through public comment include requiring additional stop signs, crosswalks,
or speed bumps. If parents or buses are dropping children off at the sidewalk, this may require
additional pedestrian measures that staff will need to review before submitting its final
findings. In general, all the children will be bussed to the facility. That’s why a bus zone has
been proposed for the G Street frontage.
Chair Salazar: Is two weeks enough time for staff to gather additional information and the
Police to submit their findings and have staff review it?
Planning Commission Minutes – June 6th, 2023
Approved 6/21/23
Attest by S. Weaver
5
Andy Limbird / Staff: We already received the information we need from the Police Department
and we will be synthesizing and summarizing it in a way that identifies any issues – whether
this information illuminates or dispels concerns raised during the public comment period is to
be seen.
Bergen: Governor Kotek has issued a housing crisis notice and has set a goal of 86,000 house to
be built complying with State Planning Goal 10 on housing. The application is in a R1 zone and
two lots would be taken off the market for housing for this facility. Does the City have enough
land to accommodate building additional housing? What effect does the removal of these two
lots from the housing market have on housing prices? Secondly, does the discretionary use
permit have a fixed end date or is it permanent?
Andy Limbird / Staff: The answer to the first question depends on whether the school district
would have considered selling the property to be developed for housing. They still have
property in the vicinity that could accommodate housing, if they were interested. There are no
representatives at the hearing from the district to comment on this. Staff can request that they
address their long-term plans for some of their vacant commercial and residential properties
and get back to the Commission with their answer. The proposed classroom building does not
preclude future residential use. Based on the investment of the applicant, they intend on
staying at that property for at least the interim period.
As to the second question: The discretionary use permit would remain with the property and
not with the applicant itself. Another school could potentially move their facility to that
property, but not for high school aged children since high school it is not a listed use in any
residential zones. For a high school to move into a residential area, it would require a land use
action to rezone the property requiring notice to the community and a public hearing.
Kristina Kraaz / Staff: When the City adopted the Residential Housing Needs Analysis, which
comprises the inventory of the residential needs for the community, it required within the
residential zoning designation enough land for schools. Land for schools has been
accommodated in our R1 zoning according to our Development Code standards. From a legal
perspective, the current application does not cause a conflict with the available inventory for
housing.
Judy Newman / Applicant: added that along with housing, Governor Kotek has also declared
early learning childcare a high priority for her administration.
Commissioner Bergen moved that the Public Hearing be continued until the Planning
Commission’s regular meeting on Wednesday, June 21st at 7:00 pm at City Hall. Commissioner
Rhoads-Dey seconded the motion.
Roll call vote:
Planning Commission Minutes – June 6th, 2023
Approved 6/21/23
Attest by S. Weaver
6
Salazar – Aye
Bergen – Aye
Thompson – Aye
Buck – Aye
Rhoads-Dey – Aye
Stout – Aye
Schmunk – Aye
REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION
Commissioner Schmunk: reported on the City Council’s May 22nd meeting.
Commissioner Thompson: reported on the City Council’s May 15th meeting.
Commissioner Stout reported on City Council’s April 17th Meeting.
BUSINESS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION – None
BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Sandy Belson / Staff: informed the Commissioners that there will be meetings throughout the
summer. The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on Wednesday June 21st. If a
decision on the application deliberated tonight is reached during that meeting, there will only
be one meeting in July. The July 18th meeting will be a Joint Public Hearing with Lane County on
the Comprehensive Plan Map and corresponding policy and code changes. At the August 1st
meeting, the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions will be jointly deliberating the
code amendments for Stormwater compliance with our DEQ permit, the DEQ parking
requirements for CFEC as well as miscellaneous other code amendments. Depending on the
outcome of that meeting, there may be a second meeting in August.
ADJOURNMENT – 8:08 PM
Public Meetings
& Land Use Hearing
Process
SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION –TRAINING JUNE 6, 2023
PURPOSE OF THIS TRAINING
1. Effectively participate in public meetings
2. Understand and comply with Oregon legal requirements for land use decisions
3. Understand and comply with Oregon public records and public meetings
requirements
For Planning
Commissioners
1. Effectively engage in public involvement opportunities with the Planning
Commission
2. Understand legal rights during land use decision-making processes
For the Public
Planning
Commission
Bylaws
SMC 2.402-424
•7 members
•No more than two in the same kind of business or
profession
•Four-year terms
•Per Council Operating Policies –2-term limit, unless
overridden by Council vote
•Meeting Schedule
•At least once per month, as designated by PC.
•Special meetings as determined by the Commission
•Scope of Authority
•Recommendations to Council on Legislative planning decisions
•Quasi-Judicial review of development permits
•Acts as the Committee for Citizen Involvement (per City’s
acknowledged Citizen Involvement Program under Goal 1)
MEETINGS &
PROCEDURES
MEETINGS OVERVIEW
Quorum required to meet
50% of current appointed
members + One)
Meetings follow set agenda
Order of business set in
advance by City staff
Public hearing process set by
Development Code
Can be changed by motion
and vote of the Commission
Meeting Minutes ORS 192.650
Identify disposition of all action items
Record votes by name
Describe the substance of any
discussion (does not require precise
detail or transcription of comments)
Reference to documents discussed
Oregon Public
Meetings Law
•State Law Requirements:
•Quorum cannot “meet” outside a noticed public
meeting
•A “meeting” is deliberation or discussion of
Planning Commission business by a quorum of the
commission
•Includes email, phone, or texting
•Includes “serial meetings”
•Rights of the Public:
•Entitled to attend all meetings (virtually and
physically, post-COVID)
•Participate during designated times (not all
meetings/items)
•Meetings to be accessible to persons with
disabilities under the ADA
What and when
are procedures
strictly
required?
◦Parliamentary procedure is not always a
strict requirement
◦Most useful as a structure to guide decision-making
◦Anything goes with unanimous consent of Commission
(within reason and within legal requirements)
◦Important to follow Code for public
hearings
◦SDC 5.2.135: Change a rule of procedure with majority
vote, if rule is not required by law
◦Oregon land use law: May deviate from procedures if it
does not cause prejudice to any party
◦Point of Order
◦Can always stop and sidebar re: procedure
◦City Attorney’s Office and Planning Manager are
resources
Making a
Motion
1.Chair announces order of business
(following agenda –no motion needed).
2.Chair recognizes a speaker.Speaker
makes a motion.
◦States specific action or references a proposed
resolution or order that states specifics.
◦“I move that” not “I motion to”
◦Does not require movant to vote for the motion.
3.Motion is seconded.
4.As needed, discussion to modify the
motion –does not need to be seconded.
5.Chair puts motion “in play” by restating it
for the Commission.
Making a Motion
Chair announces order
of business
•Follows agenda order.
•No motion needed.
Chair recognizes
a speaker.
Speaker makes a
motion.
•States specific
action or references
a proposed order.
•“I move that” not “I
motion to”
Motion is
seconded.
Discussion to
modify the
motion
•As needed
•Does not need
to be seconded.
Chair restates
the motion.
Changing a Motion
Before announced by
Chair:
Can be withdrawn or
modified without a
second.
After
announced by
Chair:
Can be modified
or withdrawn
with unanimous
consent.
Amending a
motion:
Can be used
to change the
motion or
separate it
into parts
Amendments
require a
second.
Can be
debated.
Amendment
requires
separate vote
before main
motion
Making a Decision
Debate should be limited
to the immediately
preceding question only
Any
Commissioner
can call for
immediate vote
by saying “I call
the previous
question,” or “I
call the
question(s) of…”
Chair calls for a
vote by
restating the
question
(motion).
If a motion to
approve doesn’t
pass:
•Must approve
the application
with additional
conditions -OR -
•Pass motion to
deny application.
Final decision
must be:
•In writing
•Based on findings of
fact
•Supported by
substantial
evidence in the
record.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Duties of the
Presiding
Officer
SDC 5.2.130
Regulate the course and decorum of the hearing Regulate
Dispose of procedural requests or similar matters
Rule on offers of proof and relevance of evidence and
testimony
Rule on a challenge for bias under Section 5.1.545
Rule
Impose reasonable time limits on those testifyingLimit
Time
Take other action authorized by the Commission that is
appropriate for conducting the public hearing
Take
Action
Order of
Procedure
Quasi-Judicial
SDC 5.1.550
Explain the procedural requirements.
Open the hearing.
Disclosure of conflicts, bias, or ex parte contacts
Challenges for bias or conflicts of interest.
Staff Report
Order of
Procedure
Quasi-Judicial
SDC 5.1.550
Applicant Testimony
Public Testimony
In Favor
Neutral
Opposed
Staff Summary
Applicant Rebuttal
Questions to Staff, Applicant, members of public
Order of
Procedure
Quasi-Judicial
SDC 5.1.550
Close the Public Hearing
Close the Written
Record
Deliberation and discussion of policy issues,
compliance with criteria of approval
Decision based upon findings
When to Close the Hearing & Record
Request to Continue
Hearing?
•PC discretion whether
to continue oral
hearing.
•YES: State date, time,
place of hearing.
•NO: Close the public
hearing. Go to next
step.
Request to Leave
Record Open?
•Not discretionary for
initial quasi-judicial
hearing.
•YES: Extend record
7+7+7 for quasi-
judicial hearings.
•NO: Go to next step.
More info needed to
make decision?
•YES: Extend record at
least 7+7+7 for quasi-
judicial hearings.
•NO: Close written
record (or reopen if
closed prematurely).
Deliberate and make
final decision.
Order of
Procedure
Legislative
SDC 5.1.610
Explanation of procedural requirements
Open the hearing
Staff report
Testimony from any interested parties
Questions from or to the Chair
Order of
Procedure
Legislative
SDC 5.1.610
Close the Public Hearing
Close the Written Record
(May remain open at the Council level
after PC closes the record)
Deliberation and discussion of policy issues,
compliance with criteria of approval
Decision (Recommendation) based upon
findings
GOVERNMENT ETHICS
Ethics Obligations
•Commissioners are
“Public Officials”.
•Public Officials are
personally
responsible for
ethics violations.
•The City does not
defend public
officials who violate
ethics law.
Ethics Obligations
No financial gain from an
official position.
Relatives are included:
•Spouse, parent, step-parent, child, sibling,
step-sibling, child’s spouse
•Spouse’s relatives as listed above
•Someone public official is legally obligated
to supports
•Someone public official provides or
receives benefits arising from public
official’s employment
Very limited exceptions
Listed under state law
•Official compensation (Planning
Commissioners are unpaid)
•Honorariums and gifts less than $50 –
defined in state law
•Reimbursement for expenses
•An unsolicited professional achievement
award
Conflicts of Interest
Actual conflict would result in financial gain
or avoiding a loss.
•Must recuse from discussion & voting.
Potential conflict could result in financial
gain or avoiding a loss.
•Must declare conflict before discussion.
Ethics
Obligations
Planning Commissioners
must file annual verified
statement of economic
interest.
Due annually on April 15.
PUBLIC RECORDS
Public Records
•A “public record” is
any writing that
contains information
related to the conduct
of the public’s
business, prepared,
owned, used or
retained by public
body.
Public Records
City has a duty to provide
all nonexempt parts of a
public record upon
request and must respond
within specific timeline.
Only exemptions are listed
in state laws (ORS 192.345
and 192.355).
Planning Commissioner
emails, notes, and texts
are public records.
City is required to retain
certain public records
according to a retention
schedule published by the
Secretary of State.
Retention Examples:
•Permanent: comprehensive plan
documents
•10-year: land use appeal files
•1-year: notes from meetings,
desk notes
Questions?
Resources
•Oregon Government Ethics Commission Guide to Public Official Ethics (2021 Edition) –Note that updated edition is forthcoming
•https://www.oregon.gov/ogec/Documents/2021%20PO%20Guide%20Final%20Adopted.pdf
•Oregon Attorney General’s Public Meetings and Public Records Manual
•https://www.doj.state.or.us/oregon-department-of-justice/public-records/attorney-generals-public-records-and-meetings-manual/
•Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development “Oregon Planning” page
•https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/OP/Pages/index.aspx
•Oregon Chapter American Planning Association “Planning Commissioner
Resources” page
•https://oregon.planning.org/knowledge/planningcommissioner/
•City of Springfield City Council Operating Policies and Procedures
•http://laserfiche.springfield-or.gov/weblink/Browse.aspx?startid=28270