HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments COUNTY 5/18/2004
'.-'
AGENDA
''"
l'
~
-' -,
': ESDA,Y~MA~~ij;i':l;ioo<i
"~Ji~,L'" '~J~V(~''Gf'~Y?~,i0-':~;;
. ,c.M:o:sWoFl{iSeSSIOD" ow,e ':
<'N:i~'iH~I~~6;].25' E~~8t~~A\i~~Eti]eil
"~"",,,__,'..,........ l! L_,',u", ..,.. "b..""
.
)'he,meetine: locadon is wheelchair-a_ccessible. Anvone needim!: special accommodations (hearin1!: imoaired.lan1!:ua1!:e
translation. chemical,sensitivitv needs. & lar1!e orint co Dies of the agenda). olease,make your reouest at least 48 hours orior,
to the meetin!! bv eallin!! TDD serviees at 1541\682-3995.
ITEM
FORMAT
PUBLIC COMMENT is limited to 3 minntes per person for a total amonnt of 20 minntes. Items that are before the
commission tonirrht may not be commented on,
Work Session at 7:00 P.M. - followed by Public Hearing
1. Delibcrati~ns: Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metro-
politan Area General Plan, Chapter III, Section G, Public
Facilities and Services Element; Chapter V Glossary; and
Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and
Services Plan, Applicant: City of Springfield / Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission
Public Hearing
1. PA 04-5154: Co-adoption ofa Minor Plan Amendment to the
Junction City Transportation System Plan to remove'all references
to extending David,Lane,from it's current terminus to Highway 99,
David Lane is an unimproved public road within the Junction
City Urban Growth Boundary, Map 16-04-05-32, David Lane
ROW, tenllinating at tax lot #508; Applicant: David J, Pedersen
2. Ordinance PA 1203: In the Matter of proposed legislative
amendments to the Rural Comprehensive Plan for properties
in the Siuslaw Watershed and the Long Tom Watershed; pro-
posed exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals Three and Four
where necessary; and proposed changes in zoning designations
to comply with such plan amendments where necessary,
(Periodic Review Work Program)
- Staff: Stephanie Schulz, Land Management
Staff: Stephanie Schulz, Land Management
Staff Presentation '
Those Speaking in Favor
Those Neither in Favor or Opposed
Those Speaking in Opposition
- Close Hearing
Commission Recommendation/Deliberation
Staff: Bill Sage, Land Management
Staff Presentation
Those Speaking in Favor
Those Neither in Favor or Opposed
- Those Speaking in Opposition
Close Hearing
Commission Recommendation/Deliberation
Date Received
Lane County Planning Commission Members: Juanita Kirkham, Chair; Steve Dignam,MA'ie~~l
Marion' Esty; JacqueBetz; Vincent Martorello; Mark Herbert; Chris Clemow; James Carmichael; Ed Becker
, Planner: BJ
~!~
~~rT;",
~,,,
"
"'1111 o1t
,>
Minutes approved by the Springfield
Planning Commission: 6/112004
MINUTES
Sprlllgfield Planning Commission
Regular Session '
Springfield City Hall--Jess~ Main Room
225 Fifth Street, Springfield
May 18, 2004
7 p.m.
PRESENT:
Steve Moo, Chair; Bill Carpenter, Vice Chair; Lee Beyer, Frank Cross, Greg Shaver, members; Mel Oberst,
Sarah Summers, Gll!)' Karp, Greg Mott, John Tamulonis, Springfield staff; Joseph Leahy, Meg Kieran,
Office of City Attorney; Susie Smith, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission staff; Dave Jewett,
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission attorney.
:;~
Commissioner Moo called the meeting to order.
1, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Moo noted there were no minutes 10 approve.
3. REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION
fommissioner Moe said he attended the May 17, 2904 City Council meeting, In the interest of time, he passed on
reporting on that meeting., ,: ':
4. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Commissioner Moe invited cOmment from the audience on it~ not on ,the agenda. There was no one present
wishing to speak.
5. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING
a. REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE TO REZONE 17-02-30-00100 & 200, 17-02-20-00-00700 FROM
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) TO PUBLIC LANDS AND OPEN SPACE (PLO)
Mr. Oberst said that in reaching a decision, the Planning Commission shall adopt findings which demonstrate
confonnance to the Criteria of Approval as set forth in the Springfield Development Code Section 12.030:
~ Consistency with the Metro Plan Text and Diagram; , ".
. Consistency with applicable Refmement Plans, special area studies and functional plans; and
. That the'property can be served by the orderly and efficient extension of key urban facilities and
'services as prescribed in the Metro Plan prior to or in coqjunction with development.
Mr. Oberst asked those who testified to the request to address the Criteria of Approval with sufficienl
~,"'i, , specificity to enable the Planning Commission to understand their points and-be able to respond to them. He
" :oc ~ ,~aid failure to raise an issue at the hearing could preclude their ability to appeal on the issue to the Land Use
J j!'-j\lq:~!~~tS.j';B.'oaTd!of Appeals (LUBA) or higher. - Date Recel'ved
. '';'t~" ~7.!p"',r '(
M1NUTES-Sprr~,~ldPl:mrung Commission May 18,2004 P'l&W,l "8 r /
Regular.SesslOn MAY,.1, (01
Planner: BJ
, ,
i ;Y'l
;9" 1
" .. " 'II "I
1'., ,,> J,.-'I,
t' " ~ 'I fI ,'. 'II ' :
,
,>
Commissioner Moe opened the public hearing.
r
Me, Oberst offered the staff report. He said the applicant had submitted a zone change request in order to
rezone a~parcel from Heavy lridustrial (HI) to Public Lands and Open Space (PLO). He added that the zone
change would bring the properties into col)fonnity with the existing Metro Plan designation of Parks and
Open Space. He said the proposed use, The Child Center, a not-fv. y.vLt organization, would be a permitted
use in the PLO district. He said The Child Center intended to do an expansion of the site and needed the zone
change 'in order to have consistency between the plan and the zone.
Me, Oberst said all Criteria of Approval 'had been met and st:aft:recommended approval of the zone change
request. '
Commissioner Moe asked Plarming Commissioners to declare any conflicts of interest o~ ex parte contacts.
He noted there 'were none. '
Coimnissioner Moe requestixl testimony from the applicant and noted there was no one present who wished
to testify. ' ,
Commissioner Moe asked for testimony from the public. There were no members of the public who wished
to speak in favor of or in !lPposition to the request.
, , ,
Commissjoner Moe asked for summation from staff and noted there was none.
Commissioner Moe noted there was no one who wished to offer rebuttal from the public.
Commissioner Moe closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Beyer said the proposed zone change made abundant sense.
Commissioner Beyer, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, moved that the Planning
Commission approve the Zone Change request based the F,indings of Fact presented in the staff
report Attachment 1 in the Planning Commission Transmittal Memorandum. The motion '
passed unanimously, 5:0. '
Mr. Oberst left the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
b. REQUEST VARiANCE REQUEST BY MAlA LLC JO. NO. ZONioo~o0002
,
Commissioner Moe opened the,public hearing,
Commissioner Moe asked Planning Commissioners to declare any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts.
CommissionerMoe said he knew the applicants very well bUt he did not feel thlit would influence his decision
in any wily. He noted there were no other conflicts of interest or ex parte cohtacts.
Ms. Summers offered the staff report. She said the Criteria for Approval for Variance Requests were:
. There were unusual conditions associated ,with the property or structure which make it impractical to
'l!Sethedevelopment area for its intended purpose under the Springfield Development Code.
?IWldi.(,:.~,,,. ,(:;_ ': :1,,/!(~.I,GfaIiting of the variance would not be inconsistent with both the Metro ~ ~d ~eM~d
r , ,11.....~"',~/""!1. ..1'.+ ;OP"'~' I" a e
' ." '. , ,.... .'.." .
MINUTES-SpJ:ingfield Planning Commission ' May 18, 2004, age 2
kbgillliT'Session MAY 1 8 I O~
~,f:~;l~~jr'l;npi;f,:~1 Planner: BJ
Development Code (SDC).
. Granting of the variance would have not significant adverse affegs on the public welfare or
neighboring properties, and there are provisions to mitigate those adverse affecls, which will be a
condition of use.
. The need for a variance has not arisen solely from a previous Code violation and the hardship is not
self-imposed,
. There are no other practical alternatives available that better meet the provisions of the Springfield
Development Code and the Metro Plan.
. In lieu of the variance criteria in Subsection (1) of this Section, variances from the standards of
Article 27, FP Floodplain Overlay District, shall meet the criteria listed in Section 27,060 of this
Code.
,~
Ms. Summer summarized the staff report as presented in'the Commission Transniittal Memorandum, She
said the proposed development consisted offour 24-unit buildings, parking and landscaping. She said the
request was a Type ill Variance for exceptions 10 the Multi-Unit Design ~tandards in the SDC Section
16.110 and Section 16.060(1). She said the applicant proposed six variances which were articulated in the
COffilllission Transmittal' Memorandum, , She noted that the two most significant variance requests were:
1. SDC 16.060(1) sets a 35-foot maximum height in MDR designated areas. The applicant proposed a
height of 48.5 feet.
4, SDC 16.llO(4Xb)1 "Building Form" allowed a maximum of 120 feet horizontal distance for
structures with three or more stories. The buildings along the west side of the property were 182'4"
in length and those along the east side were 156'6" in length. '
She said the application for variances did not clearly meet all of the Criteria of Approval. She said the staff
was not making a recoffilllendation to the Planning Commission, adding that the Planning Commission had
discretionary authority to decide whether or not the requested variances met the intent of the SDC MDR
height standard and the Multi-Unit Design Standards.
Commissioner Beyer asked if there were garage entrances on both the east and west sides of the structures.
Ms. Summer replied there were garages and apartments on both sides of the buildings, adding thaI each unit
had a garage space and a parking space.
Commissioner Shaver asked if the garages were actually integral rather than attached to the structure. Ms.
Summers replied thllt was the staffinbl'.~,,,,ion of the code. 'In responSeto Commissioner Shaver's
question, Ms. Summers replied that the Fire Department and the Building Department had reviewed the
request. She said their comments were structural in nature, applying to building access, elevators, and
stairways, rather than about proximity to the easement or building height. Commissioner Shaver asked if the
Planning Commission had to find that all of the variance criteria were met, rather than that some of the
criteria were met, noting that if at least one criterion was not met, the Planning Commission would not be able
to grant the request. Ms. Summer confirmed that was correct.
Ms. Summer noted that the Multi-Unit Design Standards were somewhat flexible in that discretionary use
was allowed for this type of project.
~ ' ,
In response to a question from Commissioner Carpenter, Ms. Suriuner replied that Traffic Engineering had
reviewed the plans and had no problems. She added that the project would go through site plan review if the
, variances were granted.
. . ":','.-;: '_" _'. ~',. ,. 'l'; .", ,u ,~' -
,/",,',c!-r "",~' "..' , ,1
,,, ,rf'",,:-', J..... (r~1 ,".,"l.l,...
,I "t' .r.-' t',' .~
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
, R~iwar,Session '
May 18, 2004
Date Received
, PmY 1 8{ o~
Planner: BJ
'",
'.
,',
1:.',,' '}fl
'\,; ;.~~ i; I" . \
Commissioner Cross asked how the height of the proposed structures compared to other structures inthe
immediate area. Ms. Summer replied that the adjacent apartments were two-story, adding thaI other nearby
, P' vt',,,;ies were zoned COmInercial and Campus Industrial. She added that a nearby shopping center was
, '
w...t'~,ed of one-story buildings and the nearby cement plant was pretty high. Commissioner Cross noted
that the proposed project would be three stories higher than other structures in the area. Ms, Summer said
higher buildings could be built in the future on the commercial and industrial p' vp~' ~:es. In response to a
question from Commissioner Cross, Ms. S~er said there was no variation in'the roof elevations of the
proposed buildings.
Commissioner Moe requested testimony from tne app~icant.
h
Tom. Poage, 990 Obie Street, Eugene. Mr. Poage identified himself as the engineer for the project. He said
variance number 6 that addressed transition and compatibility was probably unnecessary since the proposed
22 foot buffer fell ,within the 20 percent leeway from the,25 foot requirement;
Addressing the other five variances, Mr. Poage said ,theY related to the building. Resaid the intent ofthe plan
, was to be in confonnance with the Metro Plan while at the same time providing open space for the enjoyment
of the residents. He said the additional height allowed for more open space. He added ihat the proposed
underground parking provided less impervious swface area. He closed saying that the concepts were good
ones, and were in compliance with the intent of the M~o Plan. '
Commissioner Beyer roted that the proposed development was intended as elder housing, and consistent with
the adja~ent manufactured home park. '
Commissioner Shaver asked what was unusual about the site that required the varianCes. Mr. Poage replied
" that t1ie only access to ,the site was off of Mar cola Road. He explained the concept was to have a green area
, between the roadway and the buildings, lind how the street, buildings and buffer worked together.
Commissioner Shaver asked how manyfeet of.uninterrupted green space existed between the driveway and
, street. Mr. Poage said there were 24 feet that was needed to accommodate access to 22Dd Street.
~
Commissioner Carpenter questioned the need for four stories over the garages. Mr. Poage said that each unit
was one story high, with four units in each building. Commissioller, Cirrpenter asked, if there were any other
buildings in the area that had the same size and scope of 40 feet Wide by 182 feet long. Mr. Poage replied
that his fl1ll1 recen~ly completed the construction of'First Baptist Church ,in Eugene that was 70 feet high, but
, he was not aware of others. Commissioner Beyer noted that the proposed buildings weresimUar in scope arid
size of the Broadway Place Apartments located in downtown Eugene, with apartments built upon two storieS
of garage. " " '.
Commissioner Moe asked for testimony from the public. There were no members of the public who wished
to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request. '
, Commissioner Moo asked for summation from staff and noted there was none.
Commissioner Moo noted there was no one who wished to offer rebuttal testimony.
, ' ,
Commissioner Moe closed the public'hearing.
Commissioner Beyer said he had watched the subject property for a long time, and thought that the variance
~~~~~t~;~~t~:: ~::::o~ odd shaped lot that~:~;::~:o develop, in clDa~j1eceived
, Regwa}!'Session MAY 1 8 I cif
. I i~ "
" ,i.,.:",'J'1 .:,:i"cft. Planner:, BJ
manufactured home park, a commercial apaJ1ment complex, a fairly good commercial center and on a major
bus line. He sai~ that this project came as close as any he had seen to meeting the Planning Commission goal
of encouraging density in nodal areas. He added that the design looked attractive, was well thought out and
met the variance standards. He said the location and design was appropria,te for elder housing, with the
garages and living ,units all on one floor with elevators. He said the request should be approved.
Commissioner Shaver offered the counterpoint. He said there were two significant criteria, the first being that
the site itself was unusual and required a variance. He cited an example recently considered by the Planning
Commission, The first was a request for a setback variance to allow for construction of a house on a v-
shaped lot.
The second criterion was height requirements, 30 feet for a single family dwelling and 35 feet for multi-
family dwellings. ' '
,~
Commissioner Shaver said there as nothing special about site under consideration, although it had an
inleresting mix of uses and was currently zoned for apartments. He added the fact that the road on half the
site opposed to entirely across the frontage was notaiJ unusual feature as claimed by the applicant. He stated
that the rest of the items were self-imposed and it was outside ofthe purview of the Planning Commission to
approve variances to remedy self-imposed conditions. He said the oilly way to address this issue was to
change the code and design standards to allow for 50 foot residential structures.
Commissioner Shaver stated the Planning Commission could easily determine a variance was not needed for
the garages attached to living units request. He believed the code applied to separate structures attached to
houses, wherein, the proposal called for garages integral to the apartments, '
Referring to the request to allow parking within the 25 foot buffer between the development and property ,
lines abutting a LDR P,vp"';.i line, Commissioner Shaver said he could support the variance request to allow
parking in the 25 foot buffer zone. He said approving the proposed variance requests would,set a precedent
for future requests that he found unacceptable.
, Commissioner Cross said he agreed with Commissioner Shaver's assessment. He said he was concerned with
both the building height and the relationship'to the structures around it, as well as the width ofthe buildings.
Commissioner Carpenter said he agreed with both Commissioner Shaver and Commissioner Cross' positions.
He said the size of the buildings was not compatible with anything in the area or anything else in Springfield.
He said he had no problem with some of the setbacks. He said the design was impractical due to the self-
imposed design standards that were outside of community standards. He added this request did not set good
precedent with what was deemed impracticable under the variance standatd. '
CommissionerBeyer said the community had been discussing how to get more nodes, to achie~e greater
density, how to create nice communities with good development, and mo~e environmentally friendly buildings
with less impervious surface. He said the proposal under consideration met all of those standards. He added
that the quality of the proposed develv"u.':'..t could not be economically achieved on asmaller scale. '
Commissioner Beyer added that current interpretation of the design standards had led to construction of bland
developments.
In response to a question from Commissioner Shaver, Me. Leahy concurred that a proper i...;". ". ,,;.ation of the
code would be that the garages as included as part of the proposed development were integral to the
apartments rather than attached, and therefore acceptable without a variance.
~E~"SPPr~el~lm,anning Commission
, Regular Session
May 18,2004
Datep6e~ceived
MAY 18)oi
Planner: BJ
..;. f>!
I, '.
Ji
..1"
, .;_:f' .,.;..\;1. "
. . I',~ 1,
'f;\,":;-'!;;:;"'>
'7'.; ~.
Commissioner Shaver, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, moved to deny the
variances on Journal Number ZON2004-00()02, The motion passed 4:1, with
Commissioner Beyer opposed. '
Commissioner Shaver, seconded by Commissioner Beyer, moved that the Springfield
Development Code 16.110(4)(b)(4) would be interpreted that the four foot recessed
setbackforgarages'isfor attached garages, not integral garages, and that the proposed
development involved integral garages thus requiring no variance. The motion failed
3:2, with Commissioner Carpenter and Commissioner Moe opposed,
In response to a question from Commissioner Beyer, Commissioner Shaver said the four foot setback was not
necessary because the garages were an integral part of the design.
f,
In response to a question from Commissioner Moe, Mr. Leahy replied that this was an al'l"VI',;ate time to
address this issue. Mr, Leahy added that for future applications, staff would be reviewing the definition'of
integril1.
Commissioner Carpenter said because the variance was denied, it was not necessary to make a detennination
, about the integril1versus attached at this time. He added lhat it was unknown how this motion would impact
a future issue.
6,' :' LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
a, AMENDMENT OF THE SPRlNGFIELD,DEVELOPMENT CODE - JO~AL NUMBER
LRP2004-000S; CITY OF SPRINGFIELD APPLICANT'
Commissioner Moe opened the public hearing.
. CommissionerMoe asked Planning Commissioners to declare any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts.
He.noted there ,were no other conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. '
, Mr: GaryKarp provided the staff report. He said the issue before the Planning Commission was 10 conduct a
public hearing concerning the amendment of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) and to decide whether
to advise the City Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the request. He added the proposed
SDC amendments included portions of Article 21 CI Campus Industrial District and Article2, Definitions.
Mr. Karp distributed a packet of information, including:
. Two views of a map entitled, McKenzie"Gateway Corporate Park.
. A letter to the Planning Commission from Donald A. Gallagher, Jr., rl:presentati~e of Chris and
Christine Smith, owners of the FedEx property in the CICampus Industrial District subject to the
'proposed amendments.
.' A letter to' the Planning Commission from Dan Montgomery, representative of the Pierce Trusts.
. A letter to Gary Karp from Greg Buller, representing Deyette.
. An e-mail to John Tamulonis from Silva Sullivan. '
Mr. Karp said the letter from Greg Buller requested that the record be held open for ten days. He said staff
recOlinnended that the record be held open until May 28, 2004 to receive additional testimony.
" ~!_:'Hi,. ",M1;.'~,s!!id there were two Metro 'Plan'Cl designations established over 20 years ago in Springfield,
. I;~.."" ':,)l~,;r,::,,:,>)r,\ ;,-rJ-t'l\,.)'
MINUTES-SPrin,gfi, ,eldP""hinliiIigCOmmiSSiOn May 18, 2004 '0 f~e& 'd
Reg(ilar S~ssion ' , alt: NeCelVe
'. . .
MAY 1 8 l()~
PI::Jnnp.r~ R.I
.!:.
:;,j-J~"~
."..
./.',. "'ct..:C'~ tA '
,1'~"'tV II' k~ll - I
1. "'" :"':""'." . ". fin ,'J., I~
'"'
Gateway' and the Pierce property, as described, in the staff report.
Mr.Karpsaid:the City Council appointed a CampllS Industrial Advi~ory Committee (CIAC) on March 17,
, 2003, to evaluate the siting of new uses and the reuse of existing buildings within the CI District and to
eliminate the ~biguities ofthe current code language. He said staffmet'several times with the CIAC and
returned to the City Council in October 2003 with a sununary of the discussions, He added the City Council
directed staff to amend the SOC. Mr. Karp said staff had presented the proposed SDC amendments to the
Springfield Chamber of Commerce's Legislative Committee and the Area,CommerciallIndustrial Realtors '
group, as well,: representatives from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Lane
Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAP A). He said staff presented the proposed SDC amendments to the
Planning Commission at a work session on May 4, 2004, noting the amendments included in the Commission
Transmittal ~emorandum included all comments received by May 10,2004. c
~
, Mr. Karp reviewed the highlights ofthe proposed amendments as they appeared in the Commission
Transmittal Memorandum. Mr. Karp referred the Planning Commission to a letter dated May 6, 2004 from
Tom Boyait, ODOT Senior Region Planner, supporting the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
detenninatiori' of no signifiqmt effect based upon the materials submitted, in the Commission Transmittal
Memorandum packet.
\i .
Mr. Karp stated that stafrwas aware that there were no guarantees that the proposed amendments would
provide the d~ired effects over time. He said staff suggested that the amendments should be reviewed in
three to five years to determine their effectiveness,
Mr. Tamulonjsidentified himself as the Community Development Manager for the City of Springfield and
distributed a handout of the sununary of acreages in the Gateway area. '
Mr, Tamulonis said were tWo problematic issues that arose during the d~velopment of the Cl designation.
The first was!the proportion that could be designated for 'use as corporate business parks, and regional and
corporate headquarters, to honor the intent of the City Council for the area to maintain the CI designation. He
said 40 percept was identified as a suitable allocation. He stated that the market may be changing and 'there
were some uses at Gateway such as Sony, Symantac and the City of Springfield, that could be converted to
CL He said approximately29.1 acres were currently in use as business parks from a total of273.9 acres. He
added that at the Pierce property consisted of approximately 60 acres of Clland that would allow for
, approximatel~ 24 acres in business parks and Corporate headquart~.
Mr. Tamulonjs said approximately 80 acres at Gateway remained for development as business parks, and
regional and corporate uses.
In response to a question from Commissioner Shaver, Mr. Tarnulonis replied that the vacant Sony facility
was not among the business park possibilities, He added that the reuse of buildings in the Gateway area
created probl'~ms, in particular, Sony, t~t was designed for such a specialized use and had some peculiarities
that made it difficult to reuse the building. "
~ .
<
In response to questions from Commissioner Beyer, Mr. Tamulonis explained how the Sony facility could be
used as a bru!'iness, park for other commercial uses. He added that ~uch a Use could possibly limit the use of
some of the smaller acreages in area and referred to the use list., He noted the intent of the Cl zoning
designation at Gateway and mid-Springfield was to have campus industrial kinds of jobs of 15 to 25
, employees per acre, adding that Gateway as a mature cr District was expected to support 5,000 employees.
")(;\~*.;,~'j!~; 1(c;o1ID,Ii~~ia1 uses would most likely provide higher numbers of employees. In order to change the zoning,
, ODOT, the City of Eugene and Lane County would need to be convinced through amending the Metro Plan,
MlNUTES-S~ringfi6Ia Planning Commission' May 18,2004 ' Date~ecei"ed
>~; -
, - Regular Session
: ,It",') -,,',. J..::", ~/')I',1 ; ~ MAY 18 /I:J'[
c'" ";:r,!,. ':r <I'-~. '., I v"l
~~':~'
Planner: BJ
",!
and the City of Springfield would need to demonstrate that there was adequate infrastructure t9 support a
substantially greater nwnber of employees, Mr. Tamulonis said that the current'nwnber of employees was
putting a strain on the existing infrastructure. ' He said a review in three to five years as suggested by Mr.
Karp cOuld provide data to support the lengthy rezoning process, ' '
In response to Commissioner Carpenter, Mr. Tamulonis concurred that 'the Cl designation was comparable to
a research park. Mr. Tamulonis added that there had been many changes in technology since the CI
designation was developed in thelate 1970's and early 1980's, while trymg to respond to the market.
The Planning Commission engaged in a discussion about design standards, changes in th!l market place and
technology, and how those changes impacted the CI properties.
,,,:-
Commissioner Moo asked for testimony from the public and asked those spe3kmg to limit their testimony to
three minutes.
John Musumeci,}22 Country Club Road, Eugene. He said he was speaking as an interested citizen, and had
'no.economic interest in the areas under consideration. He said he and his company had been great supporters
of Springfield and campus style industrial z~ning. 'He iaid when things were tough it was ,important to be
accommodating, adding that Springfield had been willing to roll out the red carpet and do business in the
past, and should continue to do so. He spoke in opposition to prohibiting mediCal, office uses in the CI
dispicts.' " ' ' ,
Sue Prichard, 101 East Broadway, Eugene: Ms. Prichard said her company shared the listing with several
other real estate brokers for the Sony facility. Sl1e thanked the Planning Commission for having made
enormous progress in revising ,the code. "
She suggested making some revisions to design.standards to provide more flexibility for leasing possibilities.
Additionally, she suggested including the c;ommeritary from the draft version in the final version of the code
language. She said she supported the performance standards requirements, noting that times were changing,
and coritinued,flexibilityto w~ needed for Springfield to reniain successful as a city.' ,
Paul Breuer, 11460 Southwest Muirwood Drive, Portland. Mr. Breuer said his firmwas one of several
brokerage teams sharing the Sony property listing. !;Ie spoke in filvor of th~ proposed changes to the Cl zone,
He said he agreed with the design standards for, the front of buildings, but asked that the standards for other
, ,
building faces and inside parking at night for trade vehicles be reexamined. He said the master planrnng
'process required for some developments had been,burdensome, and the revisions wereari improvement. He
briefly described some of the business parks 'in the Portland area. ' '
Lauri Sege~120 West Broadway, Eugene, Ms. Segel said she represented 1000 Friends of Oregon, She
, said she was generally neutral on the proposed changes" She said 1000 Fnends agreed with the staff assertion
regarding ambiguities presenting difficulties siting businesses in the Cl districts, but questioned whether the
current proposal was consistent with the Metro Plan. She said the CIAC membership was nol diverse, being
Composed primarily of City officials and members of the development community. She questioned the value
of some proposed uses such as call centers and ~ucational centers that did not provide family wage jobs,
sUggesting that such jobs would be more suitable in downtown where related retaii services were readily ,
available.
Commissioner Moo closed the p{.blic hearing for public testiJ11ony: He said the record would remain open
until May 28, 2004.
f"l/ '\\~ I,..' , . ,;" l, . I. ',,_ '';,
, ~~" ,.),/ ,~V-\t~"t ~ -' ''i~,,'l'
MINUTES"Spriiigtield'PIannil)g,Commission
Regular Session
7) ;. Yjir~~
May 18, 2004
Date Received
W8J.8,o{
P'lanner: BJ
I,}"
," '
l'~ ~;lrFJ;'.";~'I"-~!'~ -t
~ .' i ~ ~,;.. ""il" t
....' ~"
'I~
Mr. Leahy said that the record would be opened again when the proposed,amendments were forwarded to the
City Council. "
Mr. Leahy left at 8:55 p.m.
Ms. Kieran arrived at 8:55 p.m.
b. . METRO PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN - DELIBERATION FROM APRIL
26,2004 JOINT PLANNING COMMlSSI9N PUBLIC HEARING.
,..---.
, Mr. Greg Mott provided the staff report and referr~ to the following docUments included in the agenda
~~ '
.
May 1,1, 2004 memorandum from Greg Mott to the Springfield Planning Commission, subject
, Testimony entered into the record off,RP2004-00001, Amendments to (;hapter III, Section G
Public Utilities and Services Element and Chapter IV Glossary of the Metro Plan. and
amendments to the Public Facilities and Seniices Plan.
May 17, 2004 memorandum from Meg Kieran, Springfield City Attorney to the Springfield Planning
Commission, Eugene Planning Commission and Lane County Planning Commission, subject Staff
response to material submitted into the record by Home 'Builders Association on May 6, 2004.
r,
.
Mr, Mott reviewed the Metropolitan Area General Plan Amendment Criteria:
"
" ,
. The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the land
Conservation and Development Commission.
. ' Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Mr. Mott said tlie proposed amendments discussed atthe April 26, 2004'Joint Planning Commission meeting
were housekeeping amendments, or, those absolutely required to be included by State law, specifically those
items in Division II of the Administrative Rules, subsection 0020, that a public facility plan shall identify
significant public facilities projects which are to support the land uses designated in the acknowledged
comprehensive plan. Furthermore, public facility plans shall list the title of the' project and describe each
public facility project in t~rmS oftlie type facility, service area, and facility capacity: "
. Mr. Mott said proposed amendments that included Tables 430 4b, and 1630 and Maps 2 and 230 were
specifically intended to address that requirement of the Administrative Rule, adding that information did not
exist in the existing public facilities plan. Other elements required by the Administrative RuJe is that
adoption of the plan as a supporting document to the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and shall also adopt
as part of the comprehensive plan the list of public facility project titles excluding if the jurisdiction so
chooses, the descriptions or specifications of those projects.' Mr. Mott noted information in Appendix B of
the staff packet responded specifically to the requirements of that law. He added thatthe Metro Plan text
specifically addressed the relationship of the PSP and the information included specific to the projects.
'Mr. Mott said, ".. .the project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) are adopted
as pa~t of the Metro Plan. Information in the PFSP on project phasing and costs, on decisions on timing
and financing of projects, are not part of the Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the Capital '
Improvement Programming and budget process oj indivitjual service providers," He said that documents
13 and I 4, from the Eugene Water and Electric Board and City of Eugene Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs)
',' ,~t W, er,' e, in, c~uded ~n the r~ord .were examples o! the relationship betwee,' n a proje:t identified by, title ~d
',(,.,,\i'!\,';~~:,:~,?O,~:t?t;!llfpan service proVider Implemented proJect. , Date Recelvea
MlNUTES-SPrih~7i1.Planning Commission May 18, 2004 Paze 9
" Regular Session MAY 1 8) o~
Planner: BJ
. .
,,(' ~l
.f ,":I.'ir:'\;lf"
"~,-,il; ! ~ ,IJ~ I'll -L
Mr. Molt said the second proposed amendmentto the PFSP was'an am~dment process that was specified in
Administrative Rule 0045.
, '
Mr, Molt said that the amendments made to the Metro Plan itself were limited to Chapter 3"Section G, and
were intended to meet the test ofinternal consistency by adding new definitions for primary collection system
and treatment facility systems. He said the new policy was G.9, as stated in the Staff Report and Findings,
, '
Mr, Molt said the record that had been created demonstrated that the proposed amendments were consistent
with the only law that applied to the amendment, Division II. Furthermore, questions about Goal 6 were
included in the Staff Report and Findings. I;Ie said the consistency test existed by virtue of actions -taken in
the PSFP needed similar actions undertaken in the Metro Plan, but policy G.9 connected the PSFP and the
Metro Plan.
-,.1-
Mr. Molt said staff recom'mended that the Planning Commis~ion forward a recommendation to the
Springfield City Council approving the proposed amendments based upon demo~tration of their consistency
with the requirements of the Springfield Development Code 7070, Criteria of Approval of Metro Plan
Amendments. ' ' ,
. ,
In response to CoinmissionerShaver's question, Mr. Molt reP,lied that no changes had'been made to the
proposal since the joint hearing aside from typographical corrections. ' , '
In"respons~ to Commissioner Beyer's question if a decision needed to be made tonight, Mr. Molt said elected
officials were scheduled to conduct a public hearing on June 22; 2004, that required public notice and
forwarding of the Planning Commission's recominendation Mr. Molt reported that Lane County did not take
action,on the identical proposal earlier this evening, " ,
Following a di~cussion about timing issues, the volwne of infonnation provided at the meeting, and the
lateness ofthe hour; Commissioner Carpenter proposed deferring a decision until the next 'planning
Commission meeting. '
Mr. Dave Jewett provided background on the proposed amendments through the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission (MWMC). He said ORS 223.314 pi'ovidea that neither the adoption nor
modification ~f ii' facilities plan or project list was a land use decision. He noted that most of the materials
provided in the staff '~f'v';'" fort\1emeeting were,for the purpose of responding 10 statem,ents made by the
Homebuilders' Associati,on (HBA) that dealt with the facilities plan project list that were extraneous '
comments not pertinent to the 'proposed ameiidffients: He said the MWMC would be' willingto withdraw the
materials to facilitate a vote this eyening. '
"
In response to ,a question from Commissioner Bey~, Ms., Kieran reviewed the schedule fora decision by
public officials. Ms. Susie Smith noted thaI the MWMC,consultants ,CH2MHiIl were in altendance to
respcmd to questions, '
, I
Commissioner Carpenter, seconded by Commissioner Beyer, moved to postpone a
decision until JU'1e 1, 2004, to enable the Planning Commission time to review the/ull
record, Hefurther moved, seconded by CommissioneiBtyer, thaUhe item be theftrst
on the agenda, to meet the schedules of other agencies. The motion passed 3:1:1 with
" '. '
Commissioner Shaver opposed'tIndCommissioner Cross,abstaining.
~""':.c'Vrf...:y~."r:,)f'};~{~"":~""l'r~. +:'
,;;;;! ",JI-;,"~ ,',--l ,.,,,,..J';\;\ '"
. . " - ,,' '-'" ~.. .
MINUTES-Springfield .J:'lanning Commission"
" ""....,,\..J.
, ' Regular, Session '
"1, 11:~.~{ ;:? " , '~f.i.4~. il !; 't lQ-/f ()1
. ." ".~ ' r:...'<';;, ~M~ "P., ,\ Ii
May 18, 2004
Date Received
Page 10
, MAY 1 8, D~ '
Planner: BJ
'"
,t- ,~~~~~ .
7. BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
Mr. Grile said he had nothing to report.
8. BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
This item was not addressed.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Moe adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
,
.f:
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
M:\2004\CITY OF SPRlNGFIELD\PLANNING COMMISSION\CSPCRS040504.DOC
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
Regular Session
~
May 18,2004
Date Received
,MAY'1f'll1 J 0 ~
Planner: BJ