Loading...
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