TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Keith Staley, City Manager
FROM: Kristen Retherford, Community Planning and Development Director
SUBJECT:
title
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and Zone change to Industrial and IG (General Industrial) zoning for property located at 650 15th Street SE.
Ward(s): Ward 2
Councilor(s): Nishioka
Neighborhood(s): Southeast Salem Neighborhood Association
Result Area(s): Welcoming and Livable Community
end
SUMMARY:
summary
On March 25, 2024, the Planning Commission issued a decision approving a request to change the 0.99-acre subject properties from RM-II (Multiple-Family Residential II) to IG (General Industrial) (Attachment 1), subject to conditions of approval. (Attachment 2) An appeal was filed by the applicant, objecting to the conditions of approval. The City Council will decide to affirm, modify, or reverse the Planning Commission’s decision.
end
ISSUE:
Shall the City Council affirm, modify, or reverse the Planning Commission’s decision for Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and Zone change, Case No. CPC-ZC24-01?
RECOMMENDATION:
recommendation
Affirm the Planning Commission’s decision for Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and Zone change, Case No. CPC-ZC24-01 and approve the application, subject to conditions of approval.
body
FACTS AND FINDINGS:
Procedural Findings
1. The following items are submitted to the record and are available: 1) all materials and testimony submitted by the applicant, including any applicable professional studies such as traffic impact analysis, geologic assessments, stormwater reports, and; 2) materials, testimony, and comments from public agencies, City Departments, neighborhood associations, and the public. All application materials are available on the City’s online Permit Application Center at https://permits.cityofsalem.net. You can use the search function without registering and enter the permit number listed here: 23 122305.
2. The subject property was redesignated and rezoned from Industrial and IG (General Industrial) to Multi-Family Residential and RM-II (Multiple-Family Residential II) through the Our Salem project. Our Salem was effective on August 22, 2022; the current owner purchased the property on November 30, 2022.
3. On November 13, 2023, Britany Randall, of BRAND Land Use, filed a consolidated application for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Quasi-Judicial Zone Change on behalf of the applicant and property owner, Robert Bolt. The application request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from “Multiple-Family” to “Industrial” and change the zoning from RM-II (Multiple-Family Residential) to IG (General Industrial).
4. The property owner requested a request for a fee waiver or reduction for the land use application. The City Council approved a fifty-percent fee reduction at their December 11, 2023, meeting.
5. After additional requested information was provided by the applicant, the applications were deemed complete for processing on January 24, 2024.
6. Public notice of the proposal was provided pursuant to Salem Revised Code (SRC) requirements, on February 7, 2024. Public notice was posted on the property by the applicant’s representative on February 15, 2024.
7. DLCD Notice: State law (ORS 197.610) and SRC 300.620(b)(1) require the City to provide the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) a minimum 35-day notice when an applicant or the City proposes an amendment to an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan or land use regulation or to adopt a new land use regulation. Required notice of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Change and Zone Change application was provided to DLCD on February 16, 2024.
8. On February 27, 2024, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to receive evidence and testimony on the proposal. The Planning Commission received testimony from the applicant. No public testimony was received. The Planning Commission made a motion to continue the public hearing to March 19, 2024.
9. On March 19, 2024, a second public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to receive evidence and testimony on the proposal. The Commission closed the hearing, conducted deliberations, and voted to approve the applications with recommended conditions of approval, with the exception of edited Condition 1, striking Commercial Parking from the list of prohibited uses, as recommended by staff in the supplemental report dated March 19, 2024
10. 120-Day Rule: Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 227.128, amendments to an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan are not subject to the 120-day rule. In addition, the additional applications included with the proposal are similarly not subject to the 120-DayRule because, pursuant to ORS 227.178(10), they have been filed concurrently, and are being considered jointly with the proposed comprehensive plan amendment.
Substantive Findings
1. Summary
The applicant is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and Zone change from Multiple Family and RM-II zoning to Industrial and IG zoning.
The proposal is for two properties, one located at 650 15th Street SE and the second at an unaddressed lot across Leslie Street SE, that were both formerly used as a fuel storage facility. The development site includes an existing office building located at 650 15t St SE and a warehouse on the unaddressed lot across Leslie St SE. The proposal would change the zoning back to the previous zoning, prior to the Our Salem update of the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff provided notice of the proposed zone changes to the previous owner in July and August of 2020 including invitations to informational meetings for property owners. Staff also provided required notice to the property owner of the public hearing process in February of 2022. The property owner did not contact staff or participate in the hearing process.
Our Salem was effective on August 22, 2022; the current owner purchased the property on November 30, 2022. The owner’s broker indicated they were unaware of the current zoning when the property was purchased. However, the applicant’s representative stated at the Planning Commission hearing that the owner obtained a title report with the correct zoning prior to closing on the property.
The new owners contacted staff and provided information that there is an Oregon Department of Environmental Quality deed restriction on the properties, prohibiting residential and agricultural uses of the properties due to soil contamination from the previous use as a fuel storage site. The requested Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zone change was made because the properties cannot be developed for residential uses in their current designation and zoning. The DEQ restriction was not provided to staff during the Our Salem process.
The applicant’s representative stated at the Planning Commission hearing that the property had been vacant for over one year and therefore, they had lost any non-conforming use rights. The applicant has stated that no further site development is proposed with this application. The applicant has not stated what use they are proposing.
2. Planning Commission’s Decision
During the first hearing, the Planning Commission did not concur with the applicant’s written statement, contesting a mistake in the application of a land use designation to the property. The designation and zoning change were changed by Our Salem which was adopted by City Council in Ordinance Bill No. 10-22 after proper notice to the property owner.
The Planning Commission found that due to the deed restriction recorded against the subject properties, the proposal to change the properties back to the previous designation and zone of Industrial and IG to allow for Industrial uses met the criterion of ‘equally or better suited designation,’ provided mitigation was provided between the multi-family zoned properties surrounding the subject properties.
The Planning Commission found that the properties adjacent to the subject property were rezoned to multi-family through Our Salem due to their proximity to long established residential areas, access to transit, walking distance to an elementary school, Tokyo University, and Willamette University, and at the request of Willamette University. Staff’s research indicates that the surrounding properties do not have similar DEQ restrictions on them, indicating they may be redeveloped for housing in the future.
The Planning Commission asked the applicant to propose mitigation between the subject properties and abutting residential properties; they declined to do so. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing, directing staff to work with the applicant on proposed mitigation and to return with mitigation for their consideration. Staff proposed both use restrictions and landscaping and screening, or a different, less intensive zone. The applicant’s response was that the imposition of any conditions was unacceptable. Therefore, staff returned to the Commission with the proposed conditions limiting the uses and requiring screening and landscaping.
In comparing the uses currently allowed on the subject property under the RM-II zoning and those allowed in the proposed IG zoning, the Planning Commission evaluated which IG zone uses could be restricted to address the concerns with the compatibility to the surrounding RM-II zoned area. The decision criteria require the proposed designation and zone to be equally or better suited as the current zoning.
With the restricted uses listed in Condition 1, the Planning Commission found the proposal would allow for more uses than the existing RM-II zone while restricting those uses which can generate pollutants, noise, sediment, and water contamination which are not compatible with residential uses and be generally incompatible with a residential area. None of the uses listed in Condition 1 are currently permitted within the existing RM-II zoning district. The Planning Commission, during deliberations, struck ‘Commercial Parking’ from the use list in Condition 1, allowing this use on the property. Commercial Parking is defined as “parking facilities contained within structures or on surface lots, where such parking is available to the public and not exclusively accessory to a specific use or development. A fee may or may not be charged.” The Planning Commission, in deciding to allow this use, discussed how ‘Commercial Parking’ could serve the future multi-family development in the area while ‘capping’ the site to pave the contaminates identified in the DEQ report.
Additional measures were adopted to lessen the overall impact of industrial uses on the neighboring residential uses, such as screening for all types of outdoor storage, paving instead of gravel for vehicle storage, and additional landscaping when future development occurs.
Condition 1: The following uses/activities allowed within the IG (General Industrial) zone shall be prohibited uses/activities allowed on the subject properties:
|
General Industrial Zoning District |
|
Use |
Limitations & Qualifications |
|
Motor vehicle and manufactured dwelling and trailer sales |
N |
|
Motor vehicle services |
N |
|
Commercial parking |
N |
|
Heavy vehicle and trailer sales |
N |
|
Heavy vehicle and trailer service and storage |
N |
|
Major event entertainment |
N |
|
Cleaning plants |
N |
|
Industrial services |
N |
|
Heavy wholesaling |
N |
|
General manufacturing |
N |
|
Heavy manufacturing |
N |
|
Aviation facilities |
N |
|
Passenger ground transportation services |
P - Transit stop shelters |
|
|
N - All other passenger ground transportation facilities |
|
Marine facilities |
N |
|
Fuel dealers |
N |
|
Waste-related facilities |
N |
|
Petroleum and natural gas production |
N |
|
Surface mining |
N |
|
Agriculture and forestry services |
N |
|
Keeping of livestock and other animals |
N |
|
Animal services |
P - All other uses allowed |
|
|
N - Boarding |
Condition 2: Any vehicle storage areas shall be paved with a hard surface material meeting Public Works Design Standards.
Condition 3: Outdoor storage shall be screened with landscaping or a site-obscuring fence or wall from abutting residentially zoned properties to the north, east, and west.
Condition 4: At the time of development, a minimum of 15% of the development site shall be landscaped meeting the Type A standards set forth in SRC Chapter 807. Other required landscaping under the UDC, such as landscaping required for setbacks or vehicular use areas, may count towards this requirement.
The decision criteria for the proposed applications are addressed on Page 7 - 20 of the Planning Commission decision (Attachment 2)
3. Applicant’s Appeal
The applicant’s appeal application is included as Attachment 3. The appeal is in objection to the adopted conditions of approval.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission evaluated which IG zoned uses could be restricted to address the concerns with the compatibility to the surrounding RM-II zoned area. The decision criteria require the proposed designation and zone to be equally or better suited as the current zoning. With the conditioned restricted uses in the IG zone, the Planning Commission found the proposal would allow for more uses than the existing RM-II zone while restricting those uses which can generate pollutants, noise, sediment, and water contamination, which are not compatible with residential uses and be generally incompatible with a residential area. None of the uses listed in Condition 1 are currently permitted within the existing RM-II zoning district.
Additional measures were adopted to lessen the overall impact of industrial uses on residential uses, such as screening for all types of outdoor storage, paving instead of gravel and additional landscaping when future development occurs. The restricted uses and additional development standards were adopted to provide mitigation between the surrounding residentially zoned properties from the potential externalities of the more intensive uses allowed in the IG zone.
Additionally, the applicant’s representative asserted that due to the City Council’s approval of a fee reduction, the Council supports the application being approved. An approval of a fee reduction is not a land use decision and does not bind the City Council in this application. The City Council retains the right to affirm, modify or reverse the Planning Commission decision.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission for Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and Zone Change, Case No. CPC-ZC24-01.
I. AFFIRM the decision;
II. MODIFY the decision; or
III. REVERSE the decision.
Peter Domine
Planner II
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Planning Commission’s Decision
3. Applicant’s Appeal Letter