Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 6/1/2004 -\' ~ Minutes approved by the Springfield Planning Commission: July 7, 2004 MINUTES Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session City Council Chamber 225 Fifth Street, Springfield June I, 2004 7 p.m. PRESENT: Steve Moe, Chair; Gayle Decker, Lee Beyer, Greg Shaver, Frank Cross, David Cole, members; City-. Attorney Joe Leahy; Mel Oberst, Greg Mott, Bill Grile, Sarah Summers, Springfield staff; Art Paz, Archi- tect. ABSENT: Bill Carpenter, member. Commissioner Moe called the meeting to order. . 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE I Those present recited the pledge of allegiance. 2. REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Leahy reported that the City and Willamalane Park and Recreation District were participating in discussions with the owners of the Gray property and potential developers to assure preservation of the ridgeline and forest land and enhancement of cons~rvation easements if the property is developed. 3. BUSINESS FROM TH~ AUDIENCE There was no one wishing to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINU.US . Commissioner Shaver nwved, seconded by Commissioner Cross, to approve the minutes of the May 4, 2004, work session and May 4,2004, regular session as written. The motion passed, 5:0; Commis- sioner Beyer abstaining. Commissioner Shaver pointed out that his motion in the May IS, 2004, regular session regarding interpretation of the setback for garages in .the Springfield Development Code l6.110(4)(b)(4) was shown as passing by a vote of 3:2 when it actually failed.by a vote of 3:2, Commissioners Shaver and Beyer voting in favor. Commissioner Shaver moved, seconded by Commissioner Beyer, to approve the minutes of the May 18, 2004, work sessiOn as written and the minutes of the May 18, 2004, regular session with the exception of the vote recorded for Commissioner Shaver's second nwtion regarding Variance Request 10. No. ZON20~~-00002. The motion passed, 4:0; Commissioners Cole and Decker abstaining. MINUTE&.:-Springfield Planning,Commission June I, 2004 Date Received JUN 0 1 16i Planner~e BJ 5. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING a. Variance Jo. No.'ZON2004-0000S Mr. Oberst statoo that this was a quasi-judicial public hearing on a variance and asked that those speaking to the issue address the criteria of approval with sufficient specificity that their concerns could be under- stood and addressed, He noted that issues not raised during the hearing could not be raised at a later on appeal. He recited the criteria for approval of a variance. Commissioner Moo opened the public hearing, He requested commissioners to declare any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. There were none. Ms: Summers described the request for a variance to Multi-Unit Design Standards, specifically building orientation. She,reviewed the findings in the staff report that addressed the five approval criteria thatap- plied to the request and summarized that staff found the variance request of minimal effect on the neighbor- hood because the size and shape of the lot limited placement possibilities if maximum density was to be met. She said the two three-plex buildings met maximum density and the proposed layout of parking in front of the building would not detract from the aesthetics of the area because neighboring properties had a similar design. She said that staff recommended approval of the variance request as submitted. Commissioner Shaver expressed his appreciation for the inclusion of variance criteria in the staff report. He asked if the recommendation for approval was a close call. Ms. Summers said only in the area of meet- ing maximum density, which was encouraged by the Springfield Development Code and the Metro Plan; however, minimum density could be achieved and building orientation requirements met if only one triplex was placed on th~ property. She said the proposed placement was the only way to meet maximum density and provide open space and because the site was it narrow infilllot, the request met all of the requirements and intent of the Multi-Unit Design Standards. Art Paz, 86950 Cedar Flat Road, Springfield, referred to Commissioner Shaver's question regarding ap- proval as crucial.,' He said that infilllots were going to beCome more common than greenfield sites and the narrow, irregular shape ofinfilllots would make it difficult to meet the list of requirements from the multi- use standards and the end result was that developers would look at the easiest way to develop the she. He said that the project maximized density in consideration of urban growth boundary (UGB) issues and that. the UGB would have to be expanded ifthecommission did not apply discretionary decision-making. .Mr. Paz respondJd to several items in the staff report and findings. He said th~t finding 4 referred to two easements on the;site, when in reality there were three, including a five-foot utility easement on the west side. The site had easements on the north, ease, and west sides, plus a utility easement in the street, and the lot was quite co~.trained, He said that while finding 12 noted that the proposal met or exceeded all other Multi-Unit Desigil Standards, in addition the project would need to meet air and water quality require- ments, which affected how the buildings were designed and placed on the site. He stated that fmding 17 only indicated that the layout provided for open space aod did not adequately identity that the open space was usable. He described how the project's open space was designed for daily interaction of residents. He concluded his comments with the observation that all infilllots would have similar issues. There being no one else wishing to speak, Commissioner Moo closed the public hearing. i Commissioner Beyer moved, seconded by Commissioner Decker, to approve the variance based on the findings of fact presented in the staff report and augmented by the applicant. The mo- tion pass~d, 6:0. . . Date Received 6. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING JUN 0 l(O~ a. Continuation from May 18, 2004 - Metro Plan, Public Facilities and Services Plan M M . edth.. ta. f'-" . th ..., M. I. 8 2004PI~nri.er~d BJ r. ott reVIew ~ presen tlon 0 huonnatlon at e comrrusslOn s ay, , regu"tar sessIon an postponement of deliberations and decision until June I. He emphasized the need to take action in accordance MlNUTE~Springfield Planning Commission 'I June}, 2004 Page 2 with the requirement~ of the administrative rule that specified content of the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) and said that changes to the PFSP also required changes to the Metro Plan for consistency. In response to a queStion frornCommissioner Shaver, Mr. Mott explained that two ordinances would be pre- sented to the elected officials; one ordinance would amend the Metro Plan and one ordinance would amend tlie PFSP and the commission was asked to provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the ordinances should be adopted: . .. Commissioner Shaver moved, seconded by Commissioner Beyer, to forward a recommendation to the city Council to pass the ordinance to 'amend the Public Facilities and Services Plan and II the ordinance to amend the Metro Plan. Commissioner Beyer thanked staff for the opportunity to review the additional materials provided at the May 18, 2004, meeting and he hac! no concerns. Commissioner Decker said tha.t based on the infonnation she had reviewed she saw no barrier to approval; how- ever, she was not at the hearing and would abstain from voting on the motion. Commissioners Cole and Cross said they would also abstain fram voting on the matian. The motion passed, 3:0; Commissioners Decker, Cole, and Cross abstaining. Cammissioner Shaver adyised that it was permissible ta vote an a matter that had been deliberated at a previaus meeting if a cammissianer wha was absent fram that meeting listened to the meeting tape. 7. BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR There was no business fram the Develapment Services Directar. 8. BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION Cammissianer Shaver suggested that perhaps it was time ta cansider amendments ta same of the design standards relative to recent issues before the commission. He said one of the standards related to building aver the top .of a garage when the garage was an integral part of the structure and the requirement that the garage face be four feet back from the rest of the building face. He said anather issue related to narrow infilllats and suggested that if other criteria were met, the facing of the building to the street might not be necessary. He described a lot that had a street frontage of 100 feet or less and an aspect ration of2:1 or greater as an example .of a situatian in which flexibility should be considered. He,said that greater flexibility could reduce the number .of applications that needed to come before.the commission. Mr. Leahy stated thai variance I~w made it extremely difficult to .obtain a variance with the exisiing criteria if the staff did not recommend it, the commissian did not apprave it, or a neighbor objected. He. said the variance deci- sion made earlier in 'the meeting was based in part on the contentian that maximum density cauld riot be attained without a variance. He said that case law should be researched and if attaining maximum density was a factor the cammission wanted to col)Sider, it could be included as a criterion instead of being addressed an an ad hoc basis with each request. .: Cammissioner Beyer said it appeared there was a palicy canflict between design standards and the larger metropoli- tan goal of achieving greater density. Mr. Leahy said the issue ~auld a:ri~e more frequently as available lots prese~ted ~~JYe~gpment. Commissianer Decker carrtmented thatthe cammission would need ta be mare cancemJltbltdl ctlmsity as land be- MINUTE8---Springfield PlanningiCommission June 1,2004 Planftet BJ came less available. Commissioner Beyer remarked that he was in favor of having set standards and an alternative option that was sug- gested at an earlier meeting. Mr. Grile agreed with Mr. Leahy that variances were the most difficult type of application to sUstain when chal- lenged. He said that staff would welcome the opportunity to take a global look at development standards and de- termine with the commission if they were still contemporary. He expressed concern that the request for a variance just approved, which Commissioner. Shaver had characterized as a "no brainer," had been received on March 26, 2004, and waited nine w~ks for a decision by the commission. He said that staff could develop a process that would sort out applications that did not need to come before the commission for a public hearing and still protect due process and notificatjon to interested parties while making the decision administratively. He.said the process could allow the commission to review any decision made by staff at its discretion. He said the issue was not just about being friendly to development, but also about the cost to the applicant, the community, and the City. Commissioner Beyer related that when the development code was established in the mid-1980s the intent was to al- . low staff more discretion' on applications and provide an opportunity for citizens to challenge decisions. He added that he had faith in the staff's ability to make the right decision consistent with community interests. Mr. Grile re- plied that staff could make administrative decisions as long as an opportunity for an appeal and hearing was pro- vided. . . Commissioner Shaver said he would support the concept as long as any member of the Planning Commission could bring forward to the commission any decision made by staff. Commissioner Decker expressed the opinion that the commission should be dealing with larger issues and weigh the costs to the community when an application required commission approval. Mr. Grile remarked that the type of applications for which only the applicant and a paid consultant attended the public hearing should be considered for administrative action with staff granted the discretion to determine if a " hearing was necessary. Commissioner Beyer asked if an applicant could appeal an administrative decision without paying a fee. Mr. Grile said that the process could provide for that, but he would not recommend it. He indicated that any decision could be appealed. Mr. Leahy iidded that he believed the process currently allowed for a refund of the fee if the applicant prevailed in an appeal. Ii Commissioner Cross asked how the public would have input on an application if it was handled administratively. Mr. Grile replied that notice was provided at the beginning of the process that an application was being handled administratively and solicited concerns before a decision was made. He said an alternative method was to notifY surrounding property owners when a decision had been made and provide an opportunity for appeal. Mr. Leahy provided the caveat that someone outside of the notice area could also appeal, but was unlikely to know of the decision until after the appeal period had expired. He said that appeals of administrative decisions would be made to the commission. He indicated that the commission could be placed on the notice list for administrative de- cisions and have standing to raise concerns. . I In response to a question from Commissioner Cross, Mr. Grile said that staff would develop ideas on how to pro- ceed with a review of the development code. Commissioner Shaver suggested that when multiple hearings where scheduled during a mecDatesRsGEjL\~d . the most presence of paid ~taff should be held frrst in order to release staff early and save money. . . . " ... JUN 0 I, O~ I . Mr. Leahy observed that the taxpayers in the audience who attended for a particular issue should also be MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission . . June I, 2004 . . Ii>Janner: BJ considered. Commissioner Beyer cautioned that once the agenda was printed the commission should adhere to the order. . . , , . Mr. Oberst said that he would review how the agenda was structured. He pointed out that staff who attended hearings were salaried exempt staff and not paid additionally for attending meetings outside of regular business hours. . \. 9. ADJOURN REGULAR The meet adjourned at 7 :50 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) M: \20041City of SpringfieldlPlanning C ommissionlcspcrs04060 I. doc I MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission - . -. " , Date Received JUN 0 1( 01 Planner~ BJ June I, 2004 Page 5 :+. ., ....,. .- t""'-" !"'-' .." Of;' -, I BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD I REQUEST FOR ~MENDMENT OF THE ] PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN ] , TEXT, TABLES, MAP AND ADD A NEW. ] CHAPTER VI AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN ] FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL 1 RECOMMENDATION i 10. NO. LRP 2004-00001 MWMC, APPLICANT Nature of the Application I ,I An amendment to,the Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP), modifying text preceding existing Table 3; insert new Tables 4a and 4b at page 28; modify Map 2; in~ert new Map 2a; modify Chapter IV Wastewater System Condition Assessment; modify text of "Long-term Service Availability Within Urbanizable Areas;" add Table 16a; an4 add new Chapter VI. Amendments to thePIan. 'I 1. The Springfield City Council initiated the following PFSP text and map amendments on February 17,2004: " Amendmdts to the Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan I (PFSP) Te~t and Maps. . " 2.' The appliciltion conforms to the provisions of Section 3.050 of the Springfield Develop1l1ent Code.. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section t14.030 of the Springfield Development Code was mailed on April I, 2004 to int;erested parties, and the same notice was published in the Springfield NEWS and Eugene Register Guard on March 31,2004. :1. I 3. On April 20, 2004 a public hearing on this proposed PFSP text and'map .. amendme~t was conducted by the planning commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane eounty. The Development Services Department staff notes, including findings of compliance with the Metro Plan, applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Oregon Administrative Rules, together with the testimony and submittals of the applidnt and other persons testifying at the hearing or in writing, have been . considered; and is part ofthe record of this proceeding. .. I Conclusion I On'the basis ofthis record, the requestedPFSP text and map amendments are consistent with the criteria of approval of the Springfield Development Code, Section 7.070, and OAR 660-011-0000 through 0060. This general finding is supported by the specific findings offact an4 conclusions in Exhibit A attached hereto. Date Received JUN 0 I, o~ Planner: BJ \": . . ., c;; J. ''J.'', " . Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED by the Springfield Planning Commission that Journal Number LRP 2004-0000 I, PFSP text and map amendments, be approved by the .springfield City Council. This RECOMMENDA nON was presented to and ~roved by the Planning Commission on ~ the 1 . 2004 ~ .' . .~--.~J1~" Planning Commission' Chairperson ATTEST: AYES: 17 NAYS: ABSENT: I ABSTAIN: 'h \ Date Received JtJN 01, o~ Planner: BJ ..:. " j ~ '.' ;: -. -, (' ; BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD REQUEST FOR METRO PLAN TEXT ] AMENDMENT, CHAPTER lII-G PUBLIC ] FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT AND ] CHAPTER V GLOSSARY, FINDINGS, ] , . CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL ] RECOMMENDATION ] JO. NO. LRP 2004-00001 MWMC, APPLICANT Nature ofthe Application An amendment to the Metro Plan text, Chapter lII-G modifying the introductory text; modifying Policy 9.2; modifying Finding 6; modifying Policy G.3; inserting new heading "Services ,to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary;" adding new Findings II and 12; adding new Policy G.9; and modifying Chapter V Glossary by modifying the definition of Public Facilities Projects. The purpose of these amendments is to accurately describe the.role ofthe Metropolitan Waste Water Commission and expand the definition of Wastewater. I. The Springfield City Council initiated the following Metro Plan text amendment on February 17,2004: Amendme,its to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Chapter III, SectiOlI, G. Public Facilities and Services Element and Chapter V GlossGly. 2. The application conforms to the provisions of Section 3.050 of the Springfield Development Code. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section '14.030 of the Springfield Development Code was mailed on April I, 2004 to interested parties, and the same notice was published in the Springfield NEWS and Eugene Register Guard on March 31,2004. 3. On April 20, 2004 a public hearing on this proposed Metro Plan text amendment was conduCted by the planning commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County. The Development Services Department staff notes, including findings of complianc~ with the Metro Plan, applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Oregon . Administrritive Rules, together with the testimony and submittals of the applicant and other persons testifying at the hearing or in writing, have been considered and is part of the record of this proceeding. Conclusion On the basis ofthis record, the requested Metro Plan t~xt amendments to Chapter IIl-G Public Facilities arid Services Element, and Chapter V Glossary, of the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, are consistent with the criteria ofaPTIate Received JUN 0 1 IO~ Planner: BJ . ., of the Springfield Development Code, Section 7.070, and OAR 660-011-0000 through 0060. This general finding is supported by the specific findings offact and conclusions in Exhibit A attached hereto. " Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED by the Springfield Planning Commission that Journal Number LRP 2004~00001, Metro Plan text amendment, be approved by the Springfield City Council. This RECOMMENDATION was presented to and ap roved by the Planning Commission on:.-1tttL/ the I ,2004. . :U. ~ ~ Planning Commission Chairperson A TrEST: AYES: 1] NAYS: ABSENT: 'I ABSTAIN: '*; Date Received JUN 0 1,6~ Planner: BJ