Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 6/5/2007 (. ,utes approved by the Springfield Planning Commission: June 19, 2007 MIN'UTES' . Springfield Plahning Commission Regular Session Springfield City Hall,---(;ouncil Chamber 225 Fifth Street, Springfield June 5, 2007 7 p.m. PRESENT: Frank Cross, Chair; Bill Carpenter Vice Chair, Gayle Decker, Lee Beyer, David Cole, Johnny Kirschenmann, inembers; Mark Metzger, Brenda Jones, Gary Karp, Gary McKenney, Kitti Gale, Andy Limbird, Dave Reesor, Jerry Smith Chief of Police, Carole Knapel and Mike Hannon, SpringJ.ield staff; Joe Leahy, City Attorney. Commissioner Cross called the meeting to order. Date Receivad: Planner: DR ~!~ ,(jy y,fI.;';) ABSENT: Steve Moe 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE COmmissioner Cross determined there was no business from the audience. 3. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner Cross corrected the agenda, noting that the item related to the amendment of the Eugene- , . Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan and zone map amendment (lON20007-00012 and LRP2004 7 -00013) was incorrectly listed as legislative public hearirig. . a. Site Review for St. Vincent de Paul of Lane County (DRC2007-OO24) Mr. Leahy reviewed the rules governing quasi-judicial hearings. Commissioner Cross called for ex partf contacts or conflicts of interest. There were none. Ms. Gale provided the staff report, noting the request for a retirement facility between 2nd and 5th streets in the vicinity of S Street: She said currently, Springfield lacked senior low-income retirement facilities. '. Ms. Gale said a work session occurred earlier and she was asked to clarify the densities on the parcel. The maximum medium density was 19 units, and the applicant had designed the project to include 18 units on the medium density portion of the site. The maximum high density was 38.7 units per acre, and the applicant proposed 37 units on the high-density porti~n of the parcel. Ms. Gale recommended that the commission consider the project a retirement complex and said she was advised that the parking must be addressed differently due to the low-income aspect of MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission June 5, 2007 Page 1 Regular Session the project. She saf'!:~hat Bend and COl"Vallis required one sp"_e per unit for 55 and older retireinent complexes but had no low~income P:l1"king category. She shared her research from the State of California, which indicated the population to be served was unlikely to require more than , one space, and that dropped when the development was near transit, which this was. Ms. Jones distributed information about parking requirements in California cities to the commission, Ms. Gale recommended .5 spaces per unit, noting the applicant proposed one per unit. C;ommissioner Beyer asked Ms, Gale to address the location of the garbage facilities and the issue oflighting. Ms. Gale said that both as proposed met City code requirements. The findings cited the code requirements for Jighting, which should generally be directed away from residential properties on fixtures no more than 12 feet tall, which was application satisfied. She said the garage facilities should to, the side or rear, and was enclosed. ,As the development was completely surrounded by residential uses on all sides, some residential use would be within 25 feet of the facilities. Commissioner Carpenter asked if there was a setback requirement between high- and medium- density. Mr. Metzger indicated there was a setback requirement between medium-and low- density and high- and low-density housing. Ms. Gale said the code was specific to a 25 foot setback for low-density development. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the development was unique in both the "potential type of people" who would live there as well as in that it crossed two zones in one building. Ms. Gale said that the Fire Code addressed that issue. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the code;distinguished between visitor and resident parking. Ms. Gale said no. Commissioner Carpenter expressed concern that there would be inadequate parking. ' Terry McDonald, Executive Director for the St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County, was accompanied by architect Anne Delany and builder Dennis Miley. Mr. McDonald said the development was an opportunity for St. Vincent de Paurto bring much needed housing to Springfield. He said the project was a HUD 202 Project, which was a subsidized project that allowed an individual at 50 percent of median income over 62 years of ' age to pay 30 percent of their adjusted gross income iri rent., Only two awards had been made in" Oregon in a very competitive process. Mr. McDonald pointed out that more than ten percent of the community' s population was over 65 years of age and that was expected to double in the next, 25 years. More than 1,000 senior renters in Springfield were very low income and paid half their income in rent. ,The project would address the need that existed. Commissioner Beyer determined from Mr. McDonaldthat the HUD age limit was 62. Commissioner Carpenter asked what would preclude St. Vincent de Paul from converting the project to market housing. Mr. McDonald responded that the agency had a 40-year requirement from HUD to keep the project an affon:Iable project, and St. Vincent de Paul had a commitment to develop and maintain affordable housing in the community. Each of its 19 projects had a 50- year commitment. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the agency could "buyout the grant." MI. McDonald said no. Ms. Delany identified the project location on a map and noted the right-of-way serving the property, She identified the property line that separated the high- and medium-density portions MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session . June 5, 2007 Page 2 of the project and pt-...ted out the parking location. She poink _ out the storm water service location. Commissioner Beyer asked the distinc~ from the back property lines onS Street to the building. Ms, Delany said it was 120 feet.' ' Ms. Delany shared a three-dimensional view of the project. Commissioner Carpenter asked the distance to 5th Street from the garden area, Ms. Delany estimated the distance at 60 feet and said the agency did not own that property. Commissioner Carpenter determined from Ms. Del'any that the City was requiring the agency to build two-thirds of the street The right-of-way was SO feet wide, and the pavement wO,uld be 28 feet wide, She confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Commissioner Carpenter, that the width could accommodate a full road; she did not know if could accommodate parking. Commissioner Carpenter pointed out that if there was a full road, there, would be no issues about parking. Commissioner Decker pointed out thatthe property across the street was responsible for the remainder of the street. Commissioner Carpenter suggested the City could build the full street and then charge that property o"'fleL Ms. Delany said that when the property owner across the street developed, they would be responsible for finishing the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees. .. ' , , Commissioner Carpenter asked about the right-of-way to 2nd Street. Ms. Delany pointed out where the right-of-way ceased. She said there was a half right-of-way, but the City's master plan , called for the street to go through. When the properties abutting it were developed, the street would be extended. Responding to a question from Commissioner Carpenter, Mr. Metzger said that the City might require the full development of streets and infrastructure for a subdivision, but it would not make that requirement of a project such as this. Commissioner Carpenter cited the precedent established by Peace Health in paying for the roads that would serve it. Mr. McDonald said that St. Vincent de Paul met with the neighbors of the property on May.14. He thought the meeting had been very productive, and he had followed up with a letter addressing as many of those concerns as possible. The agency was trying to'be a good steward of the project to meet the neighbors' needs as well as its own needs. . Commissioner Carpenter asked if St. Vincent de Paul would have employees on the site.. ML McDonald smd there would be an on-site manager and other employees would visit the site to offer classes, for example, but would not live there, Commissioner Carpenter asked if the landscaping would be maintained. ML McDonald said the landscaping would be maintained by contract. Commi~sioner Carpenter asked how many people would be employed on the site in a single week after the project was done. Mr, McDonald said the facility would be an independent living facility and there would be no other staff outside the on-site manager. He tallied the maximum number of nonresidents visiting the site people each week at approximately nine. Commissioner Cross referred to the garden area for residents' use and the potential a portion could be used for parking. Mr. McDonald said the space was wide enough' to be used for parking. Ms. Delany. estimated that 20 or more additional parking spaces could be added if the commission eliminated the garden area for residents. MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 5, 200T Page 3 Commissioner Cross called for'public testimony. Rita Castillo; 6825 F Street, said she used to live at B Street and wanted a park behind the house but St, Vincent de Paul had bought the property and built Ash Meadows. At that time, they estimated an extra 600 automobiles a week. ,That might have been true at the beginning, but over time things quieted down and the development became a nice neighbor. The agency had been a good neighbor and good landlord. They kept on-site managers on their properties. She said seniors were good quiet neighbors, She had visited the street and considered it wide enough to accommodate four ordinary vehicles parked side by side. She supported the application and , encouraged the'commission to visit other St. Vincent de Paul projects. , Commissioner Carpenter asked if Ms. Castillo i{she had viewed the agency's Fairview development. Ms, Castillo said no. Ken Schmidt, owner of496 and 498 SStreet, a,resident of 605 Fairoaks Drive in Eugene, was supportive of the work done by St. Vincent de Paul but had concerns about the width of the street. He did not agree that the street was wide enough for cars to pass each other safely and suggested it was at capacity at this time. It was hard to enter it vehicle when cars were passing. , He also was concerned about the number of vehicles going in and out of the proposed development. He called for an alternative way to bring traffic into the site. Commissioner Carpenter determined from Mr. Schmidt he had experienced at accident at 5th and S Street when another motorist failed to heed a stop sign. Commissioner Carpenter asked if Mr. Schmidt had seen any other accidents there. Mr. Schmidt said rio, but he had been backed upin , traffic as far away as S Street from the stoplight at 5th Street on busy evenings, Mr. Schmidt said that he was not contacted by St. Vincent de Paul. Steven BUsta, 472 S Street, shared the concerns expressed by 'Commissioner Carpenter and Mr. Schmidt regarding the capacity of the street. He feared that additional congestion and noise would be the result and residents' enjoyment of their properties would be disturbed. He believed that alternative rights-of-way sUyh as the one to the north of the storage facility could be used, although he acknowledged the agency ,did not own that property. It did not seem wise tO,have all the traffic from the development on the limited capacity ofS,Street. He requested that the record remain open for seven days. Joel Treola, 368 S Street, expressed his concern about the construction traffic coming in and out of the site. He did not think the trucks could easily make the 90 degree turns at the intersections at S and 5th streets and S and 3rd streets. He was a motor carrier enforcement officer for the Oregon Department of Transportation and had considerable experience on the extent of trucks' maneuverability. He had witnessed how difficult it was for cars to make those tums and suggested that trucks up to ten feet wide could be coming to the site, making the turn even more challenging. He said most of the young children on S Street appeared to live on the west end and children will out in the streets, creating potential conflicts. He supported an alternative route for construction vehicles. Commissioner Carpenter asked Mr, Treola ifhe thought the intersection betWeen S and T streets were more dangerous than it would be,if the streets were across from each other. Mr. Treola did not know, ' MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission' Regular Session June 5, 2007 Page 4 Commissioner Cross called for coinment from staff. Ms. Gale indicated the City did not have dedicated right-of-way to the south of the applicant's ~~ ' Commissioner Beyer asked the width ofT Street and S Street. Mr. McKenney did not know the width ofT Street, and S Street was 32 feet. The City's current standard was 36 feet; a minimum of 28 was allowed where there were .less than: 200 feet oflength and fewer than 1,000 trips daily. He acknowledged Commissioner Beyer, that 28 feet was tight for auto passage. He believed that S Street was a standard City street, although a little narrower than the current standard. He said the City did not require anyone to build more than 36 feet in'such a situation. Commissioner Cross asked if there had been special provisions for construction access. Mr. McKenney did not, know. He was not familiar with any cases where the Cil:)' imposed a condition of approval that precluded construction trucks on a street. Commissioner Cole asked if the City had ever limited parking on a,temporary basis to facilitate co~1r!lction traffic. Mr. McKenney did not know" '" 'Commissioner Beyer asked the setback from a corner for parking. Mr. McKenney said the City did not have a code provision that spok;e precisely to the queStion; it employed a vision clearance arigle approach that was 25 feet along the property line. The curb was traditionally marked with yellow paint. When the City was called by residents with complaints, it investigat~d the situation and on occasion removed parking. He distinguished the City's management of the' street system from the land development process. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the City could require a lot owner to provide an alternative construction access to property in a residential neighborhood. He asked if the City could require the property to secure an easement across another property for that purpose. Mr. Leahy said he would do further research. He suggested that requiring the applicant to secure an easement on, another property was essentially requiring the applicant to turn his checkbook over to the owner of the property containing the easement. He noted that during the construction of the Royal Building, the City had allowed the temporary removal of parking spaces to facilitate construction access. Corrimissioner Carpenter noted the amount of construction parking at that site. Mr. McKenney said in the case Of the Royal Building, the vehicles in question were occupying what would normally be on-street parking. The City had not required that; the builder had come to the, City and indicated what was necessary to facilitate construction. Cominissioner C:l1"Penter asked what constituted two-thirds of a street. Mr. McKenney indicated that iwo-thirds of 36 feet was 24"feet, and the intent was to provide for two travel lanes. The property owner across the street wouJd'be required to build their part of the street as required by Article 32, Commissioner Carpenter believe,d that there was a potential parking problem and the .City's requirem'ents were not sufficient to provide for needed parking, having a spillover,effect on residents. Mr. McKenney said he had no evidence there was going to be parking problem. He believed the parking to be provided on site was entirely adequate. Commissioner Carpenter said the project was "an island" and said there would be no recourse if there was a parking problem. Mr. McKenney concurred that if the parking lot was full people would park on the street. Commissioner Garpenter maintained that people would be trespassing on other people's property to reach the project from their Parking spot else given the current design. MINUTES-Springfield Pianning Commission Regular Session June 5, 2007 Page 5 Commissioner Croso pointed out to Commissioner Carpentel ~.at Mr. McKenney was contending that there was no parking issue. Commissioner Carpenter pointed out that Mr. McKenney said if the lot was full, people would park on the street. Mr. McKenney said that was simple logic. If the parking lot was full, people would ~eek the next nearest place to park. Parking was not permitted on Stl'Street or Q Street, and there was no way to reach the site from 2nd Street without crossing private land. However, he continued to maintain the parking proposed was adequate. Responding to questions asked earlier at the work session by Commissioner Carpenter, Mr, McKenney said thai the trip generation numbers included in the staff report were for the proposed use; the ITE reference document employed by staff assigned a value to senior adult housing oD.48 trips per day per occupied unit. Commissioner Carpenter asked the age of the data. Mr. McKenney said that the data was collected in several states in the 1980s and I 990s for a range of developments in several states. Commissioner Carpenter asked about the trip generation from an apartment complex,' Mr. McKenney fIrst clarified that the information for apartments does not account for a full day; staff had information about peak hours, and as general rule of thumb, the peak hour ofthe day was usually about ten percent of the daily total. For senior adult housing, the,average rate was. 11 trips per occupied unit. For a mid-rise apartment, the average rate was .39, or about four times the rate for senior adult housing. Commissioner Carpenter said that information "baffled him" because of the number of units involved. Mr. McKenney said that was the data available and it was found by taking the measurements available in the real world, and it was all staff had to work with. Commissioner Beyer was not surprised that the amount of trips was'substantially less. He did not expect senior citizens to be taking children to soccer games or take their children to work. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that perhaps 'the seniors he knew were more active as they also cared for their grandchildren at times. He thought senior citizens were "different" than they were in 1985. ' Commissioner Carpenter asked what 55 single-family residences would produce in a peak hour. Mr, McKenney said that almost 'exactly 55 trips. He confirmed, in response to a question from Commissioner Carpenter, that the data indicated that senior citizens drive one-tenth as much. at peak hours as the occupants of a single-family house. Mr. McKenney said the ITE parking generation data ranged from the 1960s to the present. For senior adult housing, the parking supply ratio was 1.2 to 1.4 per unit. There parking demand ratio was .5 to .33 parking spaces per unit. Two studies were involved, one of 46 units and one of91 units. For apartments, the parking supply ratio was 35 spaces for 55 units, or 1.4 per unit. Commissioner Carpenter asked about right-of-way between the development and ind Street. Mr. McKenney pointed out the City-owned property in the area that could be used as a street in the future when additionil! space was acquired, Mr. Leahy said the City also required a setback of , the property occupied by the mini-storage units so that if it had to acquire something by eminent domain it wouldcosHess, He indicated he would research that information for inclusion in the record. Commissioner Carpente~ suggested that if the City already owned property.in that area, it could be temporarily surfaced. Commissioner Decker pointed out that it only got one hallWay there, Mr. McKenney agreed, pointing out the gap that existed. The City did not have a complete continuous right-of-way from 2nd Street to 3rd Street. Mr. Leahy was unsure that the City did not own the entire length, and wanted to research that information. MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commi~sion Regular Session ' June 5,2007 " Page 6 Ms. Gale reminded the commission that the building development process was not part of the land use, decision. The building process was governed by other regulations. Commissioner Cross, asked if the commission could require special traffic restrictions for the building development process. Mr. Leahy said he would look into the question and respond later. Commissioner Cross called for rebuttal testimony. Mr. Miley said that when his company ,worked in a residential area, employees were directed to work with extreme care. The company,planned to improve the street and place a staging area where the barricades now exist. He believed the intersections were safely negotiable by large vehicles. Mr. Miley said there were many 32 foot wide streets, and his company had worked on 28-foot wide streets without a problem, He was confident that his company would be able to do the construction with a minimal impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Carpenter asked how many yards of dirt would be moved. Mr. Miley responded that plans were not complete and 'he did not know. Commissioner Carpenter asked how many people would be on the site at one time. Mr. Miley estimated 60 to 90. Commissioner Carpenter asked the maximum number of people ,working on the Royal Building. Mr. Miley estimated 60 to 90. He said that construction generated many workers, and they were familiar with the work conditions, The company planned to provide parking off site. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the company ever required car pooling to a site. Mr. Miley said yes. Commissioner Carpenter asked if that could occur in this case. Mr. Miley said it was possible if a place could be found to park the cars of the people in the car pool. He pointed out that contractors often drove their own trucks with their own equipment to sites. Commissioner Beyer determined from,Mr. Miley the parking lot would be in place before the majority of construction activity occurred. <;:ommissioner Carpenter expressed concern abOut the morning and afternoon "rush hours" down S Street created by the construction.wcirk force. Mr. Miley pointed out that the employees would not all show up at once. Mr. McDonald reminded the commission that the occupants would be low-income seniors and the experience of other such projects in the region indicated there was not many vehicles associated with such a project because the occupants were poor. Those projects did not experience many outside visits. He did not think the project could be likened to a typical senior development because it would serve very low-income se'niors who were often alone, and he wished that was different. He believed the parking would be adequate and it would accommodate both residents and visitors. Commissioner Beyer assumed that the people who lived in the development would visit stores and the development was within easy walking distance of stores. Mr. McDonald agreed, but pointed out that frequently such populations were unable to walk much. Commissioner.Carpenter asked what in the code prevented the occupant's friends or siblings from moving in with them. ' Mr. McDonald said the agency had very rigid criteria for who lived in the project, and the number who could live there was restricted as the units were one-bedroom MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 5, 2007 Page 7 units and could acct-__.ffiodate only twop.eople. Commissiont-o -::arpenter asked if the manager would check that. Mr. McDonald said yes. He pointed out the housing was very dense and it tended to create a community ,unto itself, and everyone ,Would know everyone else, Commissioner Carpenter thought the project was a great one but he questioned whether it was adequately planned fm minimum impact. 'Commissioner Cross closed the public hearing and held the written record open June 12 at 5 p.m., and gave the applicant two additional days,to respond the record (June 14). Commissioner Kirschenmann was interested in seeing a commitment to the City that the development would be senior housing for at leaSt 25 years. Mr. Metzger noted that the City administered the Community Development Block Grant dollars that would go to the development and had some oversight in that sense. Commissioner Kirschenmann indicated ,satisfaction with the response. He asked what could be done about parking ifit became a problem: Mr. Leahy in~iicated that staff would l,ook-into what could be done within the confines of the existing code. ' Commissio~er Carpenter requested the police reports on accidents on 5th Street between U and Q streets for the.1ast five years. Commissioner Cross called for a brief meeting break. b. Vacation of Public Right-of- Way-City of Springfield/Springfield Police Department (LRP2007-00019) , Mr. Leahy provided the rules governing the public hearing. Commissioner Cross called for ex parle c~ritacts or conflicts of interest. There were none. Mr. Liinbird provided the staff report, noting the location of the right-of-way to be vacated, which was for the purpose of incorporating the vacated street into the new Justice Center, He noted the other planning processes that had occurred in regard to the Justice Center. Construction was pending. He said the staff report included fmdings in support of the ~equest. A traffic study was done for the site option selected for the Justice Center in July 2006 and was referenced in the staff report and incorporated into the public record by reference, ' Mr. Limbird noted the four letters received from Bob Foster regarding the vacation request. Mr. Limbird said the commission's recommendation on the issue would be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision. The record established through the commission process would be forwarded to the council as well. Commissioner Cross opened the public hearing. ' Police Chief Jerry Smith provided some background of the project, noting the alternative sites considered by staff and its concerns about the need to be in close proximity to the City Hall. One of the drivers for th,e selection of the location was financial, and the City already had owned the site in question. The council, in the bond measure presented to the voters, indicated the building would be constructed at the propo~<;:d site and it could require some street closures 'or additional MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission June 5, 2007 Page 8 Regular Session land pUrchases to co~1Jj:,lete the project. The architectural rellludons 6fthe building were used in the campaign, and the renderings indicilted closure of both 4th Street and B Street. Chief Smith said the closure of 4th Street was not necessary. Continuing, Chief Smith said that following successful bond measure, the council formed an advisory committee to look at different60nstruction options. The committee's ultimate recommendation was not unanimous, The council had accepted the recommendation, however, and directed staff to move forward with the project. He said the City's code allowed for street closures when the public good outweighed the negative impact and the land remained in public ownership. , Chief Smith noted the memorandum he provided the commission outlining the reasons for the closure, He emphasized the operational and safety issues related to the street closure. He said that the police fleet must be secured as it was a popular target. He was also concerned about the safety of employees crossing the street to reach their police vehicles if the street was not closed. The jail must have an evacuation, plan for inmates, and there was no viable alternative solution to having a secured area contiguous tp the facility for that purpose. He invited questions. 'Commissioner Carpenter referred to the alleyway that would become the nearest throughway to the facility if the street was closed, and; asked if it was possible to move the fence on the north side of the facility three feet to provide room for a sidewalk. Chief Smith indicated that would reduce parking. He did not observe much pedestrian traffic in that area. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that it was possible pedestrian traffic could increase on the alley if the street was closed. Chief Smith said that the fence could be moved but he would prefer that it not be moved as anything that affected the parking design would have a compromising effect on operations, Scott Olson, 1127 E Street supported the project but objected to the , street closure. He acknowledged Chief Smith's concerns butsaid the public process had been completely ignored, and his concerns about the nodal development overlay were not taken into account. The City had modified the code in what he termed a "crude attempt" to waive the comprehensive plan , zoning and refinement plans applied to the district. The City changed what was allowed in the zone to build the Justice Center downtown. Now the City proposed to "ignore all the rules. related to what was supposed to happen." He requested the record be held open. Mr. Olson asked that his previous'testimony before the commission be added to the record. He had asked to be notified of all subsequent actions related to the Justicd::enter, but the City had failed to notify him of the site review process, He said ifthe council approved the vacation, it would be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals. ' Commissioner Beyer determined fromMr, Leahy there was no legal bl)lTier to incorporating Mr. Olson's previous testimony into the record. Don Maloney, 922 B Street, expressed his support for the application?? Roxie Cuellar, representing the Homebuilders Association of Lane County, 2053 Laura Street, said the homebuilders supported the project. She also spoke on her own behalf, noting she had chaired the bond measure campaign that led to the Justice Center,and chaired the campaigns for the police levy. She'said when the bond was passed, the City accepted monetary restrictions on what would be spent on the jail. Other designs were considered, but all exceeded the money MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission June 5; 2007 Page 9 Regular Session provided by the bor,~. The design was chosen because the vo...rs had selected it through the amount they were willing to spend. Ms. Cueller said that the levy campaigns promised improyed response, and closing B Street was a way to keep the department from going backward in regard to response time. If officers had to cross a street carrying public traffic to reach their cars, that would be going backward. Ms. Cueller said the closure would not have a significant irnpact on ' street connectivity and other streets served the area adequately. She said the application met the requirements of the State statutes. Patrick Lucaneo, 1097 Janis Street, a member of the Police Planning Task Force, spoke in support of the application. He had also been involved in the levy c.ampaigns mentioned'by Ms. Cuellar. He underscored Ms. Cuellar's remarks about response time. He also expressed appreciation to the City Council for moving forward with the project in a responsible way. He thought it would be irresponsible to build a police campus with three different areas, particularly when specialized weapons, equipment, , and vehicles were involved, The street closure was needed to unit those areas into a single Justice Center. He termed it folly to run a public street through the middle of a police complex. He did not think the street closure would inconvenience anyone. He agreed with Chief Smith about the importance of security and suggested closing one block was a small price to pay with a high rate'of return. ' Responding to a question from Commissioner Carpenter aboutthe degree to which response time would be increased if B Street was left open. Mr; Lucaeno did not have that information as he was not currently on"the task force. He said an officer called to an emergency had one thing on their mind, the response, and they would race to their'cars without thinking about traffic. Commissioner Carpenter asked how many'police officers were on the street compared to officers in the center. Mr. Lucaeno did not kno,W, but pointed out that in the case of an emergency, the remainder of the force would be called in and would have to prepare themselves for a response. Janelle Mitchell; 841 Riverknoll Way; asked the commission to support the application to preclude the Justice Center from being""potentially broken." She said that the transfer of evidence from one part of the complex to the other could be hampered and evidence potentially damaged by the elements if the closure was n6t approved. She noted the officer safety issues that had been raised previously. She suggested a big issue to consider was officer access to the SWOT van, which must be loaded and deployed quickly. It was important that and other . specialized vehicles be close to the building. If the units were parked in an area farther away, it would require more money. The transfer of prisoners or those brought in for questioning would be more complicated and would require more officer time if the street was not closed. She thought thattime better spent on patrol. Faye Brabham, 644 North 4'h Street, thought the sacrifice of one city block would not be much in comparison to the Justice Center. She said that if there was anyway for the department to keep the street open, she was sure that would be supported, but that did not appear to be feasible to maintain building security. Norman Marlboro, 3995 Conunercial Avenue, said he worked in the corrections field and the need for secwity was continually pounded into the heads of such workers, and that included the safety and secwity of both employees and inmates. He thought the street closure being proposed was extremely importint to the safety of those who would be housed in the facility,and thought the idea of allowing public traffic into such an area was unwise, There was the danger of injury to pedestrians and others passing by, creating a huge liability for the City of Springfield. MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 5, 2007 Page 10 , Comrii.issioner Cros, ..;alled for staff comment. Mr. Limbird recommended approval of.the application, saying the testimony provided to the commission generally supported the findings in the staff report, . . Chief Smith pointed out that the, use of the Justice Center was the same use that had been in place for the 37 years he had been in Springfield in that it included ajail that was now used' as a holding facility, The City Prosecutor would be housed there. The use was not changing. Regarding Commissioner Carpenter's question regarding response time, Chief Smith said' it was impossible to answer. The reality was that there were five or six people in patrol cars at any time of the day and they were not always patrolling because they were transporting prisoners or meeting witnesses at the station. When the department was in need of additional resources, it could call on detectives to'respond as well. ,Commissioner Carpenter asked if those w~re "back up" responders. Chief Smith said it depended on the definition of "back-up responder" and the situation involved. At any given time, the department could have one, two, or three officers at the Lane County jail, and if an anned robbery occurred, he would have to call in back-up responders. Commissioner Cross closed the public hearing and indicated the record would remain open for seven days. Commissioner Cross reopened the public hearing to accommodate an additional speaker. Cecil Saxon, 85769 2nd Street, Eugene, said he owned property in Springfield. He said that everyone needed the police at some time and the commission should do everything it could to support the police. He said tJ:ie voters had already indicated their support. He questioned why the community should keep rehashing the issue and pointed out that only a small minority opposed the street closure. He thought the services that were provided by the police more important that the street closure. ' Commissioner Cross again closed the public hearing and indicated the record would remain open , until June 12, 2007, at 5 p.m., and the proponents would have until June 14 to submit rebuttal testimony. c. Metro PlanlRefinement Plan Map Amendment and a Concurrent Zone Mao Amendment; Journal Number ZON2007-00012 and LRP20047-00013, Mr. Leahy reviewed the rules governing quasi-judicial hearings. Commissioner Cross called for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Commissioner Cole declared a conflict of interest because ofhis wife's employment at Peace Health and left the meeting. Mr. Reesor provided the staff report, noting the proposed zone change and calling attention to the applicable criteria and statutes governing the applications. He highlighted that Goal 12, Transportation, and Goal 9, Economic Development, were the State goals most pertaining to the application. 'He said that staff recommended a trip capof243 trips based on the applicant's submitted Traffic Impact Analysis. The cap was intended to restrict the intensity of future uses on the site. The applicant's ultimate goal was,to construct a 35,000 square foot medical office MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 5, 2007 Page 11 " . . building, and the trlj#rgeneration for suc~ a use was much dif1~.~nt than, for example, a restaurant. Mr. Reesor said that Mr, McKenney was present to answer questions about traffic issues: . Ii Commissioner Cross asked if the traffiC'issue wasthe largest concern in regard to the zone' change application. Mr. Reesor said yes, noting that staff had been looking at the issue with Oregon Department of Transportation staff, who had written the scope of work for the traffic analysis. Responding to a question from Commissioner Carpenter, Mr. Reesor said that the applicant submitted a response to ODOrs cOll1lI!ents and proposed a trip cap of 346 trips; since that time staff met with the applicant, who indicated acceptance of the recommended cap of243 trips, Referring to Attachment 1-4, Commissioner Carpenter asserted that light industrial was'intended to be a buffer for heavy industrial, and it appear~d from the map that the commercial property to the east continued to have a light-medium industrial buffer but the site in question would not. He asked if the applicant was willing to "take all the pain that they're going to lose having a buffer" or being adjacent to heavy industrial. If so, how could the City protect heavy industrial from any, future nuisance suits from something else that came to the,area. Mr. Reesor referred the question to the applicant. He noted that the Community Commercial zone was one of the City's more intensive commercial zones. Mr. Metzger pointed out that it was not unusual to have heavy industrial adjacent to commercial. Buffers were more intended to protect low-density residential from higher intensity uses, and Community Commercial was a pretty intense zone. ' Commissioner Decker asked who oWned the industrial land in the area. Mr. Reesor did not know. Mr. Reesor noted that one of the tax lots had an existing commercial use that had been in existence for decades (Tax Lot 402). ' Responding to a que_stion from Commissioner Kirschenmann, Mr. Reesor said that the 243 trip cap was considered the reasonable worst case scenario for the existing zorung. The applicant proje(;ted about 171 trips, well below the cap of 243,trips. Commissioner Cross opened the public hearing. Philip Farrington, 123 International Way, represented,Peace Health. He said the proposal achieved four of the eight council goals listed on the wall: it helped use resources efficiently, maintained the existing transportation infrastructure, expanded the Springfield' economy by creating family wage job, ,and facilitated the redevelopment of Springfield. He said that the hospital was seeking to serve the rapidly developing area in east Springfield. He acknowledged the industrial use next door and the fact that the hospital was being somewhat of a pioneer in locating on the site, but he anticipated there would be other developments that helped improve the face of Main Street. ' Mr. Farrington said the application demonstrated that there was a surplus of industrial land and a deficit of commercial land. J:>eace He~lth would not "debit" the inventory of needed industrial MINUTES-Springfield ,Planning Commission June 5, 2007 Page 12 Regular Session . . lands but would pro. .Je land for commercial services in a ma._,er consistent with the City's adopted and acknowledged Commercial Lands Inventory, It,was consistent with the City's Economic Opportunities Analysis and its adopted plan, and hence with the Eugene-Springfield ' Metropolitan Ge"neral Area Plan and Statewide planning goals. Mr. Farrington invited questions about Goal 9, He indicated many of the jobs that would be created would be in a higher income bracket than the jobs provided in the former industrial yard, He also believed the development would provide a better buffer for the existing residential development along 44th Street abutting the property to the west. Regarding Goal 12, Mr. Farrington said the trip cap could accommodate the square footage 1 build-out and the applicant had no objection, even though there was more capacity that could be developed. He noted that Jim Hanks of JRH Engineering was present to answer questions about the trip cap: ' Commissioner Carpenter asked how the hourly peak fit into the trip cap. Mr. Hanks responded . that the analysis looked at peak hour trips and they turned out to be same ratio and types of uses' as off-peak hour trips. He clarified that the trip cap was, not hourly, it was daily, Mr. Hanks said that ODors requirements were based on the transportation planning rule (TPR), which stipulated that at the end of the planning horizon no land use change could cause a ' significant effect, which means that you could not have failure in the transportation system caused by a land use change. ODOT wanted to take the worst possible case to analyze if that happened, There were alternatives available under the TPR, such as asking the City to change a mobility standard or establishing a trip cap. There was also the option of mitigation. Peace Health chose a trip cap because that avoided the need to pay for improvements that were not necessary . Nancy Faulk, 2567 Marcola Road, expressed concern about the loss oflight industrial land. She perceived a contradiction between the applicant's stated intent to build commercial uses with a "possible" medical office. She requested that the record remain open. Commissioner Beyer asked if Ms. Faulk planned to submit additional written material. Ms. Faulk did not think so.. Commissioner Cross called for the staff response. Mr. Reesor said the proposed change to Community Commercial was proposed'by the applicant because the medical office use was an allowed use in that zone. That did not mean the applicant could not change its mind in the future. However, the applicant had indicated intent to build a medical office. Mr. Reesor said he had received no other testimony outside that offered tonight. l . . . . CommissionerDecker determined from Mr. Reesor that the trip cap accompanied the property, Mr. Farrington said Peace Health had looked long and hard for property in east Springfield, and there was little commercially zoned land available at a reasonable price, that was not already developed, or was of sufficient size to accommodate the medical office contemplated. Other options were on residentially zoned property, and there were concerns about the inventory of such binds, while that concern did not exist in regard to commercial land. Commissioner Cross closed the public hearing and indicated the record would remain open until June 12 at 5 p.m. The applicant :would be given two days to respond. MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 5, 2007 Page 13 .'. 4. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING' a. Amendment and Reformat of the Springfield Development Code--Journal Number LRP2007 -00015 Mr. Karp provided the staff report. He entered the staff report into the record, and indicated it laid out findings in support of the changes. He recommended the commission approve the attached findings and forward its recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Cross opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, he dosed the public hearing. Commissioner Beyer, seconded by Commissioner Decker, based on, the staff report and findings therein, the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it adopt the amendment to the Springfield Development Code as proposed. The motion passed unanimously. ' 5. BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR Mr. Grile reported that House Bill 3337 had passed both houses of the Oregon Legislature. Commissioner Beyer observed that Governor Ted Kulongoski had ten days to sign the bill. Responding to a question from Commissioner 'necker; Mr. Grile anticipated a tWo-step process, the first to separate the boundaries by implementing the statute, arid the second to look at the land supply issue. The bOundary could be separated by the end of the year., ' Mr. Leahy reported on his attendance at the funeral service for former Planning Commissioner Don Lutes and said a Japanese maple tree had been planted in his honor at Island Park. He noted Mr. Lutes' long service to Springfield. o 6. REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION There was no council report. 7. BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION There was no other business, 8. ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING Commissioner Cross adjourned the meeting at 10: 15 p.m. . ,(Recorded bY Brenda Jones, Transcribed by Kim Young) MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session , ' June 5, 2007 Page 14 . ~inutes approved by the Springfield ,anning Commission: June 19, 2007 MINUTES Springfield Planning Commission Work Session Springfield City Hall-Jesse Maine Room 225 Fifth Street, Springfield June 5, 2007 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Frank Cross, Chair; Bill Carpenter Vice Chair, Steve Moe, Gayle Decker, Lee Beyer, David Cole, Johnny Kirschenmann, members; Greg Mott, Mark Metzger, Gary Karp, Gary McKenney, Kitti Gale, Andy Limbird, Dave Reesor, Carole Knapel, Mike Hannon and Police Chief Jerry Smith, Springfield staff; Joe Leahy, City Attorney , (_I "I ()7 ,. Date Received:~; Commissioner Cross called the meeting to order. Planner: DR (6 ?--tWV ' 1. WORK SESSION a. Site Review for St. Vincent de Paul of Lane County (DRC2007-0024) Ms. Gale said the application involved a multi-unit structure with 55 units. She called attention to architectural renderings and a site plan of the proposed , development. Residents would: go through a screening process and there would be an on-site manager. The development would include parking, storage facilities, and communitY rooms. St. Vincent de Paul would pay to have the street improved. There was sufficient roolIl for emergency access. Ms. Gale said there were some areas in the proposal.where the applicant was requesting concessions to the code. In addition, she had received 24 letters from neighbors expressing concern about the development, so staff decided to bring the' decision to the commission. That would give the neighbors an ~ditional way to voice their concerns. ' . Ms. Gale referred to the staff report, and said it appeared the primary concern for neighbors was traffic. Others were concerned about the, safety of children using the , road as a playground, She noted the history of S Street and .said there was nothing unusual about it. Mr. McKenney .was available to answer questions about the traffic study; His examination of the application indicated that street system could accommodate the traffic to be generated by the development with no need for stop signs or traffic lights. ' Ms. Gale referred to the conditions proposed for the development, which indicated areas to be resolved by the commission, including the category for the development as it related to parking. She said that multi-unit development required 1.5 parking spaces per unit. St. Vincent de Paul had provided information abou~ its other MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission June 5, 2007 Page 1 Work Session senior deve! lents, and it indicated they did not incJ,,-ie much parking. For . 'example, there were as few as 30 parking spaces for a ,')-unit structure in Eugene, She had conclud~d the development could have as little as ,25 spaces per unit, but the agency chose to have one parking space per unit for a total of 55. Ms. Gale noted the inclusion of a community garden space on the site plan and suggested it was possible to use that space for parking. However, it did not appear there was a need. for more than one space per unit. She recommended the commission accept the adequacy of the parking. Speaking to concerns expr~ssed by the neighbors about the potential conversion of the development from a senior complex, Ms. Gale'reported that the St. Vincent de Paul was working under grant restrictions that forbid such conversions for a minimum of 40 years. Ms: Gale noted that the proposed structure was seven inches higher than the code allowed to accommodate the elevator, and she recommended that be accommodated. Speaking to the storage spaces, Ms. Gale said St. Vincent de Paul proposed to reduce the size of outdoor storage because additional closet space, extra bicycle parking, and a community rO,om were being included. There was storage space for every apartment outside the apartment, however: . Ms. Gale noted the Fire Department's recommendation for no parking on 3rd Street until it was constructed to a 36 foot width, which was, a concern to the residents. She said' an added concern was the impact of construction. The construction contractor would be present at the hearing to answer questiOlis and to describe his plans for addressing it. Ms. Gale noted concerns expressed by residents regarding the loss of property values, which she could not speak to. However, she noted the zoning pattern in the neighborhood and said it had not changed for decades. She emphasized with those who purchased properties thinking that the vacant parcels nearby were not going to be developed, but they were. Ms. Gale noted the potential that the development of . undeveloped properties in the area would resultin the extension of S Street. St. Vincent de ,Paul would improve the frontage of its property. She rioted the right- of-way owned by the City. She' acknowledged the neighbors' concern that the street was not fully built, but that was the way development worked and the street improvements could not be forced on the owners of the undeveloped properties. Commissioner Beyer asked how staff addressed the garbage issues raised by 'neighbors. 'Ms. Gale explained that the trash would be enclosed in a small building. Commissioner, Beyer' asked if thought was given to moving it to the east side of the parcel. Ms. Gale said that the garage location would not work in front of the building, although perhaps it could be moved behind the building. However, if there was excessive noise from 'the garage, the properties to the east and south would be potentially affected. She did not think there would be excessive noise or odors. She said the garbage had been sited in a location setback properly and it would not be in an open area. MINUTES-"-Springfie1d Planning Commission Work Session June 5,2007 Page 2 Commissio. Carpenter. asked if the properties show- '11 green on the map were ~ owned by the applicant. Ms. Gale said no. CommissL.er Carpenter asked why the properties were shown on the map. Ms. Gale did not know. Mr. McKenney ,indicated the properties in question were vacant. Mr. Metzger pointed out the areas slated for future, development on the map, , Commissioner Carpenter as~ed how the traffic analysis would be changed if the application was for a 55 unit apartment complex. Ms, Gale deferred to Mr. , McKenney. ' Mr. McKenney said that he would have to check; he believed it was about six trips per day per unit. Commissioner Carpenter confirmed with Ms. Gale that the property was located both on high-density and medium-density land, and the two lots had been combined. The entire development met the combined densities of the two parcels. The development did not exceed the densities for the two zones. She indicated she would provide more detail at the public hearing. Commissioner Carperttersaid the site ~ppeared to. be SO feet from 5th Street, and suggested that the property owner could acquire that property and construct a driveway onto 5th Street. Ms. Gale said St. Vincent de Paul had looked into alternative accesses without success. , Commissioner Carpenter expressed concern about placing a 55-unit apartment house on a dead-end residential street. He suggested the traffic count information , was outdated and a 62 year old person in 2007 were not the same as a 62 year old person in 1980 or 1990.. He was also concerned the parking was inadequate, and about the eliminatio.n of the parking on 3rd Street, which would force parking on S Street. He did not think those concerns had been adequately addressed. Ms. Gale pointed out that the development was both a senior development and a low-income development. St. Vincent de Paul had provided statistics from its other projects demonstrating that those people did not have automobiles. Commissioner Cross asked if the City had any information beyond what the agency. had provided on the habits of senior citizens, Ms. Gale said no. b. Vacation of Public Right-of-Way-City ofSpringfield/Springfield Police Department (LRP2007-00019) , Mr. Limbird introduced the item. He recalled the other planning approvals that occurred to facilitate the construction of the Justice Center. The application in 'question was to vacate B. Street to enable secure parking for police vehicles and also fo.r construction of a single-story ancillary building that would contain equipment and evidence. Commissioner Beyer asked if there had been any discussion about going east for the parking rather than closing B Street. He also asked about possibly moving the ancillary building across the street. Police Chief Smith. said ther~ had been discussion of other o.ptions, but.the options that were discussed had been much more ,expensive. He reminded the commission that when the City went to the MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission June 5, 2007 Page 3 Work Session voters with bond measure, the bond campaign me;".:')ned the possible closure " of streets and the acquisition of property. He emphas.,_ _J the operational efficiencies that would be' gained by having the functions in the Justice Center contiguous to one another, llJ]d the safety issue associated with closing B Street. , ~ With respect to the jail, Chief Smith pointed oufthe need for an evacuation plan, and if B Street remained open there would be no secure area to which to evacuate people to. Removing the ancillary building across the street would mean the building was not secured and it was a major target for vandalism, as was the police fleet. ' Responding to a question from Commissioner Beyer regarding the type of fencing to be installed, Chief Smith anticipated that the facility would be surrounded by something aesthetically pleasing, such as wrought iron. ' , , Mr. Limbird called the commission's !lttentimi to tile testimony received to date. Responding toa question from Commissioner Decker, Mr. Limbird said the alley at the north end of the property, was a paved alley that would remain open to the public. He noted that staff had provided inforn1ation regarding the distances people would have to travel to circulate around the development on a diagram incluqed in the packet. , Responding to a question from Commissioner Beyer, Mr, Limbird confirmed that Lane Transit District (L TD) buses currently used B Street. He pointed out nearby , bus stops. Commissioner Beyer asked where the buses would 'go. Mr. Limbird believed buses would travel up A Street and LID had already made preliminary plans to change the route to accommodate construction phasing. Commissioner Beyer referred to the commercial property on the corner of B and 4th streets and asked if the owner'had offered any comment. Mr. Limbird said no. He pointed out that the business in question was a veterinary surgery and it did not generate much traffic. Commissioner Carpenter asked if there had been'thought given to closing the alley to vehicles to prevent pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Mr. Lirnbird said that had not- been discussed. Mr. Metzger noted that there were other properties that derived access from the alley. Commissioner Carpenter asked if a sidewalk could be added to the alley, Mr, Limbird did not think there w6uld be room for a sidewalk. Mr. Limbird noted the signage that would be provided to direct people to the ,Justice Center and to avoid encroachment on the residential neighborhood. Commissioner Beyer asked where someone going to the courts would park. Mr. Limbird said they could park on 4th Street or,along the south side of B Street. Chief Smith said that currently; people also parked on A Street. 'He did not expect , a lot of additional demand in the form of trips to the Justice Center when it was completed"particularly during the day time hours. There might be more trips at, night. ' Commissioner Carpenter clarified with Chief Smith that the structures to be MlNUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Work Session June 5,2007 Page 4 constructed he site were completely funded. Responding to a question from Mr. Cole, Mr. Limbird said the code did not provide numeric standards for block length but called for reasonably direct routes of travel, which was why he provided the diagram illustrating likely traffic patterns resulting from the closure, Commissioner Beyer asked Mr. McKenney to confirm his suspicion that once the street was closed, the traffic would be pushed onto A Street. Mr; McKenney believed that people coming to the Justice Center from outside downtown would adjust their driving patterns and choose other routes entirely. Those trips originating closer to the center would likely travel to the intersection of B Street and turn, He estimated about approximately 150 trips would be diverted each day, 'but that was assuming that people would drive right to the closed street and then make a decision; he thought that many people would choose a new route well before they got to the area. Commissioner Beyer suggested that someone coming into downtown from Eugene would probably turn on A Street, and ifcoming from the other direction they would probably turn on E Street. Mr. McKenney agreed. ' c. Metro Plan/RefinementPlan Map Amendment and a Concurrent Zone Mao Amendment; Journal Number ZON2007-00012 and LRP20047-00013 Mr. Reesor provided the staff report. He called attention to the two applications before the commission, noting the zone change was submitted concurrently to forward Peace Health's goal of building a medical office on the site. The proposal involved two parcels on Main Street, one of which was developed commercially. The applicant proposed to change the zoning from LMI (Light-Medium Industrial) to CC (Community Commercial). Mr. Reesor called attention to a map showjng the zoning of the property. Mr. Reesor noted the State Plarining Goals releyant to the applications, Goal 12 (Transportation) and Goal 9 (Economic Development). In regard to Goal 12, Mr. Reesor said staff evaluated the impact of the proposal on existing transportation facilities. The applicant had submitted a traffic impact analysis (TlA), which was reviewed by Oregon Department of Trallsportation (ODOT) staff and Springfield staff. He said that staff looked at the reasonable worst case scenario that would be created by the zone change, and as a result had recommended a trip cap of243 trips a day as a condition of approval. Commissioner Decker asked what happened when the cap was exceeded. Mr. McKenney said the City estimated what it believed the property would generate in regard to trips in a reasonable worst case with the current and proposed zone, and the requirement of Goal 12 was met if the City determined that the change would not make traffic any worse. Commissioner Beyer thought it was odd the City was' talking about constraining density on a parcel in the middle of the city on a major arterial. Mr. McKenney said the City's objective was that its transportation and land use plans be in hannony and balanced; if it wished to rezone property and allow a substantially, MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission June 5, 2007 Page 5 Work Session greater amO\ Jf traffic to be generated from the prof +y than anticipated by - existing plans, it ran into a Goal. 12 issue and must deh.~astrate there was no significant effect. ' - , .........., Regarding Goal 9, Mr. Reesor noted the references in the staff report to the 1992 Industrial Lands Study, Commercial Lands Study, and Goal 5 inventory, and the conclusions related to the excess of industrial lands and shortage of commercial lands, which led staff to conclude that the application was consistent with Goal 9. Mr. Metzger reported that he had'met with the former property owners a year ago, and they had asked him about the possibility of rezoning the parcel as cOIl1)TIercial given the difficulty they were having rent space in the industrial park they already had. They believed there was an oversupply of industrial land. d. Amendment and Reformat of the Springfield Development Code-Journal Number LRP2007-00015 ' Mr. Karp provided the staffre~rt, reminding the commission the amendments were the final product of a two-year process. He called attention to Attachment 3, a list of potential policy issues and text revisions that staff would be considering soon and which the commission would also discuss. He invited questions. Responding to a question from Commissioner Carpenter, Mr. Karp clarified that the code included some minor text revisions to clarify some things but there were no substantiye changes. Commissioner Beyer asked if the reviewers on the Planning staff found the revised code easier to use. Mr. Karp said yes. Commissioner Beyer asked if staff sought outside review. Mr. Karp said no, although staff solicited ideas for changes or suggestions from users of the code prior to the revisions. He thought more significant changes, such as a shift to a form based code, would require outside review. He noted that the code had not been changed for sometime and it was likely to take users time to get used to the changes. Responding to a question from Commissioner Cross, Mr. Karp believed there was time for the commission to review the code and get back to him with its concerns prior to the time the council took action. Commissioners Moe and Decker commended the work of Mr. Karp. Commissioner Cross adjourned the meeting at 7 p.m, (Recorded by Brenda Jones; Transcribed by Kimberly Young) 'MINUTES-Springfield Planning Comrriission Work Session June 5,)007 Page 6 ;. , . ;/ r )~~QUEST_;TO,.~PEAK FORM.' '_':," '. '.;~tit 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) , i . What topic do you wish to discuss? Is your topic on tonight's agenda? 0 yes 0 no y( PUBLIC HEARING "<)4," .." e. '7/ .,' ,J~l ,1 '; /fl<2.,;1f' I,(..t,~t~~ .. What is. the t7ic of th~ public hearing~i'")' !f.~"~'~"(,'" ,.' jL..La-(~.;("it"..A tl" , J/JI}./)."}........... ljA./ ' ' '""''1ol!''it;JI(~~ ffih,., OL... ~ - )11('....... J.w.. JU"/J,/'I./.,"'}"";'''' ..4 (j"I(> .1, A 1'~~,"""'l>dl."., ,e:..) ",;"'q;,,,,,,t,,>j'.#U!;t,b "-:)fr1<(.f2"" ll~...,...... ""I.?-"t'_-_.:::./,;;;" o 'I a~ in favor gfltheprop~sal ffi am against th~ pro~al ' " "'Z;; """2'::'--1 0/' o WHEN COUNCIL DISCUSSES THE 'TOPIC II J/ What is the topic? , (Please see agenda for when item is scheduled) "T'lme 7/Uz'/1,'tA!..;r -1'71.L/;; /' ' Phone}4 7-7~q;G: Date: ~ ~ ,:r ~ '1 Address: .JSc,;7(; ))}t;~;l_l:(,t,.-tcu /2~(.:l ' City: ;:j:"t,;~,4!ti, .1A#,,cJ7V71 $' ~ F I represent: (Print your name OR your business/committee name) NOTE: RETURN THIS CARD TO THE CITY RECORDER AT THE FRONT DESK '. Date Recej~~: G/s-! 01 Plan"ner: DR I