Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRecommendation Sheet PLANNER 6/19/2007 " BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD r" ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION FOR A METRO PLAN / EAST MAIN STREET REFINEMENT PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT + + + + CASE NO. LRP2007-000I3 CASE NO. ZON2007-00012 FINDING, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS NATURE OF THE APPLICATION This is a consolidated application for the above referenced case numbers. The applicant requests approval of a Metro Plan / East Main Refinement Plan Map Amendment and a concurrent Zoning Map . Amendment on properties identified as Lane County Assessor's Map No. 17-02-32-00, Tax Lots 400 and 402. The request involves two contiguous properties near 44'h and Main Street. Specifically, the applicant" proposes to change Metro Plan designation from Light Medium Industrial to Commercial and a concurrent Refinement Plan Map and a Zoning Map Amendnient from LMI to CC. "..<. I. The subject applications for a Metro Plan / Refmement Plan map amendment and Zoning Map Amendment were submitted to the Development Services Department on March 16'h; 2007, and deemed as complete on Aprilll'h, 2007. . 2. The application was submitted in accordance with Section 3.050 of the Springfield Development Code. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 14.030 of the Springfield Development Code, has been provided. 3. On June 5th, 2007 a public heanng on the zone change request was held. The Development Services Department staff notes including criteria of approv'al, findings and recommendations, together with the testimony and submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing have been considered and are part of the record of this proceeding. 4. On June 19th, 2007 ihe Planning Commission considered additional information submitted into the record as ofJune 13'h, 2007. CONCLUSION ()n the basis of this record, the proposed amendments are consistent'with the criteria of Sections 7.070, 8.030 and 12.030 of the Springfield Development Code. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusions in the attached staff report and attached hereto. ' . ORDER It is ORDERED by the Planning Commission of Springfield that approval of Case Number LRP2007- 00013 and ZON2007-000 l2,be G~TED and a RECOMM~A 1;ION for approval forwarded to the Springfield City Council. This ORDER was presented to a 11 o,eft by the Planning Commission on June 19th, 2007. . . I . Pia ~ . ng Com'rhission Chairperson . ATTEST: AYES: ~ bft,1/ rn NOES: J:i... ABSENT: Jc: Date Received' ~ ABSTAIN: -L PI!:1nner: DR l 1 City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGIELD PLANNING COMMISSION /')uesday, June 19, 2007 The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon on TtiesdhY, June 19, 7:00 p,m" with Frank Cross as Springfield Planning commiSS~~~~Jif.~ ATfENDANCE /// / , Present were Chair Frank Cross, Vice Chair Bill Carpenter and Planning Commissioners Gayle Decker, Dave Cole, Steve Moe, Johnn~'~tschenmarin)Also present\v~~e Development Service Director Bill Grile, Planning'Supef0sor Mark Metzger, Planning Secretary Brenda Jones., Kitti Gale, David Reesor;Aifdy/Limbird and City Attorney Joe ::: memb",,"taff ~ '\~ · Lee Beyer ~2\ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC~ I ''',,~ )l . .' The Pledge of'1\(~e~nc~)Y~le(lbyj~,~a~Frank Cross, ~"v ~ APPROV ALOF MINUTES C /./ 'c~ ",,-, ~""'d db 'c .. VC' h d ommISSIoner arpenter, secon e y ommlSSlOner n.Irsc enmann, move to " "h' ';.~ 'h J" " k d I . . approvet e mInutes oJ. t e une,5! 2007, wor an regu ar sesSIon as wrItten. The m6tion passed, 4:2io,\commissioners Cole and Moe abstainingfrom the vote. ~"" )). BUSINESS'FROM THE AUDIENCE C ,. ~C Vd //, d th b' f h d' ommlSSloner ross etermme ere was no usmess rom t e au tence. V OUASI-JUDICAL PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Cross reviewed the public hearing rules. . Site Plan Review Tvne II - St. Vincent De Paul - DRC2007-0002.:1. - MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session Date R~Tv~~007 ~ /1 Q/07 Planner: DR . /, ::J . . \ IL. r,1ttJ/ Page I At the June 5th public hearing, the Planning Commission was asked to hold the record open for seven (7) days. The Commission closed the public hearing and left the record open for seven (7), which ended at 5:00 p,m. on June 12, 2007, One June 19' 2007. St, Vincent De Paul submitted a Type II Site Plan appljca~n on Apriln, 2007, requesting tentative approval for a 3-story retiremel)t'fapility for individuals 62 years or older and at or below 50% of Are Median Inc9me, The Planning Commission held a work session and conductedii' Rublic hearing on June 5,2007 on the applicant's proposal. Four people sP9ke~t the heiri~g~nd four documents were entered into the record, On;.-person requestedthat the written record be held open and the Commissiorfcomplied with this r~u~st, . (.( ^ ~~ One written comment was submitted to staff by the specific date of June 12, 2007, Staffs response to the written coinm'ent,./nd (0 specific questi;n raised by the Commission are found in. attachment ~Iie,applicant submitted formal . rebuttal written material by1:h;;Specified date of June 14, 2007, \ \~ '. "<:'" Commissioner Cross called for ex part~co~a~nd conflicts'of interest. He noted he had worked on the Community DevelopdJentAdviso'ryCominittee, which recommended the use of Community D~elopment Bldck\Gra'nt'fu.llasfo?the project to the City Council. He failed toh1eritiOif'it ~t the laSf hearing becat.iSe' he had not recalled it at the time, He did not tnink1hat would bias his ae~ision in any way and would continue to I h ( , , 'fi I I b' , \ \ ,vote un ess t ere was~slgm can\~_.~ection" \> ' . commissioner.car~te'ii~fed lie'~icYcled by the property on S Street, but did not speaJ(with anYon~. Mr, 4ahy asked COmmissioner Carpenter to share his obserfatioT;s. Coilimission'er,Ca~penter said he observed a narrow street where cars weie pafked opposit~ea'ch other on both sides of the street. The street had looked rath~r.n'arrow. He indi'Cat~d,in 'fesp'onse to a question from Mr, Leahy, that he had not ,'-C,- _ \\ '\. taken measurements. He\had counted the number of vacant parking spaces at the " ' \ nearby Fred, M~yers and cOjnted 60 spaces, ~~ /; , Ms. Gale recommenc!ed approval of the project, She deferred to Gary McKenney of the Public Works De~artme6t, who had some clarifications to offer, Mr. McKenney recalled a question from Cottirriissioner Carpenter regarding accident reports on 5th Street between U and Q streets, and reported there had been three in the last five years, Two accidents, one in 2002 and one in 2003, occurred on 5th Street about 100' north of Q Street, A third accident occurred in 2007. Commissioner Carpenter had reported he had witnessed an accident, but staff research found that it was very minor and did not require an official report. MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19, 2007 Page 2 Responding to a: question from Commissioner Carpenter, Mr. McKenney said the information about the number of accidents provided to the commission was a result of miscommunication between him and Ms. Gale, Commissioner Carpenter asked if staff had looked through the same police data base to find about other minor accidents that might have occurred, Mr. McKenney said his department did not get that information about every time a police officer arrived on the scene from the P9lice Department, His understanding was that if someone called the police and the acCid~nt appeared to rise to the legal reporting threshold, the police would respond if potsibl{ He believed that the police would also respond to a lesser accident if possibleAf t~~y}ound the accident did not meet the reportable threshold, the officer would fill'0ut~n'jnformation form as a courtesy to the driver, Commissioner Carpenter notedtJfe accident'mentioned in testimony and asked if that occurred in the last fiv~ ye~rs, Mr, McKenbey indicated he had records back to 1999 and he found no refer{ncei:o an accident atthe'intersection of SStreet, (<: /" ' ~ Ms, Gale provided the commission with COPi~f~do,c/lI}e~ entitled City of Springfield Standards Specification. She said th'e.Pri.bl,ic'Works Department thought it important the commission have ar(opportunity to s~e the document and understand that the construction process, which,~as.n'Ot"part of th'esite,plan review, was governed by codes and specifications and incluaea i~ections thrdugllout the construction process, \ V'/ ~v Commissioner carpe~d -to the minut~f the hearing and a statement on page 7 that indicated the'corhpany pl~nried to p~o~de off-site parking. He asked if that statement was aci:ur~te, Mr, Le~hf recalled'th~t the contractor indicated he could provide off-site parl<i~g:'\,nd clrpoolingfor hi~,eipployees. Ms, Gale recalled that the contracto~jndica!ed off~it{ parkTrigwas1!.PosSibility. Commissioner Cross asked if the commission.was able to request that the contfactor control the activity of personnel goingii1 mid out rifth'esite'-\l\.'ir:~ahy said he though~ the answer was yes, but he asked the:COlrtmission to r~ogbize the City had a Public Works 'Department that would over~e\( th~ ~onstruction,\attiviti~s,:He said nothing ~ong with includin? a note in the findmgs'l!skmg the Publtcy\\orks Department to momtors the traffic dunng the construction peFiod to en~ure it was safe, He advised against telling the department how to do th"at, however/to ~nsure it had sufficient flexibility to address the needs of the , // neighbOrhood,~/ . . . ' Commissioner Carpenter believed Mr. Leahy's statement was contrary to the staff response to 4, which indicated the commission could condition or deny the application to provide alternative construction access, Mr, Leahy pointed out the commission did not have a construction plan to review, and expressed concern that the commission would want to see a construction plan with each site review application, Commissioner Carpenter said the commission received testimony about what he termed a 'worst case' scenario of 90 workers entering the site daily through a single residential street if "we MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19,2007 Page 3 " don't do anything," Mr, Leahy asked if the Public Works Departmentindicated that presented a safety issue, Commissioner Carpenter acknowledged it did not, Mr, Leahy , , suggested that the commission lacked information to that effect on the record, and that staff indicated the streets could adequately serve the site, Commissioner Carpenter said that analysis was based on peak hour use, not times when construction traffic would be using the streets, He speculated that when the end of the day was reached on Friday . afternoon, "those 90 vehicles would be out of there in like, ten'rrliriutes," Mr, Leahy reiterated his suggestion for giving the department flexibili~ Ms, Gale solicited additional questions. There we;e no~ Commissioner Cross called for commission comm~~ Commissioner Cole believed the plan for thl( ~~ was gOQd and he did~t see a . conflict with the governing criteria, The applica'nt was n9(e~ceeding densiJ:y}tandards and while he thought the p'arking could be an i~s\l~ h$-did see it as a barrier to development. He pointed out the City could not deny th{applicant access to the public, street based on its width. Outside qf p5:rki(lg' and th'E;-tI~sh location, he saw no issues, and he thought the trash issue had be&i'addtessed by the 'applicant's screening plans. C ., M' d' . d h h d\ \ ~d ~li " ~f""h bl' h ' Wh'l om mISSIOner oe m lcate e a reVIewe t e mmutes O.t e pu lC eanng, 1 e .r:..---.... . \ \ / . '-.. ' . he would prefer to the see the project closer to doWntown, he had been surprised by the projected amount,of:~9-icUia?t~~ftic, whiqh' 'Yts less tha~he anticipated, He pointed out that construction/would require only a brief time and then the contractor would be done. Commissibner.Moe thought/that bnc~.c6mpleted, the project would be a nice addition to the comhmhiJ:y, I: _'~" --~, \. \ "" V>-- ------... ..--,.V Commissro;;;;-D'e'cker said t1fe land wa~~a for the project and the City could not deny/peopl~ acce'5stotheirpr~perty from a public street. She encouraged the Public Wor.!<s,Department t6d6'';\'hat'it"Could to mitigate the impact, but she did not think construttion traffic waS-within the ci>mmission's purview, She thought the design acceptabl~'aI).d saw no re~sdr to d~y the application. Commissioner Decker said she was surprised' people would think such a population would create a greater traffic load as most of tlieJ6w-incom~ iridividuals who came to her clinic used RideSource or other "'" '\. I' , . means of transport'<12.theylacked the means to own automobiles, She thought the project was a finebne atid wanted to see it happen. V Commissioner Decker said her house was one of the first in her neighborhood, with the result that she had lived with construction for some time, and she acknowledged construction could be challenging, but eventually it can to an end. Commissioner Decker indicated support for the application and said she was not interested in adding conditions as she thought the staff recommendations adequate, MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19, 2007 Page 4 Commissioner Kirschenmann agreed with Commissioner Decker, He thought that the applicant had met the criteria, He commended the work of staff, Commissioner Kirschenmann said his major concern was the potential of conflict between children using the street and construction vehicles, and hoped the Public Works Department was able to protect the small children and residents of S Street. , /> Commissioner Carpenter agreed that the project was a gre~t/d~velopment, and very , well-located between grocery stores, He had some conCE1rnS)~Dout parking but was more comfortable with the information provided, He recall~d thal th!=l 'commission received testimony indicating that the proposed parking was ina'a{quate be~use of the growing number of "younger and more active" senior citizehs/ald couples that b~ two vehicles and some recreational vehicles.. He acknowledg~dthat the residents af~e development were at 50 percent of median income, but s\lgges{ed it was possible they co'1llq. buy cheap cars and drive, However, he liked the fact ofon~'space Jler uhit and was cclnfortable with the proposed parking, He had been conc~neClabdD.y{yerf1ow parking on holidays but hoped some residents would not have vehicle'S'sothere were no parking complaints, C ., C d\h ~h'~l' ""h ~d d 'll~ . dd 'ommlSSloner arpenter asserte t at t e app lcant~ a expreilse WI mgness to a additional parking if parking became a\ptoblem; and advocated for a condition that stipulated that if the d~ver;;p_iIlent gener'\t~g.fi~e 6r inore Complaints in a year's time, it would trigger a commission disciission ofconv{rting the ~rden area into parking spaces, < < \ ) \\ Commissioner Carpenter also~lled'fonhe addition of a condition that he asserted would protect.the neighb~rh06d dilling.th~ti(truction period, first outlining a scenario ihat.hes'Uggest~d wbuld result in9((automobiles spilling out of the neigp]{orhbod dtiring ),sho'rt,p'eriod of time with the potential for conflict with traffic on resiaential streets, ComfnissionetCarpenter dismissed the idea that carpooling would , occu'r;"He said that the\esiden~o{the area should not have to be inconvenienced. He proposed that the commissibn reqilire the contractor to contract with the owners of private parkil1g lots in th~\arka for parking for the construction work force rather than at the constructiOli'site, such a~ the Fred Meyer lot, "" "'v/ / Commissioner Deck'r, seconded by Commissioner Moe, moved that the commission app~e this application with thefindings and conditions contained in the staffreport. Commissioner Cole said he would encourage the applicant and contractor to "be neighborly" but he did not see the commission gained anything from placing further , restrictions on the application. He said that those in the construction business were good at such logistics. He said that the site would accommodate more parking before it MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session ' June 19,2007 Page 5 was paved and landscaped, and many of the workers on the site would have service trucks that contained needed equipment, . He did not think the condition proposed by Commissioner Carpenter was practical and recommended the city allow the construction to proceed so it happened in the shortest possible time, limiting the impact on neighbors. Commissioner Cross thought the zoning appropriate and staftdi~ot appear to see a problem with the parking, He acknowledged Commission~d:;arpenter's concern about construction traffic but indicated he did not believe it was'the place of the commission to restrict the flow of construction traffic in and out of t~~e~~~ . Commissioner Moe suggested that if there was a/p~l~m with traffi<;,.it,would be a safety department, and the police and fire depaft,meht would be involved'and would address the issue, He was not concerned ab06. t;tJ{e constru. ction traffic,"~' . .'. ....'',. /'> ," , '<::~ / '" , ' Commissioner Carpenter said he wanted the City, to,prevept the first accident from happening rather than having to responding to it,'andhe'thought the condition he proposed the way to accomplish truit,,~ ,,;<)- , . . , \\.~ '.. ~A. , , CommIssIoner Cross expo r.e..s.,s. ed appreclatI.on fO. r the~~~s VOIced by CommIssIoner Carpenter, 'h:""( \~~ ,>V . , 'Ph ti. d~C" .\cl' ~t .. " .L, e mo onpas.s. e.........,S:1; OJ?1. m. IsslOnerCurpen ervoting In oppOSItion. 47 )) \.\ Mr. Leahy said tnat staff would,Share the concerns expressed by Commissioner ....' "1 \;' Carpenter and ensure Fhere 'Yas a traffic,plan. ~Iie pointed out the applicant was also Present and,heard the"codc&ns/, and. .sugg' e~d, that they would be mindful of them, . .. ~ \.... ~ '-.:/ o Va~fPUblic\rimt-of-wav - City of Snrimmeld ~ LRP2007- 6~OlQ \\ ~~ " Theitem~s.. c. ontinued fro.m June 5, 2007, '-...;~ Fl . , A Public'Hearing{o~the proposed vacation was held on June 5, 2007 and the written ie~6rq;wa~,lield open for an additional seven days following the hearing, Seven people.,Jestified in favor of the proposed right-of-way vacation and two people submitted testimony opposing the vacation and requested that his ' previous testimony submitted on March 26, 2006 for the Justice Center Discretionary Use and Zone Change requests be entered into the public hearing record (attachment 4), Additionally, Mr. Olson submitted written testimony opposing the proposed vacation during the extended public hearing record (attachment 5), MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19,2007 Page 6 Commissioner Cross asked for any ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest on the part ofthe Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Moe responded that he worked on the campaign for the proposed public safety facility but he did not think that would affect his ability to make an impartial decision, Commissioner Carpenter said that he had written an editorial against a new jail a few years ago but had no ex parte contacts. Commissioner Cross said he was a member of the Justice Cen1e~dvisory Com~ittee as a representative of the commission but that would not prejudice'his decision, / ~ Mr. Limbird said at the request of Scott Olson, an individual6ffering testimony in opposition to the vacation of B Street, additional writtEilitestim6ny)rovided for the previous discretionary use and zone change appljcil"tio6. was included)h-the record, and provided to the commission as Attachment 4 tothe~taff report, Mr. Olson also provided additional written testimony opposing the prppoted vacation; that was proiided to the commission as Attachment 5. . ~~ ~6> V Mr. Limbird recalled a question from~Commissi~i111r~C~i1>enter at the last meeting regarding the potential for a public'sidewalk in the aiid:block alley north of the B Street vacation parallel to the vehicle trav~l ~'rea,~dreferredth'e commission to a memorandum from Jim Poulston, th'e issistantproject m'lm?iger for the Justice Center, whichwaslabeledAtt/e~. \V~ 'V " Mr. Limbird referreMl!ecommi~icjn to Attachment 7-5, an additional map of the B Street area, /( )~) \\ ' . Mr, Limbird reco~~.nded appro~loftht vaCation request based on the draft findings. ~ommiss(6~ss,~~~:~;;;'~~d be lost to the motorist or pedestrian by rer6ujiftg trafficto"G;~r Ac~treets, Mr, Umbird suggested the answer depended on the'brlgin, 'destinatiob,typeof tdffic involved, and speed at which the individual trav~le~\1:he'out-of-di~\~twe di~ecJion documented in the staff report was from 300 to 600 feet;~?the time lost could be mere seconds for a vehicle or as much as a minute for a pedestflan:~~ ) ,,) Responding ~~'est!ons' iIom Commissioner Carpenter, Mr. Limbird confirmed that total lost right-of::Way wa's approximately 66 feet, He further indicated that a three-foot sidewalk would not 1feet City standards for sidewalks, The sidewalk would have to be at least five-feet wide for Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, Commissioner Carpenter said the memorandum provided to the commission indicated the ~ity could accept a three-foot sidewalk. Mr. Limbird concurred" Commissioner Carpenter referred to Attachment 6-2, which was a map of the parking area, and recalled hearing that there would be a loss of six parking spaces if a three-foot MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19, 2007 Page 7 sidewalk was added, Mr. Limbird concurred, The parking spaces would be lost because they fell below the minimum width for a usable, serviceable parking space, which was typically nine feet wide, Another option to retain the parking was to minimize the landscaping strip to two feet or none, Commissioner Carpenter asked why staff proposed to eliminate Jhe parking spaces shown on the map rather than the parking spaces in the far nOl'th}Vest and far northeast corners, Mr. Limbird responded that the Police Department'fIeeded to maintain a twO- way traffic in the driving aisle within the parking area. Tl!e're rhust be a minimum consistent width to accommodate two-way east-west tra'ffic:"He..zhelieved that minimum width was 24 feet. He reminded the commission that-another is~u;;'tlpt was discussed was the need to maintain sufficient space for the expiuision of the incillary building at . some point in the future, ' . h/ ' ",~, Commissioner Cross closed the hearing an,d SOI~ci~ /~sion comme~ts) . C ,.' C I 'd h fth. '\; h / ' ,. d d ommISSloner 0 e Sa! t at some 0 e testImonY,t e,commlssIOn receIve suggeste the issue was one of supporting or hots1.lpporting th'e:police Department, He reminded the commission the issue was about\Vi1~tigga,right-of"w~y,and the question toresolve was whether the criteria were satisfie'd by the'aWlieation:,i-I'e,emphasized the gravity of the decision and the importance of right-of-wayl~Spnngfi~ld~itizens, Commissioner Cole said the issue wa~w~ther'q greattir Rllblis,benetitwa1>'gained from the vacation than. by retaining theexistingngHt-of-wa1,( V' C '...' D/k/ "d Jh1c .\\ C I Sh 'd h " ommISSloner ec er agree WIt ' ommlSSloner 0 e, e Sa! t e commISSIon must balance the issue of th~safety~f tHe police offlctirs, or the convenience of travel. She thought the.trade-off fa~rire'd thePolice,D~rt\hent. Her personal opinion on the issue /.. ,,' "./ ~ '/ of the JusticeCertter...was immaterial; she .believed the center would be located on the , ,/ /.' "d ," d" I ti" h d I k' bl B sIte m questIOn, an m or er~or~t e eve opment to wor m a reasona e manner, / "/ " ~ Street must be vacated: " " ~' COm~~i?n..e...r. D. eCk/er.".~. oved that the applicatit? n be approped as presente'd;~,) . ",.';!\ ,,\. .' , Commissioner Kirschenmann expressed support for public safety services and said he believed stafflooKed'at-tvery other option, The application met the criteria and he thought from a safety <Standpoint represented the best scenario, He also expressed appreciation to staff for working to save Springfield money, Commissioner Moe did not want to see B Street closed but recognized the footprint needed for the Justice Center, He said he supported the application. MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19, 2007 Page 8 J, Commissioner Moe expressed the desire that the center had more of a public face on A Street as opposed to B Street but acknowledged the phased construction created the ' situation. In regard to the traffic, Commissioner Moe hoped that someday downtown Springfield was busy enough to consider one-way streets; at that time, people would have to driving two blocks to travel around a block which was very similar to what would occur with the Justice Center, /) Commissioner Carpenter anticipated the City's decision would be appealed and wanted to minimize the potential success of the appeal. He said tlliIt staff indicated that travelers would be diverted 150 feet out of the way to t{1~,all~y;--which would carry vehicles, and that was a concern for him because of iTI\ imPact Orl-Rcill\strians, bicyclists, and those traveling in wheelchairs. He did not thiftk tile staff justification was the . proper one as he did not consider the diversion,ilsaf~ alternative. Fo~ th'at reason, he had inquired about including a sidewalk in ~'pYoject, He agreed there\v~i-e compelling reasons to approve the a~plicati~n,but, did rio\th~k th,);s9w.mission couHcl'aim t~ere was an adequate pedestrIan corrIdor WIthout a paved strIg,ofland for the wheelchaIrs, Commissioner Carpenter said he was willing to appr;rvJ1.the application but would require the street be left open for ~o~three years "Wlthja potential sidewalk installed I~ter, and the landscapi?g reduced ~?~ee!>or,-would ;equire the project to have a paved SIdewalk on the south SIde of the eXIsting alley;,~ .~ . C. ,. C 1 b I' /7'd--li \\ ),(b''''~''. 'd' "b h ommlSSloner 0 e e leve .t e.commlssloD-'W~S' emg pamte mto a corner yt e proposed design. He'~aid-the-coB1missioiI needed to consiaer the long-term. He said /" ../ . \ . \ 'b. ~ ,. the street would not. be opened once closed~ and it was a collector street rebuilt at . <:.; / J" .;/ .. \; \ conSIderable costn~Hong ago./C9~mlsslone_r'Qole thought B Street one of the best streets to get through downtown as Itreached'alhthe way to 16th Street, He was concerned about diverlirl "g,tf~fficoffSoutli'A~a~'fhe City had no good place to d. irect the :r - ~ , ....... ",,' , ----. ...". traffic/He thougnt,the str~et.was more usefUl as a City street than for its planned use as the Just}c{'Cente0H'e.said'!:4e'Justice Center needed an interconnected parking lot, but elimjnating B Street '\va~n.ot the, ~ay to accomplish that, Commissioner Cole said he would~pp'ose the appli"Cation as h~did not think it met the criteria related to greater benefit,'-H'e.perceived th~\\:li.ange as providing a lesser benefit and did not think the public wa's.being served by the application, Commissioner Cole acknowledged that the City was quite.far,into theilr'ocess, but he continued to believe the community should not "give uP"B'\s~!'7 " ' Commissioner Mo~ seconded the motion. The motion passed, 4:2; Commissioners Cole and Carpenter voting no. · Metro Plan/Refinement Plan Man Amendment and a concurrent Zoninl! Man Amendment - The item was continued from June 5', 2007. MINUTES"Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19, 2007 Page 9 During the June 5, 2007 hearing, the Planning Commission received testimony from one citizen, Nancy Falk, who testified opposition to the proposal. During her testimony, Ms: Falk requested that the record be held open for seven days, The Planning Commission granted the request and instructed staff to leave the record open until Tuesday, June 12, 2007. The applicant ,agreed to provide a . rebuttal statement to any new written testimony by Junldi 2007; both letters . have been included in this packet, // ( Staff received one written testimony from Lauri,segaCG~l:?ne Coalition Planner, On June 12, 2007, A written rebuttal,t~nVls, Seg'al's letter was then submitted by the applicant the following d,ij-y;,Jilne 13, 200;GB6th letters were received within the specified deadlines atriofud in the PlanningoCammission public hearing on June 5, 2007. StaffifresPonse and excerpts fr&nMs, Segel's letter and the applicant's rebuttallett'er)iave been,ptrded in the att't~hed report in order to summarize the issues and to pI:<M.de{a1je of review by the Planning Commission, Copies of the two letters in theiientirety are attached for reference and review in addition to th~ e~erpts and st~ff r~sponses in the report, The attached report is provided t'o~plcineI.lt the o'rigihal staff report which was provided in the Planning Com'missi;;iFpackets for ihe~uly 5, 2007 hearing. \\ )~'\:) . The applicant req~pproval of ~J.1etro~n/Refinement Plan Map Amendment tdthe'fiStol'.1ain Refihemeftt Plan "-/ C ,. C / Zk d h ) ) . , \\d' 1" , fl' om mISSIOner ross as e t e commISSIOn to , ec are any ex parte contacts or con letS ofinteres~~_~ ~Vr~\) Commissioner-Coli~.indicated,a conflict of interest due to his wife's employment at PeaceHealfh, andexcrtsed Hiin'self from the hearing. He noted this was his last meeting / / " " d ob'd h".... ".L' II as a commISSIOner, an ' I t e.commlSSlon larewe . Mr.~:~directed th~~mis~~to the written comments received since the last meeting ah4th~ rebuttal ~q~ment submitted by the applicant, He noted the staff response to the written COlnments from Lauri Segal of the Goal One Coalition and the applicant, incltide~~i!};~h;~;fueeting packet.' Mr, Reesor recommended approval of the , application. '.z,:",,:./Y Responding to a question from Commissioner Carpenter, Mr, Reesor indicated that PAPA stood for Post -Acknowledgement Plan Amendment, Commissioner Carpenter observed that representatives of the Goal One Coalition did not attend the public hearing, although the person that requested that the record be held MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June] 9, 2007 Page 10 ;. 'open was a member of that group. He said it seemed somewhat out of keeping with procedure to allow potential testimony from someone not in attendance at the hearing, Commissioner Cross closed the hearing and asked for comments from the commission, Commissioner Carpenter suggested that Light Industrial zoning,might be a thing of the past, and he believed the community had an adequate supply peea'use of changing market conditions. The same might be true of Heavy IndustfiaU~nd, He had no objection to the application, and anticipated the developrrfent 6f a medical center that would provide community jobs, , . ~v",~' , Commissioner Moe indicated support for the appli~n and said lie would like to see more medical facilities in'the area, ' ?~ '. ~~ Commissioner Decker believed that commercial'zoning ';Va'0'more compatil5l~,with this area. She agreed with Commissioner Carpenter,tl'illJJ:igpu6dustrial could be a thing of the past. ~.,~"" . ~. '''.: ., ' 1 .' ", ~.. .., Comm""""" Ki~ch,== 'Up~.,tlie~PP.I.l.catIOn.!,. .... . \ \ """'~~ ," Commissioner Cross commented staffs dutst~ltigwork ~.i:lie application, He said that while he thought ~hePrilPerv in qu\~\i.9rf:'}l1itable'fl~.Jhe intended use, he thought the community need~atb'be Careful not to~~ up too much Light Industrial land. C .. i:Y ) ) d d\b .'Fe> . . D k d om!lUSSIoner .:-ar,penter"secon e y.c-ommISSIoner ec cr, move to recommend app'J.o..v'al oJ;the !1pplicatjo',.,jho the City Council, with the findings an.dconditiohs,as/'discussed;The motion passed unanimously, ~:o. /7-~ ~\. ~. . / j -", "" " '" ' BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR ~'\.. \;~ V ' Mr. Grile'thanked commissioners Decker, Cole, and Moe for their service on the Planning Corllmission. )J" ' . ~ ''\. ' ~ ."\~ REPORT OF cfOBNClLl\CTION . ",,:y ..' . Commissioner Carpenter reported that the council had the first reading for the Marcola Meadows development imd presented a plaque to Ms, Crae for her life-time of giving to the City of Springfield, BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session June 19, 2007 Page 11 Commissioner Decker thanked the staff for their professional expertise and support, as , did Commissioner Moe, . Commissioner Carpenter thanked the 'outgoing commissioners for the knowledge and experience they had given so graciously, Commissioner Carpenter asked that staff bring the Bicycle Planbick to the, Planning / .- Commission for review, and to indicate to the commission wheh'the plan was last revised, ADJO~~MENT.. , ./) CommISSIoner Cross adjourned the meetmg at,6:3o p,m, "'=""" by "mOO J""~ <>fuJ I'1moo"""'"" ~. /:.'}/ ," ~.>(/ ---.. ~"":"~'. ~..... """', '~..,:~~ ~.,.".:" "/'-'~\l' ',.." '~" /.'.; . . . . . . : ',.... "-----. < t 'I. ' ~ '-. ' ".' /-~- --......."" . ,~-~~ MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Regular Session' Jun~ 19, 2007 Page 12