Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 05 19 RS MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 1 Springfield Planning Commission Minutes for Tuesday, May 19th, 2020 Regular Session Meeting held in Person in Council Chambers & via GoToMeeting.com Planning Commissioners Present: Chair Sherwood, Vice Chair Gill, Bergen, Koivula, Vohs, Landen, and McGinley Absent: Landon Staff: Jim Donavan, Planning Manager; Melissa Cariño, Planner; Shannon Morris, Administrative Speicalist; Kristina Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney Chair Sherwood called the meeting of the Planning Commission Work Session to order at 7:00 p.m. Business from the Audience - None PUBLIC HEARING(S) 1. AMENDMENT TO THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE OF LAND LOCATED AT 6185 MAIN STREET AND IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR’S MAP 17-02-34- 34, TAX LOT 700 FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR), BRINGING THE SUBJECT SITE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH ITS METRO PLAN MDR DESIGATION, CASE 811-20-000030-TYP3 Staff: Melissa Cariño, Planner 30 Minutes Kristina Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney, read a brief statement regarding conflicts of interest. Potential Conflicts of Interest: • Sherwood – None • Gill – None • Koivula – He visited the site online through Google Maps but has no conflict of interest or ex parte communication. • Vohs – None • McGinley – None • Bergen – has a potential conflict of interest since she is a licensed real estate professional in the State of Oregon. Planning Commission Minutes 2 Melissa Cariño / Staff: gave a presentation on the Zoning Map Amendment affecting property at 6185 Main Street (see PowerPoint Presentation). Ms. Cariño explained that the property designation would change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, to bring the site into compliance with its Metro Plan designation. Ms. Cariño went over the proposed revisions in detail and answered questions of the Commission. Applicant Representatives: Renee Buck, Branch Engineering, 310 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477: did not have anything to add to the presentation and would be available to answer any questions. Public Testimony In Favor – None Neutral – None In opposition – None Commissioner Bergen: referring to Mr. Foster’s written testimony that expressed concerns that the extension of Aster Street and its availability to serve properties to the west of the subject site during future development, she wanted to know about the street being extended. If it is not going to be addressed now, would it be addressed later? Melissa Cariño / Staff: confirmed that the street extension would be addressed once the property submits a site plan during the process of being developed. Commissioner Koivula moved that the public hearing and written record be closed. Commissioner Vohs seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Sherwood – Aye Gill – Aye Vohs – Aye Koivula – Aye McGinley – Aye Bergen – Aye Motion passed 6/0/1 Absent Commissioner Koivula moved to adopt the Planning Commission Order in the Agenda Packet as Attachment 1 to approve the application with the changes noted in the staff report. Commissioner Bergen seconded the motion. Planning Commission Minutes 3 Below the Public Comment entered into the record and presented to the Commissioners during the meeting. This is the change in the staff report referred to in the motion. Summary and Response to Public Comment: Bryce Foster: City staff received written testimony from Mr. Bryce Foster on May 12, 2020. Mr. Foster’s letter is entered into the written record for this decision as part of Attachment - Public Testimony. Mr. Foster’s letter expresses concerns about the extension of Aster Street and its availability to serve properties to the west of the subject site during future development. Mr. Foster expresses support for the request subject to a Condition of Approval for the conveyance of Aster Street public right to the City of Springfield as part of this rezoning request. Mr. Foster cites Metro Plan Policies A3, A10, A11 and A13 of the Metro Plan Residential Element as related policies in support of his request but does not explain how the Policies are linked to the Springfield Development Code or the dedication of the right of way during resolution of a Plan/Zone conflict. Response to Mr. Foster: The cited Metro Plan Policies are related to maintaining an adequate 20 year supply of residential land and encouraging density near transit corridors and employment centers while considering existing neighborhoods. These policies were addressed during original adoption of the Metro Plan and are embodied in the Metro Plan Residential designations on the current Plan Diagram. The policies are revisited when Plan Amendments are proposed. The Zoning Map Amendment proposed this evening resolves a conflict with the Plan Designation and will result in MDR zoning which embodies the policies cited by Mr. Foster. No changes to the Metro Plan diagram are proposed. Implementation of MDR designation and zoning policies in accordance with policies of the Metro Plan for efficient provision of public facilities occurs by the application of Springfield Development standards as future development occurs. As noted in the Staff Report those facilities are available to serve the site and surrounding area at the time of development in accordance with the Springfield Development Code: • Finding #9 – Aster Street will extend westward into the subject property, providing local street access pursuant to SDC 4.3-105; • Finding #10 – Utility connections to serve development on the subject site will be extended from Aster and Main Streets pursuant to SDC 4.3-120. ; and Recently adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP) code implementation amendments would also apply to the subject parcel at the time of further development. The new TSP code amendments will require the Aster Street connection in multi-unit development scenarios, and the standards include a File future right-of-way (ROW) setback that will apply to any building permits for a single unit and the Aster Street ROW will be dedicated at that time. Specifically, the new Street Network Standards at SDC 4.2-105 will require the extension of Aster Street at the time of a future land division or multi-unit development, under either the “Needed Housing” track in subsection E.2.a. or the “General Criteria” in subsection D.2.g. In addition, the Special Planning Commission Minutes 4 Street Setback in SDC 4.2-105.M.1.a precludes placement of any buildings in a manner that conflicts with the future extension of Aster Street. Housing Land Advocates and Fair Housing Council of Oregon: In a letter dated May 18, 2020, Housing Land Advocates (HLA) and Fair Housing Council of Oregon (FHCO) argue that the City must adopt Goal 10 findings under ORS 197.175(2)(a). Specifically, HLA and FHCO state that, under Goal 10, the City must show that "the proposed zone change does not leave the City with less than adequate residential land supplies in the types, locations, and affordability ranges affected." HLA and FHCO state that the City is required to provide “a complete analysis showing any gain/loss in needed housing as dictated by the [Housing Needs Analysis] and [Buildable Lands Inventory].” Response to HLA and FHCO: ORS 197.175(2)(a) is not applicable to this application. ORS 197.175(2)(a) states that the City must “prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with [the Statewide Planning Goals.]” This application is for a zoning map amendment; the Springfield Zoning Map is not part of the City’s comprehensive plan and therefore, this application does not seek to adopt, amend, or revise the comprehensive plan. ORS 197.175(2)(d) provides the applicable standard for this zoning map amendment, which is subject to the City’s acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use: the City must “make land use decisions and limited land use decisions in compliance with the acknowledged plan and land use regulations.” ORS 197.175 does not require the City to apply the statewide planning goals to a land use decision like this decision that is subject to an acknowledged comprehensive plan and acknowledged land use regulations. The findings under the criteria in SDC 5.22-100 demonstrate that this decision complies with ORS 197.175(2)(d). Nothing in the text of Goal 10 otherwise requires the City to evaluate the buildable land inventory or housing need as part of a stand-alone zoning map amendment. OAR 660-008-0010 implements Goal 10 regarding the allocation of buildable land: "The mix and density of needed housing is determined in the housing needs projection. Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan designation." The City has an adopted and acknowledged housing needs analysis and local buildable lands inventory: the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis (RLHNA), adopted by Ordinance 6268. As required by OAR 660-008-0010, the RLHNA identifies the mix and density of needed housing and shows that sufficient land is designated in the comprehensive plan to meet that need. This zoning map amendment does not change the subject property’s designation under the comprehensive plan or the RLHNA, and therefore has no effect on the City’s adopted housing needs analysis or buildable lands inventory. Planning Commission Minutes 5 Finally, contrary to HLA’s and FHCO’s argument, even if Goal 10 applies directly to this application, the City is not required to reevaluate or update its acknowledged housing needs analysis or buildable lands inventory as a prerequisite to adopting a post-acknowledgement plan amendment. In a case involving a comprehensive plan amendment by the City of Springfield, the Land Use Board of Appeals specifically stated that “[t]he city is entitled to rely on its acknowledged inventory” to determine whether an application runs afoul of Goal 10. Jaqua v. City of Springfield, 46 Or LUBA 134, 171 (2004). In Jaqua, LUBA noted that it is permissible for the City to update its inventory to account for all post-acknowledgement plan and zoning map amendments, but there is no legal requirement that the City must do so. Id. As stated above, the proposed zone change does not alter the City’s acknowledged housing needs analysis or buildable lands inventory, and therefore is not inconsistent with Goal 10. Roll call vote: Sherwood – Aye Gill – Aye Vohs – Aye Koivula – Aye McGinley – Aye Bergen – Aye Motion passed 6/0/1 Absent Report on Council Action • Commissioner Koivula reported on the Council meeting of May 18th 2020. Business from the Planning Commission – None Business from the Development and Public Works Department – None ADJOURNMENT – 7:57 p.m.