Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting CMO 7/2/2007 City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINlJTES OF TIIE REGULAR MEETING OF TIIE SPRINGFIELD CIlY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JULY 2, 2007 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Coun~i1Meeting Room, 225 FiftIi Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 18, 2007 at 7:02 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ' ATTENDANCE , Present were Mayor Leiken and CouncilorsLundberg,~.Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow arid Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Matt Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken. Mayor Leiken reminded everyone to v~te for Springfield, Oregon for the Simpson's Movie Premiere Contest. -' SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT CONSENT CALENDAR IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITHITEM 3.B ' REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. June 18,2007 - Work Session b. June 18, 2007 - Regular Meeting 3. Resolutions' a. RESOLlmON NO. 07-30 - A RESOLUTION OF TIIE CIlY OF SPRINGFIElD AMENDING AND RESTATING TIIE CIlY OF SPRINGFIELD. OREGON RETIREMENT PLAN~ . b. , Removed 4. 'Ordinances ()a1e R_' 1/ ~ a7 Planner: DR (c5 ,"" /~~ ., ~l' . _11/1 ut::-J , f ",' , ., . 5. ,Other Routine Matters 1/ City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 2,2007 Page 2 a. Award the Subject Contract to Brown Construction in the Amouni of$196,328.80 for Project P20524, Olympic Street Restriping. ' , ' b. A ward the Subject Contract to Brown Contracting, Inc. in the Amount of $416,490.00 for Project P20526, Martin Luther King Parkway Barrier Rail. c. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the Contract with URS Corporation for the Storm water Facility Master Plan Contract P50281. d. Accept the Bid from Clyde West Equipment for Purchase of One (I) Vibratory Roller in the Amount of$32,475. ' ITEMS REMOVED Mayor Leiken recused himse1ffrom.item 3.b. as he had a personal involvement inthe development. 3. b.' RESOLUTION NO. 07-31, - A RESOLUTION TO Ar.CEPTPF,!l~T~l'R<:)JECT ' P30408: CLEAR VUE ESTATES IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE ITEM 3.B FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. , PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may' not yield their time to others. 1. Vacation of One Block Segment ofB Street Public Right-of-Way Between 41h Street and Pioneer Parkway East, Case No, LRP2007-000 1 9.' ORDINANCE NO.1 - AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 66 FOOT WIDE BY 264 FOOT LONG PORTION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOWN IN BOOK 1. PAGE I OF PLAT RECORDS OF LANE COUNTY_ OREGON . DATED APRIL 5_ 1872., City Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. On May 7, 2007, City Council initiated an action to vacate public right-of-way for the segment of B Street between 41h Street and Pioneer Parkway East to facilitate development of a secure police parking lot and ancillary ,building serving the Springfield Justice Center. On February 28, 2006, the Springfield City Councii considered four site options for the Justice Center project. The site option selected by the City Council utilizes City-owned property which is located between 41h Street and Pioneer Parkway East, and which extends from A Street to the mid-block alley north ofB Street. The selected site option incorporates a one-block segment oEB Street right-of-way into the development area for use as a secure police parking lot, and a building pad for an ancillary building serving the Justice Center.' , , The subject right-of-way is a 66-foot wide by 264-foot long segment of public street ruiming east- west along the northern edge of the existing police and courts parking lot. The City oWns all abutting tax lots that have frontage on the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June 5 and 19, 2007, and adopted a' City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 3 recommendation in support of the proposed vacation at the Public Hearing meeting on June 19, 2007: Nine people presented testimony at the public hearing before the Planning Commission. Seven of those nine provided verbal testimony in support of the vacation, two provided written , testimony in opposition to the vacation and one individual provided verbal testimony in addition to his written testimony in opposition of the vacation.' ' Mr. Limbird noted that the approved Justice Center site plan could be constructed without the vacation of this portion ofB Street. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. Mayor Leiken asked if any of the Councilors had a conflict of interest or exparte contact. Councilor Woodrow said he wason the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAe) for the Justice Center. Councilors and Lundberg did not have any conflict or exparte contact to declare. Councilor Ballew observed that the current temporary closure of that section ofB Street for construction was inconvenient, interrupted a collector street, and interfered with access to the river. Mr. Leahy spoke regarding the Quasi-judicial hearing. He' said criteria were set forth in the staff report. Speakers should address their comments to that criteria and if they had specific comments for or against this land use request, they should address their comments with sufficient particularity or specificity so Council could consider them in relationship to the criteria. If speakers wished to raise concerns about the substance or legality of this. they should do so with sufficient specificity so it was in the record. If speakers had concerns about this action that they planned to file an appeal about, they needed to state their concerns sufficiently so that they could , be identified and addressed. If a speaker failed to raise a particular matter through the public record with the Planning Commissioo or through public testimony, and it wasn't raised tonight, the speaker may be precluded from filing an appeal on the basis of a particular concern, alleged irregularity or illegality. Those concerns needed to be put into the record so the Council could address those and think about them. If anyone wished the record to remain open, they had an , opportunity to do so by request. ' Councilor Pishioneri said he also attended the CAC meetings and public information gath~rings during the process for the design phase. That would not sway his judgment in either direction. Councilor Ballew ~aid the case made for a greaier public use to vacate' B Street was not demonstrated to her. Mr. Leahy said the purpose of Council declaring their observations was to let those testifying , know before they testified. ' 1. Scott Olson. ] 127 B Street. Snrinefield. OR. Mr. Olson said he had two requests tonight. He hoped Council would drop this effort, but if not he would expect to be appealing this decision , to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). He asked that the record remain open for the submittal of additional materials supporting his objections. He said lie would demonstrate that City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 4 the City had constrained the ability of the public to affect the initial decision to build in the street and was requesting that the minutes and public process records for the following City decisions related to the Justice Center be added to the record for this decision: I) the basis for the bond measure funding level (was it an acceptable taxing level or was it based on a functional space requirement); 2) the functional space planning process; 3) the,alternatives, development and selection process; 4) code change that allowed the Justice Center as an allowed use in the zone; 5) the zone change; 6) the discretionary use approval; and 7) the site plan review. Mr. Olson said he was not opposed to this project, although that is the manner in which staff had characterized his complaints. He remained steadfastly committed to preventing the vac'ation ofB Street. He said his objections were primarily founded in his belief that the integrity of the street grid and the functional continuity of the collector and arterial street system was the foundation upon which great communities were created. He said he had worked over the last fifty years to make the Oregon land use system meaningful. The City could have both the Justice Center and the downtown planned and envisioned. The Justice Center would be a desirnble addition to the neighborhood; however, it must be built within the greater planning context. In his opinion, the manner in which the City had stifled ,consideration of viable alternatives and manipulated the land use approval process had significantly weakened the City's position upon appeal. The problem was that well- intentioned people saw the closure of the street as a relatively minor thing and the lowest cost way to build the most Justice Center. They were not correctly informed or did not accept the, fact that Springfield's rules, aka the land use impediment, would not accommodate the street closure. A thinly veiled effort to insert alternative criteria in the Code to allow the street vacation in spite of the Comprehensive Plan policies, the Transportation System Plan, the Downtown Refinement Plan and other specific Code criteria related to block links and street connectivity. The City had failed to provide any balance and consideration of the issue <if street closure. The applications had been incomplete and inadequate for all of the land use decisions. This put the burdcn on the review staff to develop all of the supporting arguments.' It was disappointing that all of the Development Services review comments throughout this process were supportive of the street closure and tend to be argumentative against any issues that were raised questioning the wisdom of doing so..In the end, he believed that would work against the City. He recommended Council drop the misguided effort now and get on with spending the rest of the funds on building a great facility and leave the street to all citizens. A. LUBA appeal would be expensive and he found no personal satisfaction in carrying this matter out. He was doing this because he felt it was, the best thing for Springfield. He suggested putting the secure parking across the street where it belonged, designating the on street parking adjacent to the building for Police and Court use and get on with it. ' 2. Steve Sinoleton. 252 North 65" Street. Snrinofield. OR. Mr. Singleton served as the Chairman of the Police Planning Task Force'(PPTF) and as Vice Chair of the CAC that was fonned to consider all of the options for the Justice Center. He reiterated four points that Police Chief Smith had already said. As a PPTF member and in his position on the CAC, these points stood for him and for his decision to stand in'support of this closure: 1) Security, functionality and control were the three main issues involved. Regardless to what those 'opposed say, any Justice Center facility that was split was going to greatly hinder security, traffic, safety and functionality.,If the building needed to be evacuated, where would the , Police go to control prisoners? Part ofthe enclosure of having it all on one site allowed that to . be done and also provided security for the employees; 2) Secure fleet and employee parking was a problem; 3) Safety for Police officers and other citizens was also a problem. The property would remain in the, public trust no matter what happened in,the future. Down the ' , City of Springfield , Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 5 ' road it would not be sold for private Use. It was being closed for the pwpose of creating a Justice Center. The people of Springfield had spoken. There were many, many options and plans for the building. "This was not adopted haphazardly or by a misinfoitned group. The CAC was well informed throughout the process. People of Springfield spoke loud and clear twice - one to fund the construction of the building and one to fund the function of the center. It would not be in'good faith or the public interest to incur the added expense ofmajor cbanges to the project at this late date or send everything back to the drawing board, which would occur. The resuJt in security and effective usefulness of this entire project, in his mind, far 'outweighed the inconvenience of an added few seconds of drive time. He noted that downtown Eugene had opened and closed their through streets in that area severaJ times over the years and people adjusted. He said the roundabouts put in throughout Springfield, including the first one in his Thurston neighborhood, were met with skepticism, but had turned out to be the greatest thing that happened to Thurston. At best, the traffic closure and reroute would be a minor inconvenience. Please compare that to the major changes that would have to be undertaken if Council were to deny this closure; changes to a plan that was discussed at great length, and agreed to and voted on by a majority of the CAC and the people of Springfield. He said he believed everyone dreamed of a new revitalized downtown Springfield and the Justice Center was a giant step in that direction. Unfortunately. nothing new or nothing changed came without some cost. If a few seconds of drive time is the cost, he was willing to pay that. Mayor Leiken noted that Mi. Olson had requested that the record be left open. 'Mr. Leahy said per that request, the record needed to remain open for at least seven days. During that time, information would likely be added to the record so there should be an opportunity for 'the staff to review it after the seven days and submit information in response. Mr. Leahy asked about the upcoming Council agenda scheduJe. He asked staff how much time they would need for' their response. The Planning Director indicated that staff could provide a response in one day. The record would remain open unti15:00pm JuJy 9, with staff response by July 11. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO HOLD THE RECORD OPEN UNTIL 5:00PM ON JULY 9 WITH A TWO DAY REBUTTAL PERIOD FOR STAFF IF NEEDED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. NO ACTION REQUESTED ON TIIE ORDINANCE. FIRST READING ONLY. 2. Proposed Amendments to Article 26 - Hillside Development Overlay District Extending the Potential Use of Density Transfer (Cluster Development).' ORDINANCE NO.2 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 26mO, 26,050 (INCLUDING TABLE 26-1) AND 26,070 Of.,;.\RTICLE 26"!ID HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT' OF THe, srRlNGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO EXPAND THE APPLICATION OF "DENSITY TRANSFER" TO M~ , MORE EFFICIENT USE OF REMAINING BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL LANDS~ REOUIRING DEVELOPERS TO PAY FOR PEER REVIEW OF TECHNICAL STdDW!': REOUIRED FOR IllLLSIDE DEVELOPMENT: AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, , , , :' City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 6 Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. Development standards currently allow a "density transfer" from steep slopes to areas of lesser slope on south' facing hillsides in exchange for the preservation of the steep slopes. At issue is whether to extend the density transfer provision to north, west and east facing slopes. The proposed changes to Article 26 include: I) various changes needed to implement an extension of density tra.llsfer to all-facing hillsides with a slope of 15 to 25%; 2) aJ10wing "average slope" to be used when caJculating the number of units eligible for density transfer; and, 3) the addition of a requirement in the Development Code that the developer pay for "peer review" of the sophisticated geotechnical and engineering anaJysis by a consultant of the City's choice for hillside development in order to ensure safe development and stable slopes. ' Density transfer is proposed for use in the Heritage Park development (Gray-Jaqua property in South Thurston Hills) on a north-facing hillside to,allow an exchange of higher density development on lower slopes and the preservation of the upper slopes for park land. The pre-, development agreement signed by the City with the developer of the Gray-Jaqua property includes a provision allowing consideration of a density transfer on the north facing slope of the property, provided that such density transfer is consistent with the City's development code and land use regulations. Other developments are being considered in the Thurston Hills that would benefit from an expanded application of density transfer to north, east and west facing slopes, In work session on Ju~e 25th, Council requested a table showing the relationship between percent of slope and degree of slope. Attachment 4 includes a conversion table showing percent slope and degrees of slope. Additional infonnationand illustrations are contained in the attachment describing grading and siting practices for hillside development. The Planning Commission met three times between February and Apri12007, to evaluate the safety and prudence of aJlowing the proposed expansion of density transfers and voted unanimously to approve the proposed changes. Minutes of those meetings and submitted testimony are found in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3. Councilor Ralston a~ked about a conversion table regarding percent to slope. Mr. Metzger said it was included as Attachment 4 in the agenda packet. ,\ , Councilor Ballew asked if staff could look back to see why the density transfer was originally only allowed on south facing slopes. , Mr. Metzger said considerable research was done on that condition. Initially, there was no ,answer, so staff considered if there was anything unsafe about building on south facing slopes, but there was not. The Development Services Department (DSD) staff joined the Public Works , (PW) staff and it was reported that there was speculation that the south facing slope issues related to solar access issues. The authorization that Council would be approving would not waive any solar access standards, engineeririg design standards, or other building standards. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to spcak. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 7 Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. NO ACTION REQuEsTED. FIRST READING ONLY. '3. Concurrent Metro Plan/Refmement Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Regarding Property Near 44th and Main Street. ' ORDINANCE NO.3 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIm METRO PLAN DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 5.24 ACRES OF LAND. IDENTIFIED AS LANE COUNTY ASSESOR'S MAP 17-02-32-00. TAX LOTS 400 & 402 FROM LIGHT MEDTUM INDUSTRIAL !LMD. TO COMMERCIAL WITH AN AUTOMATIC REDESIGNATION TO THE EAST MAIN REFINEMENT PLAN FROM LMI TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ICC). ORDINANCE NO.4 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIm SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 5.24 ACRES OF LAND IDENTIFIED AS LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP 17-02-32-00. TAX LOTS 400 & 402. FROM LIGHT MEDTUM INDUSTRIAL !LMI) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ICe), City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The applicant requests approval of aMetro Plan I Refmement Plan Map Amendment to the East Main Refmement Plan and a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment. The request involves two parcels, and is located on approximately 5,24 acres identified as Tax Lots 400 and 402 on Assessor's Map No. 17-02-32- 00. Specifically, the applicant proposes to change the Metro Plan designation from Light Medium Industrial (LMI) to Co=ercial and a concurrent Refmement Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment from LMI to CC. The applicant seeks approval ofthese applications in order to facilitate development of a future Medical Office building on the site. On June 5th, 2007, the Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on the subject applications (LRP2007-00013 & ZON2007-00012). One citizen, Nancy Falk, testified in opposition to the proposal at the first public hearing and requested that the record be left open for seven days. The Planning Co=ission granted the request and instructed Staff to leave the record open until Tuesday, June 12th, 2007. Staff received one written testimony from Lauri Segel, Goal One Coalition Planner, on June 12th, 2007. A written rebuttal to Ms. Segel's letter was then ' submitted by the applicant the following day, June 13th, 2007. Both letters were received within 'the specified deadlines as noted in the Planning Commission public hearing on June 5th, 2007. The original Staff Report and exhibits are attached for Council's review. . After reviewing all oral and written testimony, the Planning Co=ission deliberated on the applications on June 19th, 2007, and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that both ' ,applications be sent to the City Council for consideration and approval. Mr. Reesor noted that the applications had been duly noticed in the newspaper to the' general public, neighboring residents and Department of Land Conservation and Development (OLCD). . The applicant referenced the 1992 Buildable Lands Study and the 2000 COmmercial Lands Study to support their proposal. Staff and ODOT had, reviewed the traffic concerns since ODOT had ' jurisdiction of Main Street. One condition of approval was reco=ended for a trip cap. Written co=ents received during the extended period oftime the record was open, as well as the rebuttal from the applicant, were included in the agenda packet. ' " City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 8 Mr. Leahy asked Mayor Leiken to ask Council for any bias or ex parte contact. Mayor Leiken asked Council to disclose ,any bias or exparte contact. Mayor Leiken and Councilors Wylie, Pishioneri, Woodroow, Lundberg and Ralston had none. Councilor Ballew said she spoke with Philip Farrington to ask about the nature of the building. Mr. Leahy reviewed the quasi-judicial process for this public hearing. Speakers were advised to direct their comments to the criteria, because those would have an affect on the Council's ' decision making. Speaker!; needed to speak with enough specificity or particularity so the Council could understand the speaker's concerns aiJd consider them. If the speaker failed to bring matters to the Council's attention with enough specificity and particularity, 'they may waive those on any subsequent appeal to LUBA. If anyone requested the record remain open, Council would be " required to'leave the record open for at least seven days. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. 1. Philio Farrinlrton. PeaceHea1th. 123 International Wav. Sorinlriield. OR. Mr. Farrington said , this application was presented on their behalf for the larger parcel so they could have the entitlement to construct a future medical building. He said their model would include more consolidated offerings in one location that militated fmding a bigger site. It had been a challenge to do that to serve the growing needs of the Springfield area. This site seemed to be suitable to develop a clinic similar to their Barger Clinic. The application would give PeaceHealth the entitlement to build this clinic, which was not currently allowed in the Industrial Zone. It would also allow the neighboring property to get out of nonconforming status. The application demonstrated that there was a surplus ofLMI property, there was a deficit of needed commercial land as expressed in the Springfield Commercial Lands Inventory, and the clinical use must be located in a commercially zo~ed parcel. Other sites in , east Springfield would have required rezoning much needed residential property Approval of ' this application would allow for long-standing commercial uses on the smaller parcel to no longer be nonconforming and allow for employment generating uses on the bigger parcel that were needed to serve this east Springfield area. Those employment opportunities would pay higher incomes than the traditional industrial uses that had been on this site and would result in a higher employment density than the industrial uses. The application demonstrated that Goal 12 had been met by imposition of a trip cap to limit traffic from future commercial, uses to that which would be no higher than the worse case scenario for the existing industrial zoning. The application met Goal 9 standards by complying with the Springfield Commercial Lands Study's policies and the Metro Plan's policies without debiting the inventory of needed industrial land. Ibis proposal fulfilled four of Council's goals: by utilizing resources efficiently to meet the needs of citizens by providing these needed services; maintaining the transportation infrastructure through the trip cap; facilitating redevelopment of Springfield; and enhancing the economy through the commercial development of this proposal. 2. 'John Hv1and. 89006 White Water Road: Sorin"fie1d. OR. Mr. Hyland said he was the current owner of the subject property and owned the Hyland Business Parle to the east of the property. Rezoning this property to commercial for the clinic would enhance the area, and that was nceded. He strongly recommended approval of this application. He'said this area , .. City 'of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes , July 2. 2007 Page 9 ,3.. , , was already saturated with business parks and felt the medical dinic would be a better use for this property., Geoffrev Al!Uirre. 4475 Daisv Street #57. Soringfield. OR. Mr. Aguirre said he was a resident living in Springfield and a 3'" year law student at the University of Oregon School of Law. He was speaking on behalf of Goal One Coalition. He noted that Goal One had several procedural concerns about this development. ' ' . First, the proposed plan amendment didn't comply with provisions of the Metro Plan and Springfield's Development Code for the initiation of Metro Plan amendments. Staff ' , failed to require the applicant to address the plan review policies of the Metro Plan and had erred.in finding that the applicant's choice of applicable Metro Plan policies and e1emenlB was sufficient. PeaceHealth Oregon should not have been allowed to propose, the subject plan amendment or zone change. Because they were not the owner of the' subject properties, such a proposal wasincorisistent with the proper initiation of proposed Metro Plan amendmenlB explained in Section 7.010 and 7.030 oftbe Springfield , Development Code. Metro Plan Amendment Policy 4, Initiation of Metropolitan Plan Amendments, estabhshed that a Type 1I amendment inay be initiated at the discretion of anyone of the three governing bodies orby any citizen who owned property that was subject of the proposed amendments. PeaceHealth Oregon was the applicant, but not the owner of the property, thus the initiation of these amendments did not comply with the requirements of the Metro Plan.., ' . ' Second, the applicant incorrectly referred to'the subject properties as being subject to ' Mixed Use Area 2 policies. The subject properties were zoned Light Medium Industrial (LMI). Since the proposed development lot was not within the Mixed Use area, no Mixed Use area arl,'llments were applicable and tbe property was not subject to East Main Refinement Plan (EMRP) Mixed Use Elements Policy2, whicb was specific to Area 2. The policy did not say anything about criteria for rezoning or redesignations, but merely established what uses were allowed under CC zoning in Area 2 only. The EMRP ' defmition of CC neitber allowed nor encapsulated medical facilities, offices, clinics or', hospitals. ' . . Third, the EMRP's co=ercia1 element under criteria for a commercial Refmement Plan designation at I,d, specified that, the CC Refmement Plan designation sball be applied , under the following circumstances - where legally created commercial uses exist: The, tax records for tax lot 402 aid not reflect the three existing businesses 'actually conducting business on tax lot 402. The City staff bad not been able to locate any recent pennits for the three existing businesses; therefore, the three existipg businesses did not appear to be legal and were not legally created comm'ercial uses, " , Mr. Aguirre thanked the Council for their time and the opportunity to speak " 4; Andv Head. 25519 Fleck Road. Veneta. OR: Mr. Head said he was the owner.ofthe property' on the southwest, corner of 4434,4436, and 4440 Main Street. He had owned the property for about three years, but the business had been in eXistence since about 1951. When he purchased the property, there were three businesses locate,j at this site. They were a barbersbop, tanning salon, and a hair barber. He understood these were nonconforming since 1951. The barbershop had been established since 1953, and originally started out as a donut shop. He felt the medical clinic would be a great deal for Main Street on the east side of Springfield. It was beneficial for the surrounding businesses to have a business nearby that ,was comparable or nicer. He noted the assisted living facility that wasjusta,block and a half , away and this would decrease miles traveled for those tenants. He brought some maps . . . ... . ~ . " . " " .,." '. ' '.' -", ., '. -, , "'-" 'I\' J CitY of Springfield, Council Regular Meetiug Minutes July 2, 2007 ' ' Page JO ' showing an aerial view of the structure as it was in 1960. ,The maps were entered into the 'record. Mr. Head said his building had about eleven employees and he 'felt this change could help business improve. ' Mayor Leiken closed the puh1ic hearing. Councilor Pishioneri asked Mr. Farrington about the building and the functions of the proposed building. He asked if there were plans for any type of emergency mitigation in that area, servicing the east side of Springfield. He referred to emergency preparedness. ' - . . . I . Mr. Farrington said probably not. The proposed clinic would house general practitioners, and' other services such as imaging, pharmacy and other ancillary services. , Mr. Leahy reminded Council th~t in maldng their decision, they stay with the criteria. , , , ' Mayor Leik~~ noted that dUring the Work Session itwa. identified that the City had a sUrplus of LMI and a need for CC. ' NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READINGS ONLY: " 4. Conduct a Public Hearing and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Fees in Springfield's Department of Development Services Community Services Division "Building Safety . Codes'~. . 'ORDINANCE NO.,6199 - AN ORDINANCE OFTHE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING ARTICLE 1. TABLE 3-A. STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEES: TABLE 3-B ELECTRICTALPERMIT FEES. TABLE 3-C PLUMBING , PERMIT FEES: TABLE 3-D MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES: TABLE 3-F OTHER INSPECTIONS AND FEES OF THE "SPRINGFIELD BUILDING SAFETY CODE 'ADMINISTRATIVE CODE" OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARlMENT. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION "BUILDING SAFETY CODES" AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, Community Services Manager Dave Puent presented the staff report on this item. The State of Oregon has delegated to the City of Springfield the authority to issue permits and perform inspection services requiredby tbe State Building Code. The City has the ability by statutory,' , authority to adjust permit fees to recover all reasonable operational costs associated with , performing permit and inspection services. " SpringfiOld ha~ not increased Specialty Code permit fees since calendar, year 2001: During this period the Community Services Division has been able to recover all costs associated with, providing permit and inspection services. As a result of the significant increaSe in development activity and the continuing demands for inspection services, two additional'inspector positions were added to FY 08 Base Budget. The cost of the two inspector positions to Fund 224 (a permit and inspection service dedicated fund) is ~yy,v~imately $264,000 including City indirects. ' Although,past permit fee revenue has exceeded 100 percent cost recovery for the last several years, the proposed fee increase is necessary to offset a significant portion of the additional cosi in order to sustain a reasonable reserve account and to maintam effective service levels to the ,development community: ,,' " , " . '" \. " .." II' .. ".. ," < '~. ". ,',r .-., -'~ '.'. / City of Springfield Council Regular MeetiDg Minutes' July 2, 2007 Page 11 , , The proposed fee increase allows the Community Service~ Division to continue to recover all ' costs, as~ociated with providing pennit and inspection services. , . '. . . , The piop~sed fee increase is approximately a 10% increase of existing fees and should generate , an estimated $160,000 to $170,000 of additional revenue at existing construction activity levels., . . ! . . - , Mr. Puent explained that notice was sent around the st~te t~ h,terested parties and no appeal was tiled. No negative comments were received from Mr. Puent. TIlls was the first significant fee increase for building fees since the fall of 200 I. ' Councilor Ballew asked how much revenue this increase would raise. , , ,Mr. Puent said it would bring in between $160,000 to $170,000. Councilor Ballew noted that the estimated costs were over $20P,000. Mr. Puent said that was at current activity levels. They expected to provide some other services "that would bring in additional revenue. TIlls :would he self-supporting. ' . Councilor Pishioneri asked what would happen if our current activity dropped. Mr. Puent said if activity went down, some services couldn't he provided. Mayor Leiken confirmed that the.Ho~eBui1der's Association had been eontacted regarding these increases. Yes. He appreciated that. ' " , " ,?" Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing., ' No one appeared to' speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6199. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A , VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ' , BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE -. ..' 1.' H.P. Oldfield. 5196 Forsvthia Drive. Soriol!field' OR. Mr. Oidfield spoke regarding the , lack of controlof cats in Sp~gfie1d. He would like to see something done about.it. He ' "said it was a daily ritual trying to keep t)J.e cats out of his yard, Some people don't take, care of their cats and he would like to see something done about it. counciior Ralston agreed. He noted the problems of deaIing with cats. He said he would also like io have ,an answer, hut didn't know what it would be. ' : Councilor Pishioneri asked if there were ordinances lh3t limited an)' types of animals at ,residences for health reasons., " , " '. . , ',' " "/.. > 1', ." :.,.: ",:" -",I '.- -:~ 0"-' ".', , .,' " " .- City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 12 .' Mr. Grimaldi said in the past there had been situations where there were nuisances because of , health issues. Those were rare: It'had to be on the site the cats were residing. Councilor Pishiom:ri asked if a resident could call in if they saw fifteen or twenty cats running around another ,residence and if the City had a mechanism to deal with that type of call. Chief Smith said when they had encountered large number of cats, there were he81th issues and potential for cruelty to animals. The City had the ability to use the State law when that was the situation, but it did not limit the number of cats. The City did not have ordinances that restricted cats in any way. <:Councilor Wylie asked about a policy for' wild and feral cats. Chief Smith said the animal control officer didn't de81 ;"ith cats unless there was a health or cruelty, issue. " , Councilor Lundberg Said there was a traveling van thardealt with feral cats twice a year. She had been asked to include this information in the TEAM Springfield newsletter. A low-cost spay and ' :' neuter clinic was put in and that was a starting place to control the numbers. She explained where the clinic was located. She would like to have that publicized as much as possible. Some progres's , had been made,but it was an enormous problem. Councilor Woodrow said Dr, Kelly Rozen was the Veterinarian that had opened up the low-cost .- spay and neuter clinic. There was also a Feral Cat Coalition that could be called. They would come out, trap feral cats, have them spayed or neutered, but would return them because they couldn't displace them somewhere. Another group called SARA worked out of Eugene and helped relocate cats. He agreed with Councilor Lundberg that strides had been made, but with the, set up at Lane County Animal Regulation Authority (LCARA) and the limited resources of the City, help was needed from the citizens that bad cats., ' , Councilor Pishioneri asked about looking at limits per household on cats, not just for health issues. He would like to look at the pros and cons. Mayor Leiken said that would be challenging to enforce. . ..... Councilor Ra1st~nsaid Ille issue was not whether or not they were taken care of, but that they ran ,.- , outside. Limiting the number may not solve the problem. Cats were hard t.o control and the public needed to be educated. There needed to be a consequence for uncontrolled cats.' Councilor Woodrow said part of problem with an' ordinance limiting cats, would only limit those , , that took c,are of their cats. Those with ten or fifteen cats, would not be likely to obey a limit law, ' but may tum them loose; As much as he would like to see something done with feral cats, it wouldn't be consistent with the Goals of this Council to punish those citizens,that did take care of their animals. " " ' ," Councilor Ballew said this issue had been debated often. The effort to do more' neutering ~d' spaying and providing public education was ~ good thing, ,This might be sO!TIething sponsored by r, ..., ,'. ',(I . '\ ~ , " 1f. .... . City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minute~ July 2, 2007 Page 13 TEAM Spruigfield because it was a livability isSue. She suggested putting together a package of livability issues that could be provided to citizens. jt. , Councilor Pishioneri said the difference was that both graffiti and jittering were illegal and there were consequences for those. There weren't any consequence~ for cats. If a pet owner was responSible, they wouldn't draw the attention of enforcement. They couldn't solve this tonight, but he wanted it to be brought up so everyone'was aware. Cound1 needed to do something: , , Councilor Ballew said the City didn't have the fmances for a lot of things and didn't have the resources to enforce anything ai this time: ' COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETmON~ 1. ' CVHc>>,vudence from Craig Enberg, 725 D Street, Springfield, Oregon Regarding the Simpson's Contest. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ACCEPT CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED. WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 'BIDS ", ORDINANCES , BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. 1. Business from Council l~ . a. Committee Reports 1. Councilor Woodrow said he attended the Lane Council of Goverriments (LCOG) meeting for Councilor Pishioneri. At the end oftherneeting, Jane Lee from ODOT asked how'she could help Council's communicate better with ODOT, so that ODOT' , could help negotiate for the cities. There was a discussion oflack oftmst between ',cities and ODOT, and cities with each other. Therewas a suggestion that there should , be better communication. Councilor Woodrow' suggested Mayors getting together .. , once amonth along with a Council member, arid reporting back to the full Council. "Two of the Mayors thought it was a good idea and the other two didn't say. ' 2. Councilor Ballew reported on Lane Workforce Partnership. Annual awards were given for businesses and she thought perhaps Council could think about honoring some Springfield businesses next year. ' , 3. Mayor Leikeo said the Govemorsigned HB3337. The Official Eugene '08 One-Year Kick-off for the Olympic Trials was held last Saturday, There was an offida1 clock, ' " counting down the"days located at the 5" Street Market in Eugene. The Trials start on June 27, 2008 and it would be a special occasion for our area, SOlne of the greatest , ;l athletes in the world would be in our area for about two weeks, Springfield was, '~ .. . ..' ..' '.' ;. .~*. -". ," ',' ,-- I , . .,\.: ;, l' . ~ .' "'. , " _h. '.,,' ".;. ;.' ~' . . <~ ", City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 14 pl~ying an important part in this and Council contributed funds for the efforts. The international scope of the media would be housed in Springfield. ,BUSINESS FROM THE CIlY MANAGER 1., Lane County'Adu1t Work Crew. Assistant Public Works Manager Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. Because of budget reductions at Lane County, the Lane County Sheriff now is able to deploy adults serving their sentence outside of a secure facility by providing manual labor to other agencies. The Public Works Department can take advantage of these services to perform work that is needed but generally not within the priorities of assignments to regular personnel. ' For a number of years the Lane County Sherriff has operated a road crew. Participants in the Road Crew have been convicted of criminal activity but are not incarcerated. These individuals' are sentenced to serve a specified number of days performing general labor, as an alternative to incarceration. As part'ofthe restructuring in anticipation of the loss offederal timber revenues, ,Lane County Public Works has terminated its road crew program, The Sheriff is now exploring opportunities to be able to continue to provide non-custodial supervision of these offenders. The Sherriff will charge $75.00 per houdor services performed by the work crew. , , , City staff have identified a numbe~ of projects. including graffiti removal, alley cleanup and vegetation removal, which could be performed by the crew at a cost far below what would result if regular City staff were u'sed. Public Works Environmental Scrvices Di\~sion staff have also identified a number of projects, general involving vegetation management, that exist at various parts of the regional sanitary system. Money is available ii:t the current budget to fund a modest program which would provide the City and the Regional Sewer System with the equivalent of two days of work each week. Staff recommends that the Council approve the City's participation in the Adult Work Crew , Program by authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute an intergove=ental agreement with Lane County substantially in the form of Attachment B. Mr. Goodwin said the City was now keepinganntia1 costs for this 'contract to $40,000, but would evaluate to see if that amount could be increased at a 1atertime. The road crew would not present'., any security issue and could provide a great service to the City. There were no issues with the > City's collective bargaining group, but AFSCME would like to bargain on the practical impact of this change with the City. City staff would sit down with AFSCME representatives to discuss this ' issue, but didn't feel it would interfere with the contractual relations with AFSCME.. Mayor Leiken said he was personally touched by the factthat Sheriff Burger was present and made positive remarks during the groundbreaking of the Justice Center. Mayor Leiken fe1t,this' contract was a positive thing for our community and a good program. ' ,'" , , CoUncilor Ballew asked if the $75/hour; included sheriff staff. ,Yes, it was the entife cost. She asked if we had in~rance liability for this. ; ..' , ,Mr. Goodwin said the ~ounty assumed all liability. They were self insured. ' .r. . ".' , ,:', .' . City of Springfield ' Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 15 Mr. Leahy said the agreement was in front of Council. He referred to the section that addressed the County's self-insurance program which was available to meet the indemnity requirements. Councilor Pishioneri said he started overseeing the road crew when it first began. They had done a lot of work in our co=unity. The workers worked very hard and showed a lot of pride in what they had done, He had high regard for this program and felt the City would benefit. He said he would recuse himselffromyoting since he was vested in the program, although it wouldn't affect his vote. Councilor Ballew said it sounded like a great deal for the City and a great use of people's time. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR, WOODROW TO APPROVE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LANE COUNTY AUTHORIZING THE LANE COUNTY SHERIFF TO DEPLOY MEMBERS OF THE ADULT WORK CREW TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE MAINTENANCE DIVISION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF S FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 recuscd- Pishioneri) BUSINESS FROM TIIE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT ::'7~::~:: __mo'k', 817 'u vP Sidney Vf. Leikt) Mayor -' Attest: ~~ , City RecJdler .'.'. " , City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION !vll:.!:, 1 iNG OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JULY 2, 2007 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 , Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 6:00 p.m."with Mayor Leiken presiding. ' ' ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff ' Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Matt Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa ahd members of the staff: 1. Choices for Establishin" a DowntoWn Urban Renewal District Attachment 2 provides an analysis of the pros and Cons related to the questions identified in the issue statement above. ' Fall 2007 versns a Spring 2008 election. ,A successful fall election wouJdallow tax increment revenues to begin accruing July I, 2008. A successful spring 2008 election would start the revenue accrual on July 1,2009. Meeting the deadlines for a November election requires a tight schedule that is achievable but leaves less time than a spring election for coordination and communication with the public, and affected taxing bodies. , , . .. . . . Form a new downtown renewal district or expand the Glenwood district? State laws allow , for the expansion of an existing urban renewal district by up to 20% of the established district's area. Forming a new district allows a new boundary to be designated, without being limited to an acreage that is 20% of the G1enwood district (about 120 acres). Expanding the Glenwood district would allow increment revenues from G1enwood to be used in the downtown and vice versa. ' , Forming a new district would keep the revenues separate.. , Attachment 3 shows three potential ren~wal district boundaries. If the G1e~wood district.is expanded into the downtown, then Boundary lor a similar boundary must be chosen to meet the 20% statutory limitation. ' , , " ' " Date Heceived:2kJ 01 ' PI.~nner: DR '(I rfl1tSJ . ". City of Springfield 'Council Work Session Minutes luly 2, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Metzger said there was a number of staff that had worked on this. He acknowledged, Community Services Manager John Tamu10nis, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, Development Services Director Bill Gri1e and other staff that had contributed to this. item. Mr. Metzger said the first question was regarding timing of an election. He discussed some of the advantages and disadvantages of going with either election date. The taxing partners at the CEO level were supportive of an urban renewal district in downtown. ' Councilor Pishioneri said he liked the idea of setting up the downtown urban renewal district (URD) independent of the G1enwood URD. The citizens voted for the G1enwood URD and this was a different area. He asked if there was any cost associated with 'either election. ' Discussion was held regarding whether or not there would be a cost at either election. Councilor Pishioneri said he would encourage staff to go for the General election unless there , ,was an urgent need to go sooner. It was important to do the job right. Mr. Metzger asked for clarification on which'e1ection Councilor Pishioneri was referring to. Councilor Pishioneri said he was referring to the election in the spring of 2008 (actually the Primary Election). He said either election would be fine as long as staff felt they could do a good and complete job. Mayor Leiken said the November' 2007 election was not a General Election, but rather a Special Election. He said Mr. Grimaldi had mentioned the investment already made in downtown by private developers. Waiting until the Primary would delay collection of the tax increment until January of2009. Capturing investment was important, but making sure the public was on board and supportive was also very important. Councilor Ballew said she didn't recall that Council had made a decision io form an URn in downtown. Mr. Metzger said it was in response to a Council goal set in January 2007 to form an URn in downtown. In April, staff came back and talked about a plan for revitalization and the URn was one way to move that along: Council would take formal action whether or'not to form an URD at . a later date. ' , Councilor Ballew said she liked waiting for the Primary Election better or even the General Election in 2008. There weren't any milestones yet in the Glenwood URn, so she was concerned about staff time spent on both areas. She felt the two areas should be separate, and downtown , shouldn't be an extension of G1enwood. There would be more money coming from a downtown URn than the G1enwood URn. She also noted that regarding the boundary choices, she preferred Boundary One, and would be reluctant to extend it to Boundary Two. Councilor Woodrow said he agreed the downtown URn should be a new one and not combined , with Glenwood. He,felt they should go for the November 2007 election to allow SEDA to capture tax increment from the new development ofLithia, Wynant's Food Store and others. It would be beneficial to start, collecting those funds in 2008 rather than waiting until 2009. He had " .'- City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 3 confidence that if staff said they could do it properly and be ready in November 2007, that they could. He would support Boundary Two because it included all of Booth-Kelly. Mr. Metzger said he would like to give Council some additional information regarding the boundaries following the discussion regarding timing of the election and new or expanded district. Councilor Ralston asked if an election was required if the G1e~wood boundary was expanded. Yes. He said there had not been a lot of success in Glenwood. He didn't want to go much farther than Boundary One for downtown and felt that joining with Glenwood might help to get things going in G1enwood. Both areas would need to develop together at some point. He thought the November election might be too aggressive of a schedule. Mr. Tamu10nis said one of the advantages in the downtown area was the number of studies that had been done over many years. Glenwood was a new area,with new projects. Councilor Ralston asked if the property value,S were locked in once an area was identified. , , Mr. Tamu10nis said the County Assessor's office would set the property values as a base value starting January 1 of the year following Council adoption, If the URD was passed at the November 2007 election, it would go into affect January 1,2008, If they waited for the May 2008 election, it would go into affect January 1,2009. Councilor Ralston said if they chose Boundary One, success would move out along the whole corridor. He felt choosing Boundary Three cut too much into taxes for the General Fund. Tryillg to convince the public that a Downtown URD was the right thing would be difficult. ' Councilor Lundberg said she was most in favor of Boundary Two. Getting past a certain point might be harder to make it a single vision. She felt that there was time to prepare for a November 2007 election regarding educating the public. If it didn't pass in November, they could work to ' bring it back for a vote in May. The partnership issue was stronger in Downtown than m Glenwood, so she felt it would be easy to get the stakeholders on board. She was a proponent of going oul to voters in November 2001 and felt staff could get eveJYlhing ready by then. Councilor Wylie said she thought that if it was feasible, the earlier timing for the election was best. She felt the downtown URD should be'separate from Glenwood. She thought going out to Boundary Two would be best at this time. Twenty percent could be added at a later date without an election, taking it out to Boundary Three. She asked how an URD affected a residential area (Willamette Heights). Mr. Metzger explained the principals used to determine the different boundaries. The first principal was where investment needed to be made to revitalize downtown and nearby neighborhoods, In Willamette Heights, there were infrastructure issues that were affected. The ' , east side had the potential for redevelopment and an URD could assist with'some of the infrastructure. He discussed apartment complexes on the north end and how strategic investments could help clean up that area. The boundaries were drawn with the idea of capturing revenue and in areas where investment could be made to help the overall area grow. That was one Of the rationales for Boundary Three. There were advantages and disadvantages with all , " City of Springfield Council W od Session Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 4 boundaries. He explained why staff originally thought Boundary Three might be best. He agreed, however, that people's vision of downtown was a smaller, more compact area Councilor Woodrow said if the rest of the Council was supportive, he would approve of Boundary Three. He referred to Councilor Ralston's suggestion to combine the downtown URD with Glenwood's URD. He feit that would be unfair to Glenwood because it was a unique area and combining themmigbt cause undue concern 'by Glenwood residents. It was correct that deve.1opment that could occur in the downtown URD should help generate more in the Glenwood , URD. Progress in Glenwood had been slow, but that was the nature of an URD. He discussed the difference between downtown and Glenwood. He agreed that the November 2007 election was the right timeframe for the downtown URD to go to the voters. That would still 'give ample time' to get.the word out and explain to the citizens why an URD was a positive thing and could further the efforts started by the Wildish Theater, schools and other businesses to make downtown a better place: , 'Coun~ilor Pishioneri said he had no problem going to the voters at the earlier date as long as , staffhad adequate time to do the job right and get it passed, rather than having to do it twice. Councilor Wylie asked how the URD worked with historic preservation. Mr. Tamulonis said there were several options. One option was to use URD money to reinforce historic buildings to meet current codes and seismic requirements. Mr, Metzger said the URD was a financial tooland the SEDABoard could deteimine how to use that money for different projects. , ' Mr. Tamu10nis said it was a way to separate an income stream that would allow targeted projects or programs to be done. He discussed how the funds could or couldn't be used. Councilor Wylie asked for more details on what could or couldn't be done with URD funds. Mr. Tamulonis discussed a couple of optious and noted tliat often the fuuds were used for , infrastructure, to purchase buildings and build parking areas. He said ideas from the Council would be expiored to see if they could be done. The first phase of the URD would include getting input from the stakeholders of downtown regarding potential projects. ' Councilor Wylie asked about the Housing and Ur1;Jan DevelopInent (HUD) programs that assisted homeowners with roof replacement, paint and other maintenance needs. Mr. Tamu10nis said a similar program had Deen set up by SEDA in Glenwood called the G1enwood Residential Improvement Program (GRIP) that'waspatterned on the federal program. Mayor Leiken asked Mr. Tamu10nis to send an email to the Councilors regarding specifics on what types of projects could or couldn't be done with URD funds. ' Mr, Tamulonis said he could do that. He would include projects that were currently happening' downtown. ' , " ,', '{ ./ '.,' ..; , .t., J".: /. ," , ;".t. ) " City .of Springfield ' Council Work Session Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 5 Cauncilor Ballew suggested getting consensus, or close to corisens~s from: Council on when the e1eciian should be held and whether or notta maketbe downtown URD separate from G1enwood. ' , Mr. Metzger said that would be helpful to staff. Councilor Lundberg asked first for input on whether to ",eate the URD's separately or together ,with Glenwood.' . Councilor Ralston said he wasn't opposed to URD and was more than willing to support the November election and through Boundary Two. The reason he was considering combiriing the two URD's was because the SEDA Board was already in place for G1enwoad. Mayor Leikensaid the SEDA Board would remain the same for both URD's. , Caunci1 consensus was to create the downtown URD sepmte from Glenwa?d. Five Councilors supported going to the November, 2007 election with the doWntown URD.One Councilor (Ballew) preferred waiting until May 2008.' Mr. Metzger said staff would work towards the November 2007 election and if there was concern thcy would not be well prepared, they would notify Council and determine if they should wait forthe May 2008 election. Council agreed. " Mr. Grimaldi said Mr. Tamulonis would distribute some figures regarding the differences between the different boundaries. Those figures would be sent to Council before their July 23 ' , Council meeting. 'Mayor Leiken said that although they were not aU visible, there had been a 10t,'of successes in Glenwood thanks to Mr. Tamulonis and staff. He noted the relationships fonned with residents in G1enwood by Mr. Tamu10nis and ownership by those residents in G1enwood. He noted the number.of.people interested in that area. D'ownt~wn was a different situation, with projects ready 'to ga immediately, Mayor Leiken saidhe spoke with the Senior' Forum this morning and they were 'very supportive of a downtown URD. ' 2. : Concurrent Metro P1an/Refinement Plan Man Amendment and Zonine Mao Amendment Rel!ardinQ" Prooertv Near 44th and Main Street, ..' , City P1anncr David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The applicant requests approval of a Metro Plan I Refmement Plan Map AIDendment to the East Main Refmement Plan, and a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment. The request involves two parcels, and is located on approximately 5.24 acres identified as Tax Lots 400 and 402 on Assessor's Map No. 17-02-32- 00, Specifically; the applicant proposes to change the Metro Plan designation from Light Medium ~dustrial (LM!) to Commcrcial and a concurrent Refinement Plan Amendment and . , .', Zoning Map Amendment from LMI to ee. The applicant seeks approval of these applications in , order to facilitate development of a future Medical omce building .on the site. .' ," ',"", ," " ,< "" . " City of Springfield Council Wark Session Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 6 On June 5"', 2007. the Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on the subject applications (LRP2007-00013 & ZON2007-000l2). One citizen, Nancy Falk, testified in opposition to the proposal at the first public hearing and requested that the record be left open for seven days. The pianning Commission granted the request and instructed Staff to leave the record open until Tuesday, June 12th, 2007. Staff received one written testimony from Lami Segel, Goal One Coalition Planner, on June 12th, 2007, A written rebuttal to Ms, Segel's letter, was then submitted by the applicant the following day, June l~th, 2007. Both letters were received within the specified deadlines as noted in the Planning ConuiJission public hearing on June 5"', 2007. The original Staff Report and exhibits are attached for Council's review. After reviewing all oral and written testimony. the Planning, Commission deliberated on the applications on June 19"', 2007, and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that both applications be sent to the City Council for consideration and approval. ' Mr. Reesor presented a power point presentation on the subject "w,,~..y, based on maps and photos included in the agenda packet. Councilor Ballew said it was difficult to distinguish on the maps which areas were Medium Density Resi<;lentia1 (MDR) and which were Low Density Residential (LDR). , Mr. Reesor said often when comparing zoning maps with metro' maps, there were differences. Some of those were plan zone conflicts. Those conflicts would eventually be corrected through a rezone process. Mr. Reesor discussed the commercial uses already on Tax Lot 402. Those had' been in place for decades, This application would bring tbe'nonconforming uses into conformity with the zone. Mr, Reesor said the applicant cited the 1992 Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and the 2000 'Commercial Lands Inventory as part of the burden of proof. The City had worked with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) transportation analysis because Main Street was under ODOT's jurisdiction. He noted a reconuiJended condition of approval regarding trip caps. He described the basis for that condition. ' Mr. Reesor said one person testified in opposition to this amendment on'June 5 before the Planning Commission, The speaker had requested that the record remain open for seven days. At the end of the seven days, staff had received one written comment from Lauri Segal of Goal One , , Coalition. The applicant then had one day to provide a rebuttal. All of those written statements were included in the agenda packet. The Planning Commission deliberated after hearing all comments and voted unanimously for approval. Mayor Leiken confirmed with Development Services Director Bill Grile that Springfield had a ,surplus of Light Medium Industrial (LMI) property, but a deficit of Community Commercial (CC). This would rezone from LMI to CC. ' , , , ' CoUncilor Woodrow asked if ODOT would be able to i:o~e in and take away their curb-cut if this was rezoned and the site plan was approved. ' ,,' City of Springfield ' Council Work Session Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 7 Mr, Reesor said access would be considered during site plan review. Often, ODOT would consolidate accesses if needed. Councilor Pishioneri noted that the co=ercial building adjacent to this property that was' 'already occupied had limited access for all the employees. He said he wasn't opposed to this project, but wanted to make sure there was adequate access. , Mr. Reesor said the City worked with ODOT to try to make it a safe environment for traffic. PeaceHeaJth was going in on the application with the owner of the property and would need to be aware of the concerns. Mayor Leiken agreed with Councilor Pishioneri and the need for adequate access for people coming and going to a medical facility. He encouraged working through this issue with ODOT with a common sense approach. ., Councilor Ballew asked ifthere'was a north/south conilection bounding the property. Mr. Reesor said there was not. There was no 451h Street on the north side. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa ~~fI Sidneyft'. LelkL ~ May~, ,', ' Allest: flw..u J1JU) 6--- Amy Sow6 City Recorder ; -'," , ,; ~: .~ ~, '~ e tease,\ itmt,'-cbmmen s', .....,I....,;:.;...1.l>.{':~::....>i./;,;t.. 10.3 minuteS.fl. ':;i~,;~..."o;.'1:' , ,." "" ,;~..,.,~ -'~'\:r~"'-~-- .:.1 ~ ."~ f'" ,", ,'I, {jpe.aft1fS!T/].I1fJ: no( ;,,:', 'yield th'eihiiii'e " 0"." ,,'",}. )~:(q ~q!.ft~r~~A:'~;~~.~:~;~~:f;::~;~i { SPRINGFIELD ,..... ~;IIIIIII. , . iIr&:~ p-\'\ A- .3 ~ Date Received: 'I )?-! 0 1 Planner: DR I ii' It .. '.J',;~- ',':;'r ..io!;;~' ';1', '" .'t1 '1'.'31 mHiutes;~ ~~'"r ~:;h~ ''''i, . ''"i- .;, j '. ..' -' l.........'.~...~ "" ~~, "'" ., : Speakers:,mdy:not".~A; .. ':~';"; .:T'" 7~ ,:'~"- "':",;,>'},:.: ~J .J:. (Yleld.thelr;,lzme '..'. "':" ", ;';~.~',\~"';, ::$l1-~';~~~~~ik;!;;:~x' .ito,'others,,,;"':~"',,,,'1*,~~;'r..;,:fl . ';r"~.'1<fot".""- '-4:",,~T,; <toi'!.:(~...c.. ".,-v ~ I wish to address the Springfield City Council during: o BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE (This part of the agenda is for you to speak on any item other than a public hearing) What topic do you wish to discuss? Is your topic on tonight's agenda? 0 yes 0 no ~ " PUBLIC HEARING' ' ~hat is ~wr o~~);Wf ~/~ ~iE- 9(, am in favor of the proposal ,0 I ~m against the proposal d ~EN COUNCIL DISCUSSES THE TOPIC What is the topic? (please see agenda for when item is scheduled) , ,,' Phone:~~ . ~i?i Date: r- ( 1-/tn- !--'- J'''''~M... tJ\Vity: ~PIU IJ~ frfa> -P-~~'""bwi"rnl"mmil"'",m" ~ Name Address: I represent: NOTE: RETURN THIS CARD TO THE CITY RECORDER AT THE FRONT DESK (]) I wish to address the Springfield City Council during: o BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE " (This part of the agenda is for you to speak on any item other than a public hearing) What topic do you wish to discuss? Is your topic on tonight's agenda? 0 yes 0 no ,. PUBLIC HEARING What is the topic of the public hearing? ..Lf'F ZLJNJNG or tAvY ~o7 ~t:'O .lVE--VJ TO' L2!I I am in favor of the proposal 0 I am against the proposal J-IYL,ANO J.3H5 jNC.r:s: PA,tj,l( 8' '1b.60 MAP.;q, o WHEN ,COUNCIL DISCUSSES THE TOPIC What is the topic? (Please see agenda for when item is scheduled) Name ;T;;;.J).} )J~"::~::LJ, Phone: ,?Zb gtl"} I Date: ?,/~"'1 _ Address: '-<ZCJ~tJ.t:. W~'i/7.J: NAn:~ A"O, City: <;,prJNGrlcw. I represent: HYL.A.iV''!> -GuS)/II ES5 p,/J)'j J1' (Prinl your name OR your businilSSlcommittee name) NOTE: RETURN THIS CARD TO THE CITY RECORDER AT THE FRONT DESK r~~~ . "~ ' . .1'" -, I.~ . ,~. " Pti'i1s~ liiiiii:comments,' i"" \ - "l' 'Jr- -, -.' . .~-,,,.~.,,c...,,.) .- '."..t"~3"-" .''''''''''t' -\".i,...~~t,jC:~."'"~''' . O. . ,rrunl1 es., 'l~, +"\-.; .. ,,,;. ' ",SPiiakers.,iii'a!r ~(j!: :~F '.: y(e(dtheir;time V:;,t,:,::' :' .ttJ1~iJthers~ ~j.';;'~, ~ t .'\.1~:)1:' ";;...j' .:.._ .' ..'. ',' ,.,-t" .:~-~-?-,~. .~'.' ,.of", .;". ,.,., I wish to address the Springfield City Council during: o BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE (This part of the agenda is for you to 'speak on a~y item other than a public hearing) , What topic do you wish to discuss? , /r topic on tonight's agenda? , ,0 yes 0 no cs:fPUBLIC HEARING What is the topic of the public hearing? I C.,..,c.vue,-;" \"'1,..5.<", (4('..1" / {Z"'\:!..""'.I'...J- t'la.^ f..< t{C.If!... d M ...1'" o I am in favor of the proposal ~m against the pr~posal o WHEN COUNCIL DISCUSSES THE TOPIC What is the topic? (Please see agenda for when item is scheduled) Name ~Jr;"JPI,=p~~y---~r(L Phone:S<(\ Si't 4 f75 Date;:)]} J-. }Cf)7 Address: <-!'-fIe: 'i":k.,<;., !'::~ ~C;""7' City: C;:-:~.Qd ~ ('Ii:. '77-178 - ~ ~ 0 ' I represent: t:O~\ 1. rOC.\l"'\"'C>~ (Print }'OIlr- name OR your businl~lcummittee name) NOTE: RETURN THIS CARD TO THE CITY RECORDER AT THE FRONT DESK BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE (This part of the agenda is for you to speak on any item other than a public hearing) What topic do you wish to discuss? Is your topic on tonight's agenda? 0 yes 'D no ~~ ' '~PUBLIC HEARING ' ' .0 ~, What is the topic of the public hearing? '. \ '. 1/ ~ I fI- ' qr;~"" I M. ^" y-<< \1...11-L Date Recelved._!.J.2:j./ l::' :c",' :n favor of the proposal 0 I am against the proposal Planner: DR -J' 'e'Ose'tllmil comifi'iniJ ". c. -.. -",--". "._'''' "....-,.... . 'F'~' , i(3'minutes...: -; ::i ";,; :.'i'~ ""r-);~ .~".-/~~"~'- '~. _. ~Jo+.,.-' ,J" ..Speakers!maynot: ,,:, I" f,.;.:. . "; 1:!: r:' ,_ J'T_' l" '.: ;"~, .r~Y.U!(q~!~~!~-~_~!!!!;J~4.~~~~;}::?$'lf . .va/rothers!!'':, ,,\,,~"?)'!>";~fj1 , ..,'~- ~~..,~~~~?f': :~'."'-'''~::'\!.:;t! , 0 WHEN COUNCIL DISCUSSES THE TOPIC What is the topic? (Please see agenda for when item is scheduled) Name ~,:^J, p....c. '^ Phone: I f lPkase prinlJ Address: 2'iS I~ lCI." V y.J. 3t/.l~2~YI Date: ~tJ-' City: ,1,....L '. I represent: (Print your name OR your bILSinesslwmmiltee name) NOTE: RETURN THIS CARD TO THE CITY RECORDER AT THE FRONT DESK ~' , GOAL ONE COALITION @ Goal One is Citizen Involvement City of Springfield Planning Commission David Reesor City of Springfield 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97444 , Date Received: 1/ ;r{07 Planner: DR I '~ (-:-1 y11iJ, July 2, 2007 RE: ZON 2007-00012/LRP 2007-00013, Plan Ame~dment & Zone Change Dear Members of the City Council: The Goal One Coalition (Goal One) is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide assistance and support to Oregonians in matters affecting their communities. Goal One is participating in these proceedings at the request of and on behalf of its membership residing in Lane County. This testimony is presented on behalf of Goal One and its membership, including Nancy Falk, 2567 Marcola Road, Springfield, Oregon 97477, as an individual. , , These comments are also submitted on behalf of LandWatch Lane County, 642 Chamelton Suite 100, Eugene, OR 97401, specifically including President Robert Emmons, 40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, OR 97438, as an individual. I. Introduction This proposal is for a site-specific Metro Plan Amendment / Refinement Plan Amendment and a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment from Light Medium Industrial (LMl) to Community Commercial (CC). for a total of 5.25 acres within the Springfield city limits. The subject site is located within the East Main Refinement Plan area. The subject site is located just east of 44th and Main Streets (Highway 126). The site consists of two tax lots under separate ownerships, and is located on approximately 5.24 acres 'identified as Tax Lots 400 and 402 on Assessor's Map No. 17-02-32-00. TL 400 (5.01 acres) has several vacant buildings on-site, including portable trailer type structures. According to County tax records, there are no improvements on this site, and all the taxable value is associated with the land only. The smaller of the two subject lots, TL 402 (.24 acres), has an existing commercial development on-site, although the plan designation and zone are LMI. According to County tax records, this site has all its taxable value in improvements, having no land value associated with this tax lot. ' , , j Eugene Office: 642 Chamelton Suite 100. Eugene OR 97401 '541-431-7059' Fax: 541-431-7078, Lebanon Office: 39625 Almen Drive' Lebanon OR 97355, 541-258-6074 . Fax: 541-258-6810 www,goal1.org GOAL ONE COALITION Properties located to the north (Weyerhauser) are zoned and designated Heavy Industrial. Parcels located west of 44th Street and the subject site are designated Mixed-Use on the East Main Refmement Plan. Property located east and adjacent to the subject properties is designated and zoned LMI and built out as a business park. Properties located south of the subject site, across Main Street, are zoned and designated Community Commercial. n. Criteria Applicable to the Request Local approval criteria are found in the following documents: Springfield Development Code (SDC), Metropolitan General Plan (MP), and East Main Refinement Plan (EMRP). m. Analysis , 1. Metro Plan 'Plan Review' Element l.A. Introduction The applicant statement and staff findings provide a cursory review of Metro Plan policies, relying mostly on Metro Plan approval criteria in Article 7 of the SDC, which' states: The following criteria shall be applied by the City Council in approving or denying a Metro Plan amendment application: (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and ' (b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. SDC 7.070(3). Applicant and staff assert that adoption of the proposed amendments will not, make the Metro Plan intemally inconsistent, and stafffmding 19 states, "[s]taffhas reviewed the applicant's choice of applicable Metro Plan Policies and Elements and concirrthat the noted Policies and Elements are applicable to the proposal." In so stating, staff has failed to address, or require the applicant to address, the 'Plan Review' policies of the Metro Plan, and has erred in finding that the applicant's choice of applicable Metro Plan Policies and Elements is sufficient. Metro Plan amendments are governed by policies of the MP found in the Plan Review element, Plan Amendments and Refmements, Section N, 1-5. The proposed Metro Plan Amendment is a Type II Amendment, meaning that it is site specific, and amends the Plan diagram or Plan text. Metro Plan Amendment Policy 4, Initiation of Metropolitan Plan Amendments, establishes: Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013 2 GOAL ONE COALITION A type II amendment may be initiated at the discretion oJ anyone oJthe three governing'bodies o~ by any citizenwhoowns property that is subject oj the proposed amendments. . PeaceHealth Oregon (PHO) is the applicant, but is not the owner of the property that is the subject of the proposed amendments, and PHO provides no evidence that they are representing the property owners. The initiation of these amendments does not comply with the plan amendment requirements of the Metro Plan, which reCjuires citizens who . initiate Type II amendments to be owners of the subject property. As such, the proposed amendments cannot be approved. LB. ' Springfield Development Code The proposed Metro Plan Amendment is a Type II Amendment, meaning it is site specific an" is located within the city limits. Type II Metro Plan amendments are also evaluated according to the criteria of approval contained within Article 7 of the SDC. SDC at 7.010, METRO PLAN AMENDMENT-PURPOSE, provides that Metro Plan " amendments shall be made in accordance with the standards contained in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and the provisions of this Code. As; noted above, the proposal is ' inconsistent with the'plan review policiesfound in Chapter IV of the MP, and thus does not comply with SDC 7.010.' SDC at 7.030 METRO PLAN AMENDMENT-DEFINITIONS, establishes, in:relevant part: "METRO PLAN AMENDMENT-INITIATION. . ; . Any of the three governing bodies or a citizen who owns property that is the subject oj the proposed amendment may initiate a Type II Metro Plan amendment at any time;" (emphasis added). The applicant, PHO, is not the owner 'of the property that is the subject of the proposed amendment, and ,as such has not complied with SDC 7.030 provisions for initiating metro plan amendments. PHO is not a legal applicant. Initiation' of the proposed amendments is, inconsistent with the Metro Plan initiation provisions found in Article 7 of the Springfield Development Code because the applicant is not, and does not represent, the .owner. As such, the proposed amendments cannot be , approved. ' 2.' Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 2.A. Introduction SDC 7,070(3)(a).requires that the proposal be consistent with the relevant Statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. ORS 197.17S(2)(a). SDC 7.070 (3) states: ' TheJollowing criteria shall be applied by the City Council in approving or denying a Metro Plan amendment application: . (a) The,amendment must be consistent with ~he relevant Statewide planning goals , adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. . . Metra Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012" LRP 2007-00013 3 GOAL ONE COALITION A1I comprehensive plan amendments are reviewable for compliance with the statewide planning goals. Residents of Rosemont v. Metro, 173 Or. App.. 321 (2001); 1000 Friends of Oregon v, Jackson County, 79 Or. App. 93, 97, 718 P.2d. 753 (1986), rev: den. 301 Or. 445 ' (1987); Opus Development Corp, v, City of Eugene, 141 Or. App. 249, 254; 918 P.2d. 116 (1996). Applicable goals include Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement), Goal 2 (Land uSe Planning), Goal 9 (Economy of the State), and Goal 12 (TranSportation). The proposed plan amendment must also comply with administrative rules implementing applicabl~ statewide planning goals. 2.A.a. ,Goall ' Goall-Citizen Involvement is: "To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opp,ortunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." Staff relies on the city's acknowledged citiien involvement program to justify compliance with Goal 1. Goal' 1 findings note that hearings are held, notice is sent out and published pursuant to SDC 14.030 (I) & (2), but theieis no meaningful involvement by citizens, and there is no effort on behalf of the city to encourage citizen involvement. Neighborhood organizations have all been rescinded in recent years due to what the city refers to as inactivity. There has been no effort by the city to reinvigorate neighborhood organizations, ,The findings in the' Staff Report rely on assumptions and information provided. by the applicant and found in the 2000 SCLS. While the SCLS is adopted by the City and acknowledged by DLCD, it is not incorporated into the comprehensive plan (Metro Plan). Although adoption of the SCLS included a citizen involvement element, including public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, the fact remains that it is Il.ot'part' of the comprehensive plan. Relying on data in a proceeding that does not and carmot lead to a conforming amendment to the comprehensive plan to incu.puwte that data into the plan, denies the public the opportunity to provide input, as required by Goal I. Lengkeek v, City of Tangent, SO Or. LUBA 367 (2005). Goal 1 also establishes that the committee for citizen involvement (in this case, the Springfield Planning Commission) "shall be responsible for assisting the governing body with the development of a program that promotes and enhances citizen involvement in land-use planning, assisting in the implementation of the citizen involvement program, and evaluating the proces~ being used for citizen involvement." Citizen involvement ill Springfield is a cursory opportunity for citizens to comment in writing or in person at hearings or during general public comment periods held concurrent with city council meetings or hearings. There has been no effort by the City to enhance citizen involvement, to evaluate their processes for citizen involvement, or even to encourage more effective citizen involvement. The minutes of the June 5 PC public hearing should in fact reflect a comment from one Commissioner directed at one citizen's request to hold the written record open for 7 days. The Commissioner wanted to know why the citizen wanted the record held open, imposing a certain level of intimidation on the citizen making the request. This behavior by a planning Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013 4 GOAL ONE COALITION commissioner, a member of the city's acknowledged citizen'involvement, Goal 1 compliance element, is at best a violation of the spirit of Goal I, and at worst a misuse of the citizen involvement responsibility of the planning commission. Another Commissioner was heard 'criticizing the written comments from Goal One Coalition during deliberations on this planning action, and making assumptions about the intent of Goal One Coalition's involvement. Neither of these examples is consistent with the intent of the citizen involvement element of Goal I io promote and enhance citizen involvement in land use planning. 2.A.b. ,Goal 2 Goal2-Land Use Planning is: "To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for decisions and actions." Specifically, Goal 2 establishes that local land use actions "shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans." Goal 2, Part 1. Further, the information upon which land use decisions are made "shall be contained in the plan document or supporting documents." Goal!, Part 1. In this case, the applicant relies heavily on the acknowledged 2000 Springfield Commercial , Lands Study (SCLS), which does not address the entire Metro UGB area, and is not incorporated into the Metro Plan. A planning decision based on a study not il1corporated into the comprehensive plan is not a planning decision that is made on the basis of the comprehensive plan and acknowledged planning documents, as required by Goal 2. D. S. Parklane Development, Inc, v. Metro, 165 Or. App. 1,22,994 P.2d. 1205 (2000). The city cannot rely on an inventory that is not part of the plan over one that is part of an acknowledged plan. 1000 Friends of Oregon v, City of Dundee, 203 Or. App. 207, 216,124 P.3d. 1249 (2005). Goal 2 and Goal I (Citizen Involv~ment) require an opportunity for the public to review 'information contained in the comprehensive plan. As stated in D.S Parklarie, the intent of Goal 2 is to require that the comprehensive plan provide the basis for land use actions. D.S Parklane, 165 Or. App. at 22. Specifically, Goal 2 provides that land use plans shall include "inventories and factual information for each applicable statewide planning goal." Goal 2 and Goal 1 require that certain necessary information appear in the comprehensive plan. Without that information in the plan, a land use decision that implicates Goal 9 (as in this case) is not based on the comprehensive plan. Further, to allow an applicant to base a proposal on data that does not and cannot lead to a conforming amendment to the comprehensive plan denies the public the opportunity to provide input that is required by Goal I. Mondalee Lengkeek, Mervin "Bill" Lengkeek, James M Long, Stephen p, Noftiger, Joanne Mclennan, Arlen Samard, and Eileen Samard v. City Of Tangent, LUBA No. 2004-164 (2005). The proposed findings rely on reports and other documents containing inventories, assumptions, and data that have not been incorporated into the comprehensive plan. This material includes data used to justify findings of compliance with Goal 9. Any decision relying on such findings would not comply with Goal 2. Metro PlaillEast Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013 5 " . GOAL ONE COALITION 2.A.c. , Goal9 Goal9-Economic Development is: "To prov'ide adequate opportunities throughout the state ,for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. " Staff's Goal 9 findings are based upon the! 992 Industrial Land Study and the 2000 Commercial Land Study. Goal 2 requires that information upon which land use decisions are made be contained in the' plan document. . OAR 660-015-0000(2), Part I Planning, establishes that city, county, state, and federal agency and special district plans and actions related to land use shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 268. Goal 9-660-009-00 I 0(4) establishes that:' [fJor a post-acknowledgement plan amendment under OAR chapter 660, division 18, 'that changes the plan designation of land in excess of two 'acres within an existing urban growth boundary from an industrial use designation to a non-industrial use designation, or an other employment use designation to any other use designation, a city or ,county must address iJll applicable planning requirements, and: (a) Demonstrate ,that the proposed amendment is consistent with its most recent economic'opportunities analysis and the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan which address the requirements of this division. (emphasis added). The applicant appears to, rely heavily on 'inventory and policy statements ' established by the 2000 SCLS in establishing that the proposal is consistent with the Goal 9 rule. However, the applicant's analysis of the proposals' conSistency with the comprehensive plan Economic Element policies foUnd in the Metropolitan General Plan, Chapter III, (B-I)- (B- 7), is insufficient and does not address significant policies that must be considered. Staff findings are based on applicant's statements, and as such do not reflect the need, pursuant to ,the Goal 9 rules, for the proposal to be consistent with the 2000 SCLS and the economic element of the comprehensive plan. ' While the Goal 9 rule establishes that the proposal be consistent with the most recent EOA and the parts of the acknowledged comprehensive plan which address requirements of the Goal 9 rule, Goal 2 establishes that decisions city, county, sta.te and federal agency and special district plans and actions related to land use shall be consistent With the comprehensive plans of cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 268. Specifically, Goal 2 establishes that local land use actions "shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans." Goal 2, Part 1. Furthermore, the information upon which land use deCisions are made "shall be contained in the plan document or supporting documents." Goal I, Part 1. It appears that the Goal 9 rule is inconsistent with the Goal 2 provision that establishes that local land use Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-D0012 - LRP 2007-D0013 6 GOAL ONE COALITION, actions shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan,and that information upon which land , use decisions are made shall be in the plan document or supporting documents. , ' . . , . . . Staff findings cite OAR 660-009-0010 as "stating that a reviewing ,authoritY can find that the proposal complies with relevant local plan policies by' converting one, form or (sic) employment-generating land use to another, without negatively, impacting the supply of buildable'lands for either category of uses." OAR 660-009-0010 says no such thing. As stated previously, the relevant provisions of OAR 660-009-0010 establish a city or county , must address "all applicable planning requirements," (empI,asis added), and: (a) Demonstrate that the proposedamendinent is consistent with its most recent economic opportunities analysis and the,'parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan ,which address the requirements of this division. , (emphasis added). According to staff findings, the applicant notes "there are existing commercial uses located on TL 400 which are part of the subject property." This statement is in error. In fact, current tax records show that there are no iniprovements on TL 400, and that the only value associated with TL 400 is the,land value itself. It is also the case that the future Community Commercial uses the applicant seeks to develop on the subject properties , (whether outpatient medical facilities and services, or medical offices) are not allowed uses pursuant to the EMRP. The proposal would decrease the City;s Campus Industrial land inventory by,S.24 acres. The , applicant has not justified the conversion of scarce, shovel-ready industrial land, especially land designated and zoned light mediwn industrial inside the Metro UGB. The applicant makes the argument that the proposed plan amendment and zone change would have the effect of correcting existing non7conforming uses on TL 402. Map & Tax Lot 17- 02-32-00-00402. However, it,appears that the existing unpermitted nonconforming uses are tolerated by the City even with the knowledge that these uses are inconsistent with the plan ' 'and zone. ' , . ' In addressing applicability of the Springfield,Commercial L~dS Study (2000 SCLS), there is no discussion by applicant or staff regarding the fact that Eugene and Springfield have a shared and adopted UGB, Comprehensive Plan, and Industrial Lands study. The jurisdictionally focused SCLS is not part of the Plan, does not analyze supply and demand for the entire Metro UGB area and cannot be relied upon on its own to establish consistency with the requirements of OAR 660-009-001 0(4), which establishes that the proposed PAPA be consistent with both the most recent economic opportunities analysis (i.e. the 2000 SCLS) and the comprehensive plan. A related problem with placing such heavy reliance on the 2000 SCLS to establish Goal 9 compliance is that in analyzing supply and demand, the study does not consider or otherwise account for lands added to the commercial inventory via applicant-initiated and city-approved zone changes and plan amendments since the year 2000. One very obvious example of an addition to the Springfield commercial lands inventory is the 2003 plan amendment and zone change (LRP 2003-0013 and ZON 2003-0019) at the 100-acre Gateway Mediwn Density Residential site that had the effect of rezoning and redesignating 100 acres of residential land Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013 7 " GOAL ONE COALITION .. to commercial for a regional medical campus. The applicant provides a spreadsheet (their ' Attachment B) which is said to account for all Metro Plan diagram changes affecting the supply of residential, commercial, and industrial Lands in the city of Springfield between 1991 and the present. This spreadsheet fails to account for or otherwise address the addition of commercial land through the conversion of both residential and industrial land, even though , that the spreadsheet is being presented by the sanie parties who initiated and have benefited , from that 100 acre plan amendment that had the effect of adding 100 acres of commercial land . , to the inventory. This omission raises doubt as to the validity of applicant's Attachment Bas, accounting for additions to and subtractions from the various ,land inventories. The applicant also relies in part on inventories established in conjunction with adoption of Springfield's Natural Resource (NR) Study, by Ordinance 6150 on November 28, 2005. Those inventories are only relevant to this proposal as anecdotai information because they are, not incOlpomted as part ofthci Comprehensive Plan (Metro Plan). , , .2.A.c.1. ' Loss oflndustrial Land The proposed plan amendments and zone changes would remove 5.24 acres of shovel-ready LMI land from the Metro UGB Area IndustTIalLands Inventory. This is in addition to an another 56-acre plan amendment converting shovel ready Campus Industrial land to Community Commercial at 28th Street and Marcola Road, less than 2 miles away from the site subject to his proposal (which was approved by the Springfield City Council on June 18, '2007). The applicant is vague about the outright purpose of the proposed plan amendment and zone change, noting that, with approval of the plan amendment and zone change, the uses could include a possible future medical clinic or medical offices, and the provision of family wage jobs. The applicant is silent concemirig their 100-acre medical campus approximately 5 miles away from the subject properties proposed for medical facilities and services. Given this information, the applicant has not justified the removal of shovel-ready LMI land for commercial uses which are likely to be more medicalfacilities and services. This area within the Springfield city limits is already over-commercialized, and approval of this_proposal is inconsistent with the 1992 Industrial Lands Study policies that direct preservation of Light- Medium Industrial land, especially where vacant Light-Medium Industrial land is adjoining or in close proximity to existing LMI land and ,uses. 2.A.c.2. 'Comprehensive Plan Ec~nomic Element Policies' The applicant cites 4 of the 32 Economic Element policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Metro , Plan, Chapter III, Section B of the Plan, as relevant to the proposed PAPA. The four Plan policies considered by the applicant as relevant to the supply pf industrial land are policies I, 2, 6, and II. Policy I is to demonstrate a positive interest in existing llnd new industries, especially those providing above wage job and salary levels, and increased variety of job opportunities, a rise in the standard of living, and utilization of our existing comparative advantage in the level of. education and skill of the resident labor force. However, there is no way to know if in fact above wage jobs and salaries will be made available. ,Metro Plan/EastMain ~efinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013 8 , GOAL ONE COALITION 'Policy :2 is to encourage economic development which utilizes local and imported capital, entrepreneurial skills, and the resident labor force.. Again, there is no ,way to establish whether the applicimt will in fact utilize local and ~ported capital, skills etc. Policy 6 is io "[i]ncrease the amount of undeveloped land zoned for light industrial and commercial uses correlating the effective supply in terms of suitability and availability with the projections of demand." (emphasis added). This policy addresses zoning only, not plan designation, and concerns the necessity of having adequate supplies ofland of both commercial and, industrial designations. It says nothing concerning the applicability of favoring one plan designation over the other. Policy II is to encourage 'economic activities which strengthen the metropolitan area's position as a regional distribution, trade, health, and service center. The applicant asserts that the amendment (sic) will facilitate the development of medical uses that will serve the needs of the growing residential areas in east, south, and southeast Springfield, and strengthen the metropolitan area's position as a premier locale for healthcare services, consistent with this policy objective. Considering that ,the PHO 2003 zone change and plan amendments were based on the assertions that provision of medical care pursuant to campus style medical facility development is the wave of the future, and that the applicant already has established their dominance in the healthcare , market within the city limits, it has hard to fathom why they think another 5.24 acres will somehow strengthen Springfield's position as a premier locale for healthcare services. 2.A.c.3. . ' Consistency with the Economic Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan The PAPA proposal must be consistcnt 'with the Economic Element of the Comprehensive plan. There are no staff fmdings that establish the facts that show the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A major omission found in the application and staff report is an analysis of the Metro Plan Economic Element policies and their relationship to the SCLS. The remaining 28 policies have not been addressed in any way. More specifically, the following comprehensive plan policies are directly relevant to the inventory of industrial lands throughout the Eugene-Springfield Metro UGB area but are not reflected in s!-<Jff findings. Policy 5 is to provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion. This Plan provision is directly applicable because- the subject properties are adjacent to LMI zoned and designated properties to the east. This proposal to eliminate more industrial zoning adjacent to existing and developed industrial zoning, plan designation, and uses is clearly inconsistent with the Metro Plan Economic element, and if approved would have the effect of limiting future growth and expansion of the adjacent existing Light-Medium Industrial uses. Policy 7 is to encourage industrial park development, including areas for warehousing and distributive industries and research and development activities. Economic Element of the Metro Plan, Finding 17. establishes that "[s]peciallightinaustrial firms" have "varied site location requirements, prefer alternative sites to choose from, and usually benefit from location of other special light industrial' firms within the community and within the same Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013 9 " GOAL ONE COALITION industrial development." The subject site :is located adjacent to an existing light medium ' industrial site that is builtoutas a business park. ' ' . " Policy 9 is to encourag~ the e~pansion or' existing and' the'location of new manufacturing activities which are characterized by low levels of pollution and efficient energy use. Staff has not discussed efforts to attrilCt and/or encourage expansion of manufacturing activities that could be sited on Campus Industrial zoned and designated lands. The only reference to this 'is~ue from staff is that there has not been much interest' in the 'site from the iDdustrial development sector. Policy ISis to ~ncourage compatibility between industrially zoned lands and adjacent areas in local planning program. Neighbors have exp~essed no concern about their quality of life from existing industrial uses. The applicant has not addressed why or how the existing Light- Medium 'Industrial zoning and plan designation is, incompatible with the adjacent' neighborhood zoning and plan' designation. The EMRP expects that buffenng will protect neighborhood areas from existing ind~trial uses. , Policy 16 is to utilize p~cesses and local controls which encourage ret~ntion ofl&ge parcels or consolidation of small parcels of industrially or commercially zoned land to facilitate their use or reuse in a comprehensive rather than piecemeal fashion. The subject pr~perties are adjacent to ,a large parcel which is zoned and designatedLMI.' Staff is directed by this policy to encourage retention ,of this parcel of industrially zoned and designated land, which is one of the'few remaining undeveloped parcels ofLMI land within the Springfield city limits. " Policy 21 is to reserve several areas within the UGB for large scale, campus type, light ~ manufacturing uses. Staff has failed to address the impact that this proposal will have on the dwindling supply of shovel-ready industrial land inside the Springfield city limits, including prior actions approving land use code amendments to the Campus lridustriai zone that established more 'flexibility' for what uses are allowed in,the city's Campus Industrial zones. With less and less Campus Industrial land available as a result of allowing commercial-type uses within Campus-lridustrially zoned areas of the city, there may be an even a greater need for Light-Medium lridustriallands in the futu,re. , ' Policy,28 is to recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities ill providing services and goods to a particular neighborhood. This PAPA proposal requests community commercial plan designation and zoning, even though that zone and plan designation does not allow medical 'uses. However, there has been no consideration of the applicability of Neighborhood Commercial zoning versus the requested Community Commercial zoning if in fact there is an overabundance of industrial land. The EMRP has already established in which areas to expect Mixed~Use/Community Commercial uses, ,and the subject properties are not included in these identified areas. 3. Compliance with Citywide Planning Criteria 3.A. Ap'plicant'sProposal is Inconsistent with the East Main Refinement Plan Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013 10 ' GOAL ONE COALITION, r ".. 3.A.a!. ., Applicant Incorrectly Refers to the Subject Properties as Being Subject to Mixed-Use, Area 2 Policies.' ' The subject properties are zoned as Light-Medium Industrial, not as a Mixed-Use Area. See EMRP, Plan Diagram, 23. Mixed-Use Area land is located south of Main Street, , west of 44th Street, east of 48th Street, and a small rectangle of Mixed-Use Area land is located east of the proposed development from 48th Street to approximately one-third of the way between South 47th Street and South 46th Street. Since the' proposed development lot is not within a Mixed-Use Area, no Mixed-Use Area arguments, policy or otherwise, are applicable: ' , The proposed development lot is not in Area 2 and is' not subject to EMRP Mixed-Use Element Policy 2, which is specific to Area 2. See EMRP, Plan Diagram, 23; EMRP 17. Applicant's statement that this policy "allows redesignating the subject properties to Community Commercial, and' concurrently rezoning the properties to Community Commercial" .is unfounded. The policy establishes what uses are allowed under Community Commercial zoning in Area 2 only. ' The policy does not say anything about criteria for rezoning or redesignations, and is applicable only to properties in Area 2. ,3.A.b., Applicant is Requesting a Use That is not Allowed in an EMRP Community Commercial Zone ' The EMRP definition of 'Community Commercial neither allows nor encapsulates medical facilities, offices, clinics, or hosPitals: See EMRP, Glossary, 21, The EMRP establishes that the Community Commercial "plan designation category contains such general activities as retail stores; personal services; financial, insurance, and real 'estate ' offices; private recreational facilities, such as movie theatres; and tourist-related facilities, such as motels." EMRP, Glossary, 21, Therefore, pursuant to the EMRP definition of Community Commercial (outside of Areas 2 or 3), neither medical facilities, offices, clinics, nor hospitals are ailowed in areas with Community Commercial zoning and ,designation. 3.A.c. Applicant's Proposal and Arguments are Inconsistent with the -EMRP's Commercial Element The EMRP's Commercial Element, under Criteria for Commercial Refmement Plan Designation at 1 (D), specifies that "the Community' Commercial refinement plan designation shall be applied under the following circumstances: . . . where legally created commercial uses exist." 12. The tax records for Tax Lot 402 (17-02-32-00-00402) list, the owner as Andrew Head; and the following businesses as associated with Tax Lot 402: Barber Services / General (Land Use Code 6232, 4434 Main Street), Sporting Goods / Retail'(Land Use Code 5951, 4436 Main Street), Other Retail Trade-Autotrailers, Mobile / Retail (Land Use Code 5599, 4440 Main Street). The businesses actually located on' Tax Lot 402 are the following: H.J. Moto Company: Motorcycle and ATV Accessories, Apparel (4434 Main Street); Shear Magic Tanning & Spa (4436 Main Street); All About You: Full SerVice Salon (4440 Main Street). The taX records for Tax Lot 402 do not reflect the three existing businesses actually conducting business on Tax Lot 402. The City staff has not been able to locate any recent permits for the three existing businesses Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013 11' " GOAL ONE,COALlTION actually conducting business on Tax Lot 402. Therefore, the three existing businesses' actually ,conducting business on Tax Lot 402, do not appear to be,leg,\l, and so are not "legally created commercial uses." EMRP, Criteria foro Commercial Refinement Plan 'Designation 1 (D), 12. The EMRP does not authorize plan designation amendments for the purpose of legali;::ing illegal uses. ' The EMRP's Commercial Element, under Criteria' for Commercial Refinement Plan Designation at 1 (F), specifies that "the Community Commercial refinement plan designation shall be applied under the following circumstances: . . . where designated Commercial on the Metro Plan Diagram." 12. The subject properties are not designated Commercial on the Metro Plan, thus there is no justification based on the EMRP criteria for Community Commercial zoning of the subject properties, ' 3.A.d. Applicant's Proposal and Arguments are Inconsistent with the EMRP's Industrial Element ' The EMRP's Industrial Element's goal is to "[e]ncourage the location of new and expanding industrial development in the East Main, area which is compatible with surrounding uses." Eliminating LMI land to create commercial land runs counter to this goal. Furthermore, the EMRP recognizes that "commercial ventures covet the industrial land that fronts on Main Street . . . [and] [a]s these pressures build it becomes increasingly important to assure the availability of landfor tlu! expansion of {ndustrial uses." EMRP 13 (emphasis added). The EMRP recognizes that commercialization threatens industrial lands. Additionally, to be viable, industrial lots must be reasonably- sized and contiguou~, and not broken-up or placed next to other zones where conflicts would be created. The commercial uses 'already present on the lot are inconsistent with the lot's LMI zoning and plan designation. These commercial uses do not appear to be permitted or otherwise approved. In addition, the subject properties were in commercial use during Periodic Review in 2004 when existing uses, plan designations, and zoning inconsistencies were reviewed and corrected where appropriate. The city has had many opportunities to rectify the non'conforming use' problem, but the current PHO proposal is not the appropriate mechanism for addressing a nonconforming, use issue. It, is improper to circumvent'the rules by'allowing an inconsistent or illegal use, and then acting on a third- party proposal that would have the effect of making an inconsistent and possibly illegal use, legal.' 3.B. Failure to Comply with EMRP, ODOT, and OAR 660-012-0060 Requirements, in Regard to Access Issues 3.B.a. ' , The Proposed Development Does Not'Coniply with the EMRP Commercial Element's Criteria or Policies The EMRP's Cominercial Element recognizes that "[t]rafficgenerated by individual commercial activities along Main Street creates hazardous driving situations." 12. The' EMRP's Commercial Element, under' Criteria for Commercial Refinement Plan Designation at I (E), specifies that ~'the Community :Commercial refinement plan Metro Plan/East Main Refinement plan,ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-D0013 12 ,. , '. GOAL ONE COALITION ,designatio~ shall be applied wi.der the following circumstances: " where adequate customer and service access to an arterial street can be provided; however, access to a collector street may suffice if safe imd efficient access car. be provided and if the access , point (on the collector street) is within one quarter mile of an arterial street." 12., The subject properties' parking lot dumps directly'into Main Street, it classified Principal Arterial. See Revised Draft Transplan, the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (Transplan) Appendix A, Federally Designated Roadway Functional Classification Map (1999). The subject properties' parking lot does not abut 44th Street. Already, customers turning left into and out of the parking lot have deficient and dangerous access to Main Street. Should PHO build a larger complex on the site, the problem Will only be magnified. TheEMRP's Commercial Element, under Policies S 1, states th~t its policy is to "[w]here safe and efficient vehicular access can, be provided, encourage the development of neighborhood or small coinmercial shopping centers at the intersections of collector streets and Main Street." 12, Given the requirement for safety and efficiency in a less- intense commercial setting, in a less-dangerous traffic environment, the same requirement for safety and efficiency should be required for proposals affecting the subject properties, As previously stated,' the parking lot access to Main Street available to the subject properties is dangerous to' ,those turning left into and 'out of it, and dangerous and 'inefficient because of the volume of business PHO wduld do in a medical facility as opposed to uses allowed with the current plan designation arid zone (LMI). Furthermore, 'addition of a much larger parking lot area would substantially increase the volume' of' traffic dumping into Main Street, causing traffic to slow and substantially increasing the likelihood of accidents. There is no traffic light nearby to alleviate these problems. Additionally, t\J.e EMRP's Commercial Element, under Policies S 3, states that its policy is to "[r]educe the number of vehicular access points. .. along Main Street." 12. This proposal is contrary to this policy, and als'o magnifies the danger surrounding an existing vehicular access point. ' 3.B.b. Because the Proposed Development Does Not Adequately , Address ODOT's Comments, No Adequate OAR 660-012-0060 Analysis Was Undertaken ' ' , ODOT made 15 comments in regard to the, East Springfield Rezone Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by JRH Transportation Engineers (JRH).' After reviewing ODOrs' position, the City decided that the most appropriate way to address Goal 12 compliance on this proposal was by conditioning a trip cap to'what the worst case scenario would be under existing zoning (LMI). This measure alone does not suffiCiently address all of ODOrs original comments. ' We have read ODors comments and JRH's reply. JRH did not adequately' respond to ODOrs comments. The development may significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility under OAR 660-012-0060, the Transportation Planning Rule, but because JRH leaves significant issues raised by ODOT unresolved and unaddressed, it is not presently possible to formulate a response. For example, ODOrs comment 9 (which , , JRH lists as comment 8) states that "the trip generation study for the proposed zoning must be for the maximum allowable develooment on that site," (emphasis in original). Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013 13' -.... GOAL ONE COALITION Under JRH's response to ODOrs comment 7, JRH uses "the most feasible building , solutions" for the subject lot, admitting that "the land uses may not be the highest trip . generators ,[but] they were established as the most likely development scenario." Response Letter from Jim Hanks PE, 4, May 21, 2007. JRH does not comply with the "maximum allowable development" criteria, but merely substitutes its own standard, , ,"most likely development scenario." There are serious issues with the methodology used , to calculate trips to and from the proposed development site, which in turn casts doubt on the trip caps later imposed based on this data. ' In regard to imposing a trip cap, we have additional concerns as to the method of ' enforcement associated with this limitation. If the subject property is open to all Commercial uses, trips will be generated, from those uses regardless of the trip cap imposed. Therefore, some viable kind of enforcement mechanism, like a deed restriction, should be imposed to ensure compliance with the trip cap., III. Conclusion , The proposed plan amendment is not logical and hannonious with the land use pattern for the greater area. The proposed change is not "logical and hannonious" because it is not consistent with the development pattern envisioned in the Metro Plan. As explained above, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the intent of the Economic Element of the Metro Plan, and does not comply with Metro Plan policies. Therefore it cannot be found to be compatible with these Plans. PeaceHealth Oregon should not be allowed to propose the, subject Plan Amendment or Zone Change because, since PHO is not the owner of the subject properties, such a proposal is inconsistent with the proper initiation of proposed Metro Plan amendments explained in 99 7,010 and 7.030 of the Springfield Development Code. ,Compliance with statewide planning goals, including Goals 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13, has not been established. In particular, it has not been established that the Eugene-Springfield Metro UGB area's supply of Campus Industrial land will be protected pursuant to the PAPA and zone change proposal. The requested plan amendment does not comply With policies of the Metro Plan and Metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study. The requested plan amendment and zone change do not benefit the public and are not appropriate. The applicant incorrectly refers to subject properties as being subject to Mixed-Use, Area 2 Policies. The subject properties are zoned Light-Medium Industrial. The applicant is requesting a use, medical facilities, offices, or clinic, not allowed in an EMRP Community Commercial 'zone. Furthermore, the applicant's'proposal and arguments are inconsistent with the EMRP's Commercial and Industrial elements. ,Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013 14 GOAL ONE COALITION , The proposed development does not comply with the EMRP Commercial Element's criteria ,or policies, since it increases and creates, rather than decreases, removes, or alleviates, traffic .problems. ' Simply imposing the condition of a trip cap to what the worst-case scenario would be under existing zoning does not sufficiently address all of ODOrs comments. Because ODOrs comments'are not adequately addressed, there is no way to form a response, or to determine compliance with OAR 660-012-0060. Additionally, unless a compliance mechanism is imposed, the trip cap provides only illusory regulation of the proposed ,development site. ' Goal One and other parties whose addresses 'appear in the first paragraph of this letter request notice and a copy of any decision and findings regarding this matter. Respectfully submitted, ' , Lauri Segel, ' Community Planner Geoffrey Aguirre, ' Goal One Coalition Legal Intern" Summer 2007 Attachments: Attachment I: East Main Refmement Plan Diagram Attachment 2: Lane County Regional Land Information Attachment3:Google Map of Proposed Development Site Attachment 4: Photographs of Current Site Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013 15 /' ~ I' , I ~. I" 'f \ . 0' 1000' - ~OllQ' SCALE' , L ~ . ./ . ,. --- ~"." , ~'f'\~rt, . . ''"' ' ,",. ) .' 0/ , ..PLAN.... DIAG RAlV " , ',,", J I11I111111 ' 'l ' j'''lidenlla ' [) ,....1 Y d:... I Low Cl ~ . ", : .... ., . L I".,.',clcnlial 1': 'V,, ,", . Medium DenSl,., . : '. '. 1/2&31llll1J1] , . i-Use ;\i ',',.1 t , , M1XCC ""'@ 'ru!~;;{. ': , 2A&8 ~;""'...' I Use AI cn # , Mixec - . . \ 't CI)llJ Inercial COmmlll1l y , ~ '., lrial~ ' /lJedium ':,dus LIght" , , " , triaJ~ ,Ileavy Ind ~s" . . ' "'. 1......1, i-Public .,.... . , ' bl' 'and Sem , , ., Pu ~ . ~ " ""peCiliC , ..( [.)r ilol)cles.:> . f . to LeA . Rc ell uwlgnallo"" , ...\., ~ ~o~nCI;\ ~)".Jil 'v' A.. ,~~ -1 ,L'I '.. ., " I, I ,.., '" ~e'jnemen, Jan ....~.... , " Attachment 2A LANE COUNTY-REGIONAL LAND INFORMATION DATABAL_ Site Address: 4434 MAIN ST "'lp & Tax Lot #: 17-02-32-00-00402 Soeciallnterest Code: 1m?'",,,~.,,,,,x"<<r"W'~'~"'''"'lU;'''''''''2,,,,r 1<~~fi;\'lI.I' ~'I>"~(\'~~;;'''''''''''''GIi'''"~' ""J;iConverMod'!DF,",Oocument.'",''' ;.,*.,M.':i:"'~ ' >'!! .l"J~,vlew!!!Jax,MaR'~1' ::~]fr'~'\"'."'".~tr;l~"L~{\,i'?-..li:~If;~~,,-~~:~:::~"~.;ojt.;:~{1f~)jji ,~~~~~ .;.~:'_ ~.,...::.,.t~'1;.!T...eA.itrti.......:. ~~:J(>N' ~,: , &~~fw-t#E1~~~~~~{f:'~~lclnrfi~~M'a~'~~~lf~ro;;~~~~'1~1:::;~f~~W~~'1:~%~1iQ~taH!Mi'i{tt1);;r:~~~1k~~~~t~~~ -f,_$,(Pl1ofiJ~ ~.',;w.rf'!.Ni"':."';,:~~~JN:ittl;;,!!1DJ,\";':",~_,~",,~,,~~~'b~,,.,P".P~}ttkJgf'~'I.:Q,s...;,;:1i:J,;;~ ,;I:i<l<<."l.~,~:;1-y:r.';fl<r?\~~~",.~;,-...,_~",___"."",~".r:::.;;1t~.)1t,o;.:!"__."J(;,~.:o..;,,ri, ..1:;:cri,~ JS:'1 illiJ~'1-i\'~~:r':;iLGil" "",'V" LX ~~~; i~~~ c:,/~' :~, , . -,,, ,'i\:\(;,<1:~1+1 ,=""" '" " , ^-'''~'~~-I-'-'' "_._"';;"'1""'.. ']'.~~ - ,~" ~ ~~~! {~i ;~: ' r'" : ^ 'I :,,; '!;:;!:;i~:!!}!~;;YIJ:;; i ~-'-i~'r""" " ";;".':;"",,,,,,,,,,, .11.~jj2iiii~~~'l~i fJ:;.~i)~,'~~.~;~L,ili~~.;b~l~',Jr,r_.; ]: ~'::i~;~~:,~j4~;~~;~1.\t~~r;~!;~~i;F~;: '; "..,: . ..::;; en '~',@i2JJ,g);~0:'2:-' ':' '.', ,:.,. ,'" -", d~Wli+lh'l' ~~~~f,~1.4i:'d~~'~'{~~vW'5: .c::~~~~,:T;{?)~~~~~:~1",~i~~9;."I,;:}0;;'1! ~~~~1..' ~~<~~0/~;',~! .f~:t:~1rt~~.~.);, 1..;,':f.", ,;'t: i ~ .:~ :;J Attachment 2B LANE COUNTY REGIONAL LAND INFORMATIONDATABA__ ,Site Address: 4436 MAIN ST . 'ap & Tax Lot #: 17-02-32-00-00402 Soedallnterest Code: n1i,1t'"'''''':''~~'"'''''lB'IJ-1 ,,,,,,:V,ew'J;ax Ma , : i%,?~",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_ J;J::",,,,,,t I ,u,"",R"''''.L,,;_,-' .~.::~.~~~~:.:=m=-""..mJs_"" .. '.. "'v';;'''\i:;r/I';'(M;;'::x:t~~~;;'l4~@;~tr;.w:Ji~1"'4%~i~1,br'-::rh-h"w1,::,');~~ : eta!. anrr::illMmJ.c,M";:"f"""Gri-".' '~'" otO!;]'j ",j._,....",.,.,...L,"""_.,~c_~'f:tC"-~,.'I""'J""r""'"''i1,''',1',1ii:""",;'ff!,~ " _ I , IR ~~~~'~~~ (':-.,':,'o! ",''''Uf>'~-'~''':''!f''''''' "-='>";"''i:,''-''~ti{'';~.;J:?i\\Jf\f'';c~^,,;f-:',-\~,'Il1'R''~,' "N"01"'~.!~~,,'r.~, .'I'0,:_J"F0:"::f!""'r~:;{'t,t~,"";' ~,~,"~~,,,:~;,::.t'\""w""-"'~'''''''''''','''~'''-'~,' ';'Q'0W!~,,)f.nm,~',~:::W:"'':'F_-"l,~,~w~.;~ :lJlJ,'Il' >Ul<I1- "'~.:,~' ". ''':.-:&,'1''-'' ~," -::;9ora-;;,,4~15_1;O.~J~W~~UU}~J5~!''Wry,'~~0.~ :'~~'(~~~~1;.;tl~~~~:{j~~~~~i~\\tl~;lft2,G,QQL(t~JI7r,6..67:41r;'~~~~f~~)\~~~';~~w. :"j',"~'~'Yt.' ~'t '.~~~~;'\~~" ,.~~. >""'~i"'";;;;'.'''''';..-;~!''''/i.,,";,,c,,'',,,;",,',,"01:.~,;=~"'$!.hd",,, ,;.,~"";iJl."~""'",:;d!,;""","",,,,,,......;:;a;a'~~""M"""';"~""'''-".'''''k=...,~a~.",",4i"",~dl;,.<~iAAil<_,_:;;4t~.""",=--, "', '.. ,_,. ... it>,,,~ ... .?' ':Zbnl _'W.'",,",' ~"'~""'~"""'l':'~'"-~'"-"'~'_f",*~~'-'~"~"" ~~~'~'-~"~""Y'~ ~. IJR "R.a"'r"e'"nt,7o"n'~e'''1,.''Y,l>!'Z,'r:!'~~;f? '" '""U":"f'l~""M(!rnf~.'P.,j"''', ":~.,~,,:M .. ::'~:""':''''IG" u;r.iM ED 1;"M!,'N"O',1'S"'RI" I,;:;;;., ':,;:""'1/!'d0,,' ;,f' ,,~?',jt ," >'"'' :~ .1,1,.;.", ..'<.,"1", ",,', "l., '. "",.",,,,,,1:; ,.:"....,,~'" ~.~"." -;..;-:_.".0--"..,-.".,...1:; ril~I'!_ U" .U !H. I"\L:.::-;", " . .~..~"'""t'. .."", ,. -... .' ;;.;;_J:..:)"..-t!<:>:'':''';'';'\:;7~:m:)tiL0ti&-f1D.~.Lt'_~;;&1f[~~",..."",~!;::-.~:f'dl.~.~~fJ!::iI;U~~;;'~>kifh,z.:...p-m,,,:"'v,,,,,,",;e,l<ii<:~j...~;,-J,.k"'i;:};j-~L~:ti\?~' ,,'-;n;~ . .~~. ,! ' Attachment 2C LANE COUNTYREGIONAL LAND INFORMATION DATABA..._ Site Address: 4440 MAIN ST ' "ap & Tax Lot#: 17-02-3,2-00-00402' Soeciallnterest Code~ ~~~1f2~~~1:i:?~f~,~+ ,l::Jse'Gode,andjEies ,""""'\'u&..~.J;:;,"'~~'_""",",''''~:-.(.~'~ Attachment 3 """ 1:1 " ] u '" ~ <: 4436 Main Street '~1Tf I ,i 4434 Main Strect - " ~ - CIl c: 'a ::iE o """ """ """