HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 6/19/2007
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 regul~;t~~sion in the Council
Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon on m~~fll!-Y, June 19, 7:00 p.m.,
with Frank Cross as Springfield Planning Cornmission~~~ir.
'41
. IV -
:'),-.
~it,
"" ";';".1
Present were Chair Frank Cross, Vice Chair ~i.,,;Carpenter ~ifd Planning C~W~issioners
Gayle Decker, Dave Cole, Steve Moe, Johnny FQr~~henma!}I).;' Also present W~re
Development Service Director Bill Grile, Plannifig",Sup~fYiS"6r Mark Metzger, Planning
Secretary Brenda Jones., Kitti Gale, David Reesor:'~fytimbird and City Attorney Joe
Leahy and members of staff. "
ATfENDANCE
. Lee Beyer
ABSENT
".'
. Af<l~'~
PLEDGE OF ALDEGIANCE .,;'1
'tt:r.g,j~1:1:~,.r ..!,1t.'i;~ .
'<ltliW"', "5~'~~r
. The Pledge ~~legianc~~"'!isled byChmr"Frank Cross.
~, -~'I;~~~~\,-,1&f~$~""""""'j~~ij1~11{}!f~~~: "..or.,
> )~':Sl, '~~~'j;- ''1Jli:~'tiWi,$i,~ . ,,\:).;{ll,ill\~'*
Lof.;;",,(.,,~~,...~'t,.'m'<j. \{:>ti..~-,J}lh,i.' "-";.11i
APPROVAL~OF.1MINlITES
. .-li!'ll~:;W,:"' ....,i''',''J.~Il!~'' "'0';",~~'
IJ?iJ,~~J_,:;'~;'~ _ ~~~~!{~ _ _ .
C04~sioner Carp~tfff' se~~l,:tg,ed by Commissioner Kirschenmann, moved to
approiJelhe minutes of;the Juife,5, 2007, work and regular session as written.
The m6tiJ;~ passed, 4:2~~~~ommissioners Cole and Moe abstainingfrom the vote.
BUSIN~};\ROM TH:l.UDIENCE
'~ A"" '
Cornmissioner ~r~}a~~!miIied there was n~ business from the audience.
"';~ii" ' ,
OUASI-JUDICAL PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Cross reviewed the public hearing rules.
. Site Plan Review Tvne II - St. Vincent De Paul -' DRC2oo7-0002L1 -
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
Regular Session
Date RJ~lv~~007 ~ fl, q/22 Page 1
Planner: DR' /.' r ,~
( I "2. fl/}l(~
At the June 5th public hearing, the Planning Cornrnission,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 applici!.t!on on Aprilu, 2007,
requesting tentative approval for a 3-story retiremel).t:@pilityfor individuals 62
years or older and at or below 50% of Are Median Ii,i'~o,!Jl~' The Planning ,
Cornmission held a work session and conducted",~::pi1bliEli!:,wing on June 5, 2007
on the applicant's proposal. Four people spo,ke a(ihe heanng and four
docurnents were entered into the re.co~d. ~4$1p~rson. requ~~ffi~:tPat the written
record be held open and the commls;~~t'~!?rnphed ~th thIS reqVl~: '. '
O . b . d ...J't ff b th ,",,, 'fi d f~J- c",
ne WrItten comment was su mltte to,$ l! y, e,specI c ate 0 u!1e 12, ,
2007. Staffs response to the written corlffij-~~t" ~;rto specific question raised by
, the Commission are found iI}~ttachrnent 2:;;;'i!b~Y;pplicant subrnitted forrnal
rebuttal written material by;t~El~sP!1cified date'qf ;June 14, ;!007. '
,t<~ ~~,a)s:,'1f~ ~~~~.
. ,"1~ '1~;'~{i::~h~__,_ -~~~l-.
Cornrnissioner Cross called for ex part~,,\ontl1ct;;J!/;~ conflh;~,.~f interest. He noted he
had worked on ,the ~om~Dj!y Develo"f~W.;nt 1~~sci:,rY;,'i~!;?:.rnmittee: which reco~rnended
the us~ of Corn~umty}JKJ~.!?pm~nt Bloc~,,g~~~tfunasf9J;,the project to the CIty ,
CouncIl. He faIled to.mention'lt:at the last heaTIng because he had not recalled It at the
....ltr.<:~~ ',~'~<'" 'I.t-~',,'i .
time. He did not tl!Ji'iItthat woul<;l;bias his 'decision in any way and would continue to
vote unless there~~ a significaf{i;6bjection. ','
'~ht, ,t)i\!r~l\"f,:~ii"'" ,
1..~i\r>"JI~ _ ,oI(~JfffiY:;'tjl:rft_"l,~j;~~>
Commiss~~r,j;~~~entet(~W.,cated lie 'ha~iycled by the property on S Street, but did
not speak,Wiili'a.'iiyone. Mr'lJLeahy asked Commissioner Carpenter to share his
obs~~ig~;;'s. Co'rr(~i~~on~"1~!;penter said he observed a narrow street where cars
werE!.p!rked opposit~'!dl otlie~;9!1 both sides of the street. The street had looked
rathef~:gow. He indi~~~~, in r€~Ponse to a question from Mr. Leahy, that he had not
taken mb~_wements. He',li.~d counted the number of vacant parking spaces at the
nearby Fre<bMeyers and counted 60 spaces., '
~L~~1!i\',_ .;iQ.ztj
'~~,ait~-t . -
Ms. Gale recornni~nded"llpproval of the project. She deferred to Gary McKenney of the
Public Works Dep~~t, who had sorne clarifications to offer. Mr. McKenney recalled
a question from Coclfuissioner 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 cornrnission was a result of
rniscommunication between him and Ms. Gale. Commissioner Carpenter asked if staff
had looked through the same police,data base to find about other rninor accidents that
might have occurred. Mr..McKenney said his department did not get that information
about every tirne a police officer arrived on the scene from the Pg.Uce Department. His
understanding was that if someone called the police and the acc~aent appeared to rise to
the legal ieporting threshold, the police would respond if P9f1iiJi~. He believed that the
police would also respond to a lesser accident if possible;,Atfu~y found the accident did
not meet the reportable threshold, the officer would fill;~fan'i~f,g!.rnation form as a
courtesy to the driver. Commissioner Carpenter no~~g, the accide~!;Ipentioned in
testimony and asked if that occurred in,the last fi,y~;,Y.'ears. Mr. McK~~!'ley indicated he
had records back to 1999 and he found no refere'.ceto an accident at tb;~intersection of
S Street. '
. . ,l ;, 'j .::~f~::~;;~
Ms. Gale provideq the comrnission with copies o(~Ao!,;tjiTIent entitled City of
Springfield Standards Specijicati01};" ~he said theP.u,!?,!ic Works Departrnent thought it
important the commission have anppp(n,:qmity to see't)1!:, document and understand
-~"'" -:A. ..,1"~, , :' '"
that the construction process, which,~as ll'9ip,art of the s~t~plan review, was governed
by codes and specifications and includ.~d inspe'i!tions throtfghlJut the construction
process., ,rr, .. . i1Iliili~ ,
"",flii.~i?tl~"" " "', ,
itm~w.w.rW.:mli~i: ,,"~'.'l .lt~.
Commissioner Carp~~t~r refeit~9:,~o the ~lriutes of the hearing and a statement on page
7 that indicated the''Ctmpany pla'l'fned to pr"6Yide off-site parking. He asked if that
statement was ac~~~~t.e. Mr. Le;f~" recalledtiJ.'a~ the contractor indicated he could
provide off-site par}{ii:!g ands(m82nng(forhi~fl.fr1ployees. Ms. Gale recalleq that the
contractorjp!=ll,<;ated off~~ite\:p:arking'~ail~RqsJibility. Cornrnissioner Cross asked if the
commissii'>nW~~ble to ~est that the c;)illi:actor control the activity of personnel
~ig{].-jf' ""iP.'~l-I;'& . '0~jrs!.h
goi~~i~plJ?-d .out oftl;I~~t~."l\1{~~ahy said he t~ought the answer was yes, buthe asked
the,comrnlSSlon to reco~Jze the,'Olty had a Pubhc Works Department that would
over~~~the construction'activiti~~He said nothing wrong with including a note in the
finding!;;~J9ng the Publi;!j~orks Department to monitors the traffic during the
constructi&~'period to en~we it was safe. He advised against telling the department
how to do th~tJ'!however,1t&:'fmsure it had sufficient flexibility to address the needs of the
neighborhood.'
Cornrnissioner Carpenter believed Mr. Leahy's statement was contrary to the staff
response to 4, which indicated the comrnission 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 residentiill street if "we
MINUTES-Springfield Planhing Commission
Regular Session
June 19, 2007
Page 3
don't do anything." Mr. Leahy asked if the Public Works Department indicated that
presented a safety issue. Comrnissioner 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 wali reached on Friday
afternoon, "those 90 vehicles would be out of there in like, ten,n\'!i1utes." Mr. Leahy
reiterated his suggestion for giving the department flexibil~ty1r~c
.,1,
Ms. Gale solicited additional questions. There were none.
. l'~:?>"
,~
Cornmissioner Cross called for comrnission commefltif.
',i~;!l!i\rjl" '
"i'iI&~} ,
Comrnissioner Cole believed the plan fo~ th~i~j~ct was good and he did ~():t. see a '
conflict with the governing criteria. The appli~.,p;! was n$!.~~~ceeding densffY~tandards
and while he thought the parking could be an isst.i,~JJ,e,.9i.~'see it as a barrier to
developrnent. He pointed out theCi.!:y could not de~~;tpe applicant access to the public
street based on its width. Outside 4f:r>ar~pg and thittf~.h location, he saw no issues,
and he thought the trash issue had b~ei1-aadre~sed by tlili;applicant's screening plans.
Cornmissionef Moe indicat~,~he had !vle::~~fi!!PY.,t::'~~the public hearing. While
he ~ould prefer to the".i?~%.~ililiR~RjeCt cl~~~l~<?~~oWnt<'>~~pe ha~ ~een surprise~ by the
projected amount O~~i!iIcular t;~c, whlCJt:~as less than he anticIpated. He pomted
out that constructioN,would require only a brief time and then the contractor would be
done. Commissii'?r'fJ!;',Moe thou '~,rthat bnc~~~rnpleted, the project would be a nice
dditi' t th ",,''''' . '",,,,, " 'JI'i\'1i, "
a on 0 e comm~l . '{~~f~~~ . "~11( J' .
comm~~i~~~~w sai .m~ land wa~ zoned for the project and the City could not
deny:,pE:9ple access'l(l~.eir pri:ip'~rty from a public street. She encouraged the Public
Wor~)pepartment t~Hq~hat it~9}lld to mitigate the impact, but she did not think
const~$tion traffic w~'wthin tli'tf;Sommission's purview., She thought the design
acceptab~:;\[.1d saw no rea:~p to deny the application. Commissioner Decker said she
was surprise<!meople wouJ,g,!think such a population would create a greater traffic load
as most of tIi'iNqw-income:i~dividuals who came to her clinic used RideSource or other
'l(i;:f-.Q:>J,- ~w:b~ .
rneans of transpo.ttJ~'i1!U$y lacked the rneans to own autornobiles. She thought the
Project was a fine o:iIe,aI:id wanted to see it happen.
'\iil"
Comrnissioner Decker said her house was one of the first in her neighborhood, with the
result that she had lived with construction for some time, and she acknowledged
construction could be challenging, but eventually it can to an end.
Commissioner Decker indicated support for the application and said she was not
interested in adding conditions as she thought the staff recommendations adequate.
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
Regular Session
June 19, 2007
Page 4
Commissioner Kirschenmann agreed with Cornrnissioner Decker. He thought that the
applicant had met the criteria. He commended the work of staff. Commissioner
Kirschenmann said his major concern was the potential of conflict between children
using the street and construction vehicles, and hoped the Public Works Department was
able to protect the small children and residents of S Street.*,
, >j~Jili!ii~; ,
,,4j'Jl,m~'
Comrnissioner Carpenter agreed that the project was a great'de'velopment, and very
well-located b~tween ?rocery s~ores. H.e had some concl1,tif:~;~k~~t par~n~ but w~ rnore
cornfortable WIth the mformation proVIded. He recalle,dJpat th~,~o,mmlsslon received
testimony indicating that the proposed parking wasJna'a~quate oeS;a.use of the growing
nurnber of "younger and rnore active" senior citi~~~~hd couples tIlfi~2~ two vehicles
and some recreational vehicles. He acknowledg~a;that the residents 6f"tl:!,~, development
were at 50 percent of median income, but s1J~~ted it was possible they'cq,RIQ buy cheap
cars and drive. However, he liked the fact oforTh,space p!'rwnit and was coiIifortable
,with the proposed ~arking. He had been conc~~~,~9.~&!'t'verflow par~ng on holi~ays
but hoped some resIdents would not have vehIcles sqtliere were no parking complamts.
ll...$::~ .~.
Cornrnissioner Carpenter asserted thiit;t}1e ap~iica.I!t.had eXJl~essed willingness to add
additional parking ifpar~!1g became a>pr()bleml~qra<!voca{~ll for a condition that
stipulate? that if th~ d~Y.r~li?P:.~~! g~ner'1\t~~~~~'?r ~6i-~~omplaints ~n a year'~ time, it
would tngger a co~ml~lon dis~l}SslOn ofe~,~verting the garden area mto parking
spaces.'~ ' ,~.
~ 't~lj~{$t_
Cornmissioner Carp~~~~,als~~I~l~~~~#.?l1~ ~d<;!ipon ~f a con.dition that h~ ~sserted
would pr9.t;;BM~&~,.neIgh~\{f,~J~.oQ dunng'~~l~~nstmcti~n pen?~, first outhmng a
sc~na~~l~a:tlie~,g9?estea~~I~ result ~n 90 ?utomobiles spIlhng out ~f th~ '
neIghborHood dunn~a shortipenod of time WIth the potential for conflict WIth traffic on
resi4!,~al streets. Co~wissignlf~farpenter disrnissed the idea that carpooling would
occui-':I1!iHe said that the residents'of-the area should not have to be inconvenienced. He
proposifa~lki!~ the comrn~ion reqcire the contractor to contract with the owners of
privatl1 parlG.j;1glots in theJfea for parking for the construction work force rather than at
the constmcft5Ii site, sucli'Jll:~ the Fred Meyer lot. '
,...,~'f>ik\;,," "Jj!! fillF ,
",,.,~,t!W'
Commissioner D~.lj!c'er, seconded by Commissioner Moe; moved that the
commission appr"iJ've this application with thefindings and conditions
contained in the staff report.
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 theconstmction bUSiness were
good at such logistics. He said that the site would accornmodate more parking before it
, ,
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
Regular 'Session
'June 19, 2007
Page 5
was paved and landscaped, and rnany of the workers on the site would have service
trucks that contained needed equiprnent. He did not think the condition proposed by
Commissioner Carpenter was practical and recomrnended the city allow the ,
, construction to proceed so it happened in the shortest possible time, limiting the impact
on neighbors.
. ...9h,
Cornmissioner Cross thought the zoning appropriate and staf!:Aj,,1,not appear to see a
problem with the parking. He acknowledged CommissionerG~enter's con'cern about
cons~ruction traffic but indi~ted he di~ not believe it w~~,i;I,[~]lace of the comrnission to
. restnct the flo~ of construchon traffic m and out of ~~~te"1:1t,
,~" "''''!1. ,
.,,*,,,,,__-i.. '".....'tf~
Comrnissioner Moe suggested that if there was a problem with traffic"}it w, ould be a
. of'. t':~;;r" .."~
safety department, and the police and fire deP\l!iffient would be involve nd would
address the issue. He was not concerned aboirti:Iie construction traffic.
'.' ~';.~:i~~;~~ ~t~.~~t~1.~lt . . !
Commissioner Carpenter said he wanted the City~t.g.,pr.E(~~pt the first accident from
happening rather than having to responding to it,armliinhought the condition he
A... .,. ''>.,4,~''<;-t;'' .
proposed the way to accomplish that ^:t;i~;,,, '
"ti'}~;t,~
e ,con~~~sy'oiced by Cornmissioner
Carpenter. . ~1?!i'
, {*ii<l!la"'.... '
%~~.~J{~~_
The motion passed1~~i:~;:,;";~...issioi!er: C~rpenter voting in opposition.
~w 1- ,,~
ft~t;>0- ,~t:rr@~, 'ii~
Mr. Leahy said th'!l:f~taff would lli~re the co;rc'~rns expressed by Commissioner
Carpenter and ensJ1~~there 'wa~f;ti'affic plan."'tHe pointed out the applicant was also
~lg,~'i'. ALi!I:;'jl;t""""~"-:l!,i'G};::l,- ,~*_....... -,,'I}'" .
presen~6~~~~:. CQ'~~ir:s, and sugge~~~<i that they wouldbe mmdful of them.
. acation of'Ruhlic4H~.ht-of-wav - Citv of Snrinmeld - LRP2007-
0001<>>,
The item was continued from June 5, 2007.
~~" m1 '
~f~' . ~I~~ .
A Pubh~t,leanng:t8.~,the proposed vacatIon was held on June 5, 2007 and the
written rE1qg~~~1~~hel~ open for an additional s~ven days followi~g the hearing.
Seven people~t~stified m favor of the proposed nght-of-way vacatIon and two
('".01:_ '
people subrnitted testirnony opposing the vacation and requested that his
previous testirnony 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
Cornmissioner Cross asked for any ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest on the part
of the Planning Commissioners. Cornmissioner 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 irnpartial decision. Commissioner Carpenter said that he had
written an editorial against a new jail a few years ago but had no ex parte contacts.
Cornmissioner Cross said he was a member of the Justice Cente'f:~dvisory Committee as
a representative of the commission but that would not prejl}.d1"~his decision.
li~ '
Mr. Lirnbird said at the request of Scott Olson, an indiv1~fi~i'~~~nng testimony in
opposition to the vacation of B Street, additional wrttt~iftestimo~provided for the
previous discretionary use and zone change appljs~~on was includedjg,the record, and
provided to the commission as Attachment 4 tolitlie'staff report. Mr. Olson also provided
additi~n~l written testimony opposing the p'~~~d'sed vacation; that was Pf~r4ed to the
commIssIon as Attachment 5. , ~~~*k'; ,;}
'-\i.ftL~
Mr. Limbird recalled a question from.Comrnissiorigt~?Y1>enter at the laSt meeting
regarding the potential for a publiC':side;valk in the mi<J.';block alley north of the B Street
vacation parallel to the vehicle trav~r:1yg~~~d.referred't~:e,~ornrnission to a
memorandum from Jirn Poulston, thi;:'~sistai'itjiro'ect rri~:i'4.~&~r for ,the Justice Center,
which was labeled Attachment 6. '{#.'h.'~lI'
,_~1?4~~~~ ;l~~~t, .' ':i'
,h'I.h"'''~'~]~~~ ...',0!\~,
Mr. Limbird referred tge'cominission to Attacment 7-5, an additional map of the B
Street area.'
Mr. Umbird recomm~~~~d,~pp~g~~<l:qt~,e,;a~tion request based on the draft findings.
'"', -', "ti,'h'''"tfi!, ilttl~,&l!",tlilJ"t',.
_.;;;;;;.~,~'j'~.#.{"... "~'1'f.o-'Yl:,~~' ""-\~~~ .
Cornrnissi1file'r'cross ask~(Hiow much time would be lost to the motorist or pedestrian
::ir~1!1}1(~" -.,.-<'\t'~;0r'~ '~~f':~'
by re!2l!tiiIg traffic'h1,F or A"~tr,~ets; Mr. U~bird suggested the answer depended on
the ifi~n, destination)!me of tr~c involved, and speed at which the individual
travel~a~<rhe out-of-distaiIce di~tion documented iIi the staff report was from 300 to
600 fe~t~~o the time lost~'(jbld be mere seconds for a vehicle or as rnuch as a minute for
.,-:;-""",~~
a pedestriah
. .,..j
"
Responding to ql~~,stion~;fi'om Commissioner Carpenter, Mr. Lirnbird confirmed that
total lost right-of~'\V~~s approximately 66 feet. He further indicated that a three-foot
, sidewalk would not nfeet City standards for sidewalks. The sidewalk would have to be at
least five-feet wide for An1ericans with Disabilities Act requirements. Comrnissioner
Carpenter said the memorandurn provided to the cornmission indicated the City 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 aloss 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, servlceable 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.
Comrnissioner Carpenter asked why staff proposed to eliminate th, e parking spaces
';:Y_I
shown on the map rather than the parking spaces in the far northwest and far northeast
corners. Mr. Limbird responded that the Police Departmentp~~aed to maintain a two-
way traffic in the driving aisle within the parking area. Th~~ust be a minimurn
- """".,j!,:,,"'~~""
consistent width to'accornmodate two-way east-west triffle: He:p~lieved that rninirnurn
width was 24 feet. He rerninded the commission that ahother is~ij"~.that was discussed
was the need to maintain sufficient space for the elffi~fision of the ~fi'~llJ~ry building at
some point in the future. ' '~~l""~,'-
. ;t7"
, -,~
Comrnissioner Cross closed the hearing and solicited comniission commentS"!\!>
'.,"lffl!:op,
h"ijfi'.. d"~!''',i.?''
Commissioner Cole said that some qf the testimo;~~i!{~~d6mmission received suggested
the issue was one of supporting or #9t~!lPporting th~f!'iUee Department. He reminded
the commission the issue was about~\!~~Ei[g~,Jight-of~~~~!. and the question to resolve
was whether the criteria were satisfie"'dj>y tl:ilf'ai>pncation~H{~",{)mphasized the gravity of
the decision and the import_ance of rigIiWqf-wa);~g:$tiIJ.gfiJd'citizens. Cornmissioner
Cole said the i~sue w~~lft.~G~ greab;~gublii;;b::;netit.\y~ gained from the vacation
than by retaimng th~iX:jsting right-of-way; ,
<!",,;:':W v;1~ 1
. .' .../~~!"\-<[i:<'f;..:- ~.-.r {, '
._kI1\'t--i! . -',' -
C ., Di-~i~ d 'ili"C .."" C I Sh 'dth ..
ommISSlOner ec~~r agree W]:",,"' ornmIssIgqer 0 e. e sa! , e commISSIon must
balance the issue of ~;\~~e1Yi2f~tA.~~~JiS~t~!fl~~,rs, or the convenience .o~ travel. Sh~
thought ~~I~&:;J,~ii,~?ff fa\;g~j~;tlie ~olIce'D~!>jl~rtinent. Her personal opllllOn on the Issue
of the Justice'Center waslmmatenal; she belIeved the center would be located on the
site in~~!tion, aififih ord~~Yorthe developrnent to work in a reasonable manner, B
oJ""'~(~ 7 ";~';;'i':' - ..-'
Stre~~i~ust be vacatea~~
,.t!ii'llb 'lf~i.i
il!'l>'l' "'1.~ lP.
C 1,.-,,,,;.. D k'li." d' h h Z" b d
ommtsstoner ec er"p~ove t at t e app wation e approve as
~... " c,";
presenteu"', '"'"
Comrnissioner Kir~slIenmann expressed support for public safety services and said he
believed stafflook%~;:~ery other option. The application rnet the criteria and he
thought from a safetY'standpoint represented the best scenario. He also expressed
appreciation to staff for working to'save Springfield rnoney.
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
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..
. . or.'{?~~" .
""','<1\,""
'i'~frW"
Commissioner Carpenter anticipated the City's decision wq,l}ld"Be appealed and wanted
to rninimize the pot~ntial success of the appeal. ' He said,~~nt~[f ~ndicated that
travelers would be dIverted 150 feet out of the way to t!i~.,~ley~wl,1J,~h would carry
vehicles, and that was a concern for him because ofjj.~..ffilpact o:~;[destrians, bicyclists,
and those traveling in wheelchairs. He did not tlJ,iriJlthe staff justifi~tj.9n was the
proper one as he did not consider the diversioRa.'~fe alternative. Fo;'tlJ.~~reason, he
had inquired about including a sidewalk in ~~,.Pfoject. He~.greed there~t~ compelling
reasons to approve the application, but did riO~~lnk the..,~<tijimission could'clairn there
was an adequate pedestrian corridor without a pay!'l~ st~p'ofland for the wheelchairs.
Commissioner Carpenter said he was willing to app'rO'~~'the application but would
require the street be le~ open for t1~~J.~ee years "Wi"!b,itpotential ~idewalk installed
later, and the landscapmg reduced ~9Jeetrtqr would requm~ the project to have a paved
sidewalk on the south side of the exisq!ig alley. .
~ '{~, ',',~' I\{l..:,..,..,,'. f .
, '"""It. "(iljt
Commissione.r Cole b~IJ~X'~~.~~,fo~m~~~!J;.;~S ''b~iJf~.wnted into a corner" by t:?e
proposed deslgn.H;t;~Jd the cqrm:nlsSl0ri~~eded to conSIder the long-terrn. He SaId
the street would r;l(jtipeopened onse closed,4and it was a collector street rebuilt at "
considerable cost''fi''BtJong ago.Gi>inmission~;Cole thought B Street one of the best
~'~1I~ !1fi\"~1<~ i'Y,Ij,'"
streets to get thro~gli':l;!grn~~~~;I!"r~~s:~ed ~J.the ~ay to 16th Street. He w~
concerne~~g~1}iltdiverti~~;,~f1!ffic off S6utli;~~ the C!ty had no good pl.ace to direct the
traffic. "Hetliought the stteetwas more usefUl as a CIty street than for ItS planned use as
the ~~2lrCentei.~ii~..~aid'tl!~.Justice Center needed an interconnected parking lot, but
eliriiliiliting B Street ",il:~inot th."e-:way to accomplish that. Commissioner Cole said he
wouliI~B~?Se the appli~tibn as W~1lid not think it met the criteria related to greater
benefit. 'lH~",perceived the~ange as providing a lesser benefit and did not think the
public wa""S'\~ing served by,.the application. Cornmissioner Cole acknowledged that the
City was quiti)~~rJnto th€wocess, but he continued to believe the comrnunity should
not "give up" Bstreet. '
Commissioner Moe seconded the motion. The motion passed, 4:2;
Commissioners Cole and Cmpenter voting no.
. ,Metro Plan/Refinement Plan Man Amendment and a concurrent
, Zonine: Man Amendment c-
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 Comrnission 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 June13, 2007; both letters
have been included in this packet.'
, " ~. ' '
Staff received one written testimony from Lauri,~fi!g , GQ;a,t,pne Coalition
Planner, On June 12, 2007. A written rebuttalto Ms. Segars'letter was then
.,n:$~n~, ~~-l{':,~
subrnitted by the applicant the following d~yJ:Jtine 13, 2ooi~)I.lg.th letters were
received within the specified deadlines aS~pted in the Plannin~^'c;owmission
public hearing on ~une?, 2007. Staff,"~]ponse an.1;~cerp~s frdWi~~. Segel's
letter and the apphcant s rebuttalletter"!M!ye beeq,prpVided m the att1tched report
in order to summarize the issues and to prQ'y,i~~'1t~~~'~f review by the Planning
Commission. Copies of the hyo letters in ilieif~~ritirety are attached for reference
and review in addition to thi1,e't<;;ernp> and shiff f.~sponses in the report. The
attached, report is provided t'8!~uppli!inent the oniinal staff report which was
provided in the Planning corn'ii'iis.sioil'1p~,~~ets, t:or lli1i~~;JUlY 5, 2007 hearing.
"~' ."t\i;,1:1r,~,c" -I, 1"
',_ -.,'1\ ", '''"II''. ,,!:y
, Af/1l~ t"", "li:lql;t'll!,\,~~1;w"". '
The applicant r~,q1t.~l~*BProval o~:-~JJto Plan7B;$-.finernent Plan Map
Amendment t~:t]je Eastl~ajn Refin~~, ent Plan ,
A~fJW ~~tA '\/tl-\ .
. .. .t!IJ1Y Jtil~ . . ~~~\:, . .
Cornm1sslOner Cross ,asked the co rnISSIon to declare any ex parte contacts or conflIcts
f.' ~!JIJ!j:
o mterest.' ,~j, .'
Commi~~1~~"FCQ4~kigdi2a.\~~~ conflict of intere~t due to his wife:s erripl~yment at .
Pea<;,;~~illth, and ex~~d lill~Jelf frorn the heanng. He noted thIS was hIS last meeting
as a"'commissioner, andlbid the~mmission farewelL
""!ilHl~"',,," ''\'iIJi,',~ "'lll"il1~,"'
''Ii\''~'~ ~'\~t '''pI.?
Mr. Re~s6f.directed the ci5ri\.missi~n to the written comments received since the last
"'i\.rti,,,,,~ (J',~
meeting afIq!J,:1{l rebuttal co"wment subrnitted by the applicant. He noted the staff ,
response to tli~';written c6~fuents frorn Lauri Segal of the Goal One Coalition and the
appl!ca~t, inclu~14M~~"Tfueeting packet.' Mr. Reesor recornmended approval of the
, apphcabon'''''l~~*''
-,.,'
Respondirig to a question from Comrnissioner 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 19, 2007
Page 10
open was a mernber of that group. He said it seemed somewhat out of keeping with
procedure to allow potential testirnony from sorneone not in attendance at the hearing.
Comrnissioner Cross closed the hearing and asked for comments from the commission.
. , ~~ ~
Cornmissioner Dec~er believ~d ~hat commercliY~~nin~ ,~~:jIlOre ~ompatiblf;wjth.this
area. She agreed WIth CommIssIoner Carpenter tHat Llgnt!Industnal could be a thmg of
the past. ,,,t"h,
1h1\',~,",~"'1n, "
'lil'"""'!ilihi'"
Commissioner Kirschenmann suppor!~'"d'tii~,Jl:p'plication..:,t..~\,
'~, '~~:!jW-'h", 'lW!l
Commissioner Cross comm",nted stmtt9,utst~d4~~!fr8,F1< ~~~fhe application. Resaid
that while he thought ~~':I)19P~N in qJe~pqp:~itabIEn~the intended use, he thought
the comrnunity nee~~,8J6be ca'r~W1 not t~t~~ir up too mJch Light Industrial land.
,tI",1Ii*,i~ ~,;l'l~lI, '\(;,ii\
(~~ BM: '~"J'l"
Comntissioner;jVC!Iciryenter, ~!!c'onded bY;:Commissioner Decker, moved to
recommend appfbual ofthe"'1ijiP.,licatio~;to the City Council, with the
finding~ and~(mdili~'jtS:~"disi#:s~$JftThe motion passed unanimously,
5:0.
BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECfOR
~,':':11;_., "*fI!'l-~'h ,:",\,~,..t<1' .
-'-:~;~t ':<f.~ :7' ~, " ill'
f~:1~" \'.!qfE,,' .,
Mr. Gril~!b~nked commissioners Decker, Cole, and Moe for their service on the
Planning Com.xnission.
. ~1;~<;~ltik,..
REPORT OF COUNCIU ACfION
~'~i-t.t~, '3i1U1;'~;1JjV
'''~~~iJ' '. '
Comrnissioner Carpenter reported that the council had the first reading for the Marcola
Meadows development and presented a plaque to Ms. Crae for her life-tirne of giving to
the City of Springfield.
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
Regular Session
June 19,2007
Page II
Cornrnissioner Decker thanked the staff for their professional expertise and support, as
did Cornmissioner 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 Plan'b'itck to the Planning,
Cornrnission for review, and to indicate to the commission wlf~ii~the plan was last
revised.
$it
.~t~~;.v
ADJOURNMENT.,tW
, , )~'v
Commissioner Cross adjourned the meeting at,~:3'o p.m.
(Recorded by Brenda Jones and Kimberly Young)
MINUTES-Springfield Planning CommIssion
Regular Session'
June 19,2007
Page 12