Full Text
1 Woodburn Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 14, 2023 Convened: The Planning Commission met at 7:02 p.m. both in person and through a public online/virtual session via Microsoft Teams. Roll Call: Chair Ellsworth Present Vice-Chair Hernandez-Mejia Present Commissioner Bartel Present Commissioner Berlin Present Commissioner Bravo Present Commissioner Corning Absent Commissioner Lassen Present Staff Present: McKenzie Granum, Assistant City Attorney Chris Killmer, Assistant City Attorney Colin Cortes, AICP, CNU-A, Senior Planner Dan Handel, Planner Jesse Cuomo, Community Services Director (Chris Kerr, Community Development Director was on vacation.) Introduction: Chair Ellsworth opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. and asked Staff to begin roll-call. Chair Ellsworth led everyone through the Pledge of Allegiance. Minutes: The minutes were from the November 9, 2023, meeting. Chair Ellsworth asked if there were any corrections or additional information needed and there were none. Commissioner Berlin motioned to approve the minutes; Vice-Chair Hernandez-Mejia seconded. The motion passed unanimously, and minutes were approved. Business from the Audience: None. Parks Master Plan Update Communications: Community Services Director Jesse Cuomo and the City’s consultant presented an overview of the updated Parks Master Plan. Director Cuomo noted to Commissioners that this project is anticipated to be on the January 25, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting for a public hearing and recommendation to City Council. Senior Planner Cortes announced that McKenzie Granum was promoted to be the new City Attorney and introduced the new Assistant City Attorney Chris Killmer to the Planning Commission. Public Hearings: ANX 23-03 [Withdrawn] Chair Ellsworth read the agenda item description and asked staff about it. Senior Planner Cortes confirmed that the applicant withdrew the application per the letter that staff forwarded to the Commission (on December 8 after agenda publication). Therefore, ANX 23-03 “Brown Street Annexation” was not heard December 14. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 DR 22-06, PLA 22-04, SA 23-04, & VAR 23-04 Chair Ellsworth opened the hearing for DR 22-06, PLA 22-04, SA 23-04 & VAR 23-04: Young Street Apartments at 1030 Young Street and gave a summary of the application. Chair Ellsworth then asked if the Planning Commission had any ex-parte contacts, site visits, declarations, or potential conflicts of interests they would like to report, and Chair Ellsworth reported that she lives close by to the site on a different street. Chair Ellsworth asked if there were any challenges to the Planning Commission and there were none. Assistant City Attorney Chris Killmer read the public hearing statement and Senior Planner Cortes presented the staff report. After the presentation, Senior Planner Cortes asked if the Planning Commission had any questions. The Planning Commission asked about whether fencing would be placed to keep people off the railroad track and Senior Planner Cortes stated that the applicant isn’t required to but could install fencing and referenced conditioned height limits. Upon a commissioner question about a traffic study, Senior Planner Cortes recalled that it probably the project size and scope of work didn’t trigger a full transportation impact analysis. After the questions, Chair Ellsworth then asked for the testimony of the applicant. Testimony by Applicant: Aaron Terpening, Design Principal with CBTWO Architects, 500 Liberty Street SE Salem, OR 97301. (Gretchen Stone, Land Use Coordinator with CBTWO Architects sat with the applicant’s team but did not testify.) Applicant Terpening thanked Senior Planner Cortes and Staff for working with his team throughout the project. Applicant Terpening talked about the conditions and which ones he and his team are hoping to change and which ones they would like to keep the same. He also explained the layout of the buildings and how they correlate with the landscape and how the conditions needed to reflect that to not cause conflict with the rest of the project. Applicant Terpening talked about the right-of-way conditions, and he also addressed safety and security concerns. He explained that his team followed the code to the best of their ability, giving the constraints the site bought to the project. He ended on a positive note that the project will improve Young Street and give something to the Woodburn Community. The Planning Commission asked Staff to clarify the window condition and Staff did so, along with addressing the awning condition. Applicant Terpening explained the challenges they would be facing if they go with the current conditions in place for the awning condition. The Planning Commission asked to explain more about the awning condition and Staff helped the applicant clarify what is in the code and what is not for awnings. The Planning Commission discussed the aesthetics of the buildings and the landscaping for this project with the applicant. The Planning Commission examined a plan map laying out the project’s building locations, along with explaining the parking, landscaping, and sidewalk placements. Senior Planner Cortes explained the landscaping code and expressed that the applicant met the code’s limits in certain aspects. The applicant’s team expressed concerns about how the parking space reached the limit of site size and the struggle to grant safer accessibility to pedestrians and bikers, due to tight spacing of the parking lot. After Applicant Terpening concluded his time, Chair Ellsworth moved on the testimonies. Testimony by Proponents: None. Testimony by Opponents: None. Chair Ellsworth closed to the public hearing and moved onto the deliberation. The Planning Commission requested to have Staff explain Condition RR2 and clarify the applicant’s request in the addendum. The Planning Commission reviewed all the information that was presented and discussed the best course of action, even asking Staff clarifying questions about issues they weren’t sure about. The Planning Commission addressed aspects of the public right-of-way and parking. Then members talked about the apartment building and discussed the layout of the plans. Members even looked at a diagrammatic installation in the Council Chambers of how a typical patio area would look. The Planning Commission talked about what it likes and didn’t like about it, along with discussing the conditions such as the variance. Members also requested to have a layout of what conditions they are changing, removing, and/or keeping and Staff typed out the edited conditions of approval on the monitor. ---PAGE BREAK---