Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout050322 PC MinutesCity of Central Point Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 3, 2022 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:03 P.M. Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Planning Commission members, Jim Mock (acting chair), Amy Moore (remotely), Brad Cozza,Kay Harrison, Pat Smith and Tom Van Voorhees (remotely) Also in attendance were Planning Director Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner Justin Gindlesperger, Public Works Director Matt Samitore and Planning Secretary Karin Skelton. CORESPONDENCE None. MINUTES Brad Cozza made a motion to approve the April 5, 2022 minutes. Pat Smith seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Amy Moore, abstain; Jim Mock, yes; Brad Cozza, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Kay Harrison, abstain, Pat Smith, yes. Motion passed. PUBLIC APPEARANCES None BUSINESS Planning Director Stephanie Holtey requested the Planning Commission revise the order of the Public Hearings to Move item A (Mobile food vendors) to be heard last and hear items B (Scenic Site Plan and Architectural Review) and C (Scenic Class C Variance) first so the people who came to speak at these hearings would not have to wait. The Commissioners agreed. B. Public hearing and consideration of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for site improvements at Scenic Middle School that include construction site access, circulation and parking lot improvements, establishing a separated bus-loading zone, construction of additional classrooms, relocating existing modular classrooms and installation of an additional modular classroom. Applicant: School District #6; Agent: O’Connor Law, LLC (Daniel B. O’Connor). File No. SPAR-22002. Approval Criteria: CPMC17.72, Site Plan and Architectural Review. (Gindlesperger) Acting Chair Jim Mock read the rules for a quasi-judicial hearing. The commissioners had no conflict of interest or bias to disclose. Kay Harrison stated she sits on the Bond Oversight Committee for the school district but feels this will not impact her ability to make a fair and impartial decision. Tom Van Voorhees and Jim Mock said they had each made a site visit. Mr. Mock indicated the site visit helped him to envision the proposed bus route in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. They both indicated they felt confident to be able to make a fair and impartial decision. Community Planner Justin Gindlesperger stated both the Site Plan and Architectural Review and the Variance applications are being processed concurrently and it is important to focus on the criteria for each one separately. He introduced the Site Plan and Architectural Review application. He reviewed the location and configuration of the school including access points and floodplain area. He stated this project is scheduled to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 is a modification to the existing parking lot on the north, adding 45 spaces. There will be a reconfiguration of the parent drop off area to alleviate circulation problems and there is a proposed new bus route along the rear of the property. Phase 2 will provide additional classroom space. Issues include landscape design with regard to the parking area interior and buffer design and perimeter landscape. Also a Storm water management plan is needed to address the additional impervious area. Additionally the applicant will be required to install signage identifying the fire lane as an area of “no parking” and prohibiting unattended vehicles. A New landscape plan will be required to address the threat of mortality to the existing trees in the parking lot due to proximity to improvements. With regard to the proposed bus route there are 2 issues. The proximity of the existing school buildings to Aurora lane will require a Class C Variance to address the insufficient landscape buffer. This will be discussed during Ms. Holtey’s presentation. The improvements that extend into the area of the property that is in the floodplain will require a floodplain development permit. With regard to the proposed bus route taking access from Aurora Lane and exiting onto Comet, the approval will depend upon whether or not the variance is granted. He said Staff is recommending approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review with the bus route being contingent upon the granting of the variance. Ms. Holtey asked if the site plan is approved and the variance is denied, will the improvements to the parking lot still be able to move forward. He said yes. The Public Hearing was Opened Dan O’Connor, Agent for Applicant School District #6. Jacksonville, Oregon Mr. O’Connor stated there were two concurrent applications one for a site plan review regarding parking lot improvements and new bus route and a separate variance application for landscape standards for the proposed bus route. He said the applicant has had a meeting with an arborist and the design has been changed to protect trees that might be adversely impacted. He indicated the proposed entrance to the school from Aurora is too close to an existing residence and said they plan to move that entrance 20 feet to the west. Mr. O’Connor said the School District has been working to improve traffic conditions for quite some time. He said he has personally seen the chaotic traffic impacts of the current situation. The extension of Rock Way has helped, however the combination of busses and parents dropping off or picking up causes traffic queuing all the way out to Scenic Ave. He added the additional parking and separation of busses and parents’ vehicles would improve conditions Mr. O’Connor reviewed the proposed bus route noting there was more than 600 feet for the busses to stack behind the fence on school property. He added they would not idle so as to keep their impact to a minimum. Mr. O’Connor reserved the right to rebuttal. The Commissioners discussed the option for parents to use Rock Way to enter and pick up their children at the north drop off zone in the parking lot. Mr. O’Connor said that some do that now, but combined with the bus traffic there was a lot of confusion. He showed the current bus route through the school property. He said the parents would not be allowed to continue to drop off children at the Aurora Lane location. Parent drop off and pick up would be limited to the north end of the parking lot. He said the primary goal was to separate cars and busses. Public Comments Mitchell and Sunshine Price (remotely) The Mitchells sent a chat message stating they spoke with Spencer Davenport from the School District and he said parents would continue to be allowed to use Aurora Lane to drop off and pick up. Amy Morris 1217 Crown Ave. Ms. Morris stated the traffic is already bad in the neighborhood and she did not believe parents would stop using the Aurora Lane drop off location. She outlined how her property has been impacted by students and traffic and her attempts to coordinate with the School District for some resolution to ongoing problems. She stated there were RV’s, boats, trailers and cars parked on both sides of the road. There was no room for busses to drive without seriously impacting traffic. She added there were no stop signs or crosswalks in the neighborhood and bus traffic would exacerbate safety issues for pedestrians. Additionally, whatever routes the busses took out of the neighborhood would cause problems. Terry Nave 1105 Comet Mr. Nave said he concurred with Ms. Morris that there was already a bad traffic situation on Aurora and adding 14 busses would only cause greater problems. He said with vehicles parked on both sides of the street there would be barely room for the busses to travel and it would bottleneck everything and make it more difficult for residents to leave for work or return home. He also mentioned there were students coming from Crater as well and there were already significant safety issues. The commissioners clarified that there were sidewalks on the south side of Aurora lane only. Mark Saltmarsh 1203 Comet Ave. Mr. Saltmarsh agreed with Mr. Nave. He said the busses would not be able to navigate the corner from the school onto Comet Ave. He said the busses would make the current traffic situation much worse and the streets aren’t wide enough for bus traffic. Gary Pierson 1020 Comet Ave. Mr. Pierson stated the variance was the application most people were there for. Ms. Holtey explained this application is for the SPAR which is the overall plan. If there are comments about the variance it will be the next application. Mr. Pierson provided an aerial photo of the end of Comet Avenue and the location of the track on the school property. He expressed concern about how the busses would be able to make the turn onto Comet Ave. He expressed concern about the safety of children who walked home from school. Frida Ochoa 1205 Comet Ave Ms. Ochoa said she lives at the end of Comet Ave. She said all the schools in the area route children through this neighborhood. She said the traffic is extremely bad. She added it takes her 25 minutes to get from Comet to Upton Road in the mornings. She said there are no stop signs and no crosswalks and there have been many near misses with the parents dropping off and the pedestrian traffic. She said the streets are not made for busses. She said the garbage people won’t even drive down Comet to pick up because there is no way for them to turn around. She asked if the property adjacent to the campus which is owned by the Housing Authority could possibly be used for the bus pick up and drop off. Amy Morris 1217 Crown Ave. Ms. Morris asked about the criteria for noticing. Stephanie Holtey explained notices were required to be sent to all residents within 250 feet of a project. Additionally four notices were posted on the property. She said this is consistent with the City’s Municipal Code. Ms. Holtey added that several years ago the noticing requirements were changed from 100 feet to 250 feet in an effort to better communicate with residents surrounding a property. There were notices sent to 144 addresses. Sunshine Price (remotely) 113 Aurora Lane Ms. Price said she concurs with Amy Morris and Frida Ochoa. She asked if any studies or measurements were taken of Comet and Aurora. She also asked how wide a bus is. She said she had concerns about the weight of the busses and whether they would cause damage to the track at the school as the ground there can become soggy. Also she was concerned for student safety while using the track. Said she got information from the School District that they could not stop parents from dropping off on Aurora and pedestrians and cars would still be allowed. She said this conflicts with the school’s presentation. Currently cars park on both sides of Aurora and there is no room for two cars to pass. There are no stop signs and no crosswalks. She asked if stop signs and crosswalks would be installed. She was concerned about safety for children. She also asked where will pedestrians enter and how will they avoid the bus traffic? Ms. Price asked about emergency vehicles and how will they be able to operate with the traffic problems. She asked if this the only option? Rebuttal Dan O’Connor, Agent Mr. O’Connor stated that most of the comments were related to the variance application. He showed the locations of the ingress and egress for the busses. He explained the duration of the bus traffic would be approximately 15 minutes twice daily during the school year. They will be behind the fence and will not be idling. He said the suggestion of using the Housing Authority property was not viable as the School District did not own it. He added the proposed bus route was reviewed and approved by a licensed registered traffic engineer. Mr. O’Connor examined the exhibit submitted by Mr. Pierson. Public Works Director Matt Samitore asked for clarification as to whether or not parents would continue to be allowed to drop off students on Aurora. Mr. O’Connor said he spoke with Spencer Davenport of the School District and the school intended to ban access from Aurora to the school except for children who rode the bus or walked. However, he said the school does not have the power to issue citations to parents who disobey the rules. There will be a school official at the pedestrian gate on Aurora to help enforce the rule. Amy Moore asked Mr. Samitore if there were things the city could do to alleviate some concerns, such as marking the north side of Aurora a no parking zone? Possibly put sidewalks on that side as well? Mr. Mock suggested Mr. Samitore respond after the public hearing was closed. Terry Nave 1105 Comet Mr. Nave stated that if the ban on dropping students off on Aurora can’t be enforced what if the parents just drop off on anther nearby street? Dan O’Connor The whole point of the parking lot expansion is to facilitate an easier drop off situation for the parents at the parking lot location. Gary Pierson 1020 Comet Ave. Mr. Pierson expressed concern about parking and traffic on Aurora and pedestrian safety. He asked if parking would be limited on other streets. He said property values will go down because of limited parking. Dan O’Connor Mr. O’Connor responded that there is no parking allowed on the north side of Aurora now. It is yellow striped. Mr. O’Connor requested the public hearing be closed at this point. Ms. Holtey said unless there was new testimony the time for public comment and rebuttal should be closed. Sunshine Price (remotely) 113 Aurora Lane Ms. Price stated Mr. O’Connor had not answered her question regarding the dimensions of busses and traffic lanes. Dan O’Connor Mr. O’Connor said the reason he did not answer those questions is because they are relevant to the variance application not the parking lot application. Mr. Mock acknowledged the difficulty of separating the two applications. Ms. Holtey addressed the commissioners outlining the options for the meeting at this time 1. Close the public hearing (no motion required) 2. Keep the record open for 7 days to accept addition written testimony 3. Continue the hearing (motion and second required) She explained that a lot of the comments concerned the Variance and it would be her suggestion the public hearing be closed so the planning commission could deliberate on the Site Plan and Architectural Review. Public comments would be allowed during the variance hearing. The Public Hearing was Closed. Mr. Gindlesperger stated the criteria for approval are in CPMC Section 17.72 and the design and development standards in 17.75. Those criteria are listed on page 38 of the Agenda Packet. The conditions of approval recommended by staff are there as well. Approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review application would allow the school to move forward with the improvements shown, and the bus route would be contingent upon approval of the variance. Staff is recommending approval of the application with the conditions of approval listed on page 38 of the packet. Mr. Gindlesperger stated the decision at this meeting would be a final decision on this application. He reminded them the bus route is only approved if the variance is approved. If it is not approved, the proposed route would be subject to the standard requirements for landscape and buffer and would not go forward. Kay Harrison Moved to approve the Site Plan and Architectural Review for Scenic Middle School on lands within the Civic zoning district. Pat Smith seconded the motion. The commissioners clarified this was the final decision and the application was not being forwarded to the City Council. They discussed alternate bus routes and various locations where drop off and pick up might be located and the pros and cons of the various sites. The Commissioners had concerns regarding the turning radius out of the school onto Comet. Ms. Holtey said the Site Plan Architectural Review application includes improvements to the entrance of the parking lot on the north side to expand the width. They are providing a connective sidewalk system from Scenic Avenue to the campus and the addition of 45 parking spaces. Each space measures 9 feet by 19 feet. The drive aisles are 24 feet wide. They are also proposing additional parent drop off and pick up areas. She stated the second component is the Bus route. There has been a lot of testimony and questions regarding the function of the bus route. The property is within a Civic zoning district which permits schools and all of the accessory facilities and uses thereto. The use is not in question. The question is does it meet the standards in the Code. There is nothing that would prevent the school bus or a person from using the public street system. The application under deliberation involves improvements to the parking lot and the bus route. The proposed bus route does not meet the landscape standards in the code and that is the reason for the request for a variance. There is a condition that if the variance is not granted the bus route does not move forward. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Brad Cozza, yes. Motion passed. 7:20 A 5 minute Break was announced 7:48 Meeting was reconvened C. Consideration of a Class “C” Variance application to the standards in CPMC 17.75.039(G) “Parking/Loading Facility Perimeter and Screening” and Table 17.75.03 “Parking/Loading Facility Perimeter and Street Frontage Landscaping” for the development of a new bus route and loading area for Scenic Middle School. The 13.58 acre site is located at 1955 Scenic Avenue and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 03AB, Tax Lot 4300. Applicant: School District #6; Agent: O’Connor Law, LLC (Daniel B. O’Connor) Associated File: SPAR -22002 Dan O’Connor requested Mr. Mock read the rules for a quasi- judicial hearing for the variance application as it was separate from the Site Plan Architectural Review. Mr. Mock Read the rules for a quasi-judicial hearing. The Commissioners had no conflict of interest, ex parte contact or bias to declare. Kay Harrison stated she sits on the Bond Oversight Committee for the school district but feels this will not impact her ability to make a fair and impartial decision. Tom Van Voorhees and Jim Mock said they had previously stated they had made a site visit which would not affect their ability to make a fair and impartial decision. Planning Director Stephanie Holtey acknowledged the planning commissioners were volunteers from the community who would listen to staff reports and consider each application against the relevant approval criteria set forth in the Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC). She stated it was important to recognize that everyone in the room cares very much about these issues and each person deserves an orderly and respectful opportunity to express their viewpoints without interruption or distraction. She explained the School District is attempting to address and correct issues regarding access, circulation and parking to relieve traffic congestion. The current application is a Class C Variance to address landscape buffers for the proposed bus route on the south side of the school. The location of the pavement for the bus route does not meet the standards in chapter 17.75039(G)(1). Specifically table 17.75.03. She said there is a revised staff report provided which addresses the proposed driveway on Aurora Lane which will be the entrance for the buses. The driveway was abutting the adjacent residential property and will be moved 20 feet to the west. There is also a draft resolution provided for the Commissioners’ reference. The intent of the school district is to separate the bus traffic and parent traffic in order to alleviate congestion. Currently traffic is queuing onto Scenic Avenue and causing problems. The expansion of the parking lot will encourage parents to drop off and pick up from that area rather than Aurora Lane. Ms. Holtey reviewed the proposed bus route and stated there was approximately 700 feet for the busses to park and load behind the school fence. The busses would enter from Aurora Lane and exit on Comet Ave. She explained there is a 13 foot walkway and loading platform adjacent to the school building. This loading area has access to the internal campus areas. She provided an aerial view of the school saying there is an existing loading drive coming down from the north side parking lot going around the back side of the school and ending in what appears to be a fire turn around. The proposal would extend that existing pavement and connect it to Comet Avenue and to Aurora Lane. She provided a street view of the fence on the school property and the location of the proposed bus entrance from Aurora. She said it was 29 to 30 feet between the buildings and the property line. She provided a street view of the area of Comet Drive where the proposed exit for the busses was located. Ms. Holtey reviewed the proposed bus route showing a five foot existing buffer along the route between the pavement and the property line. This buffer would be continued along the proposed route to the west. On the east side there is no buffer provided along the street frontage. She explained that municipal code section 17.75.03 requires parking lot and loading areas provide landscaping and screening. The code specifies the purpose of that is to reinforce circulation routes. The applicant is proposing this bus route with no buffer along Aurora Lane, they will maintain the existing fence to provide screening. On the area next to the residential property they are proposing to maintain the existing 5 foot width. Neither of these proposals conform to the code. The code requires any new parking lot or loading zone have a 20 foot landscape buffer. One of the purposes of the variance is to request a reduction to those landscape standards to allow the pavement to be within that required planter area, reducing it from 20 feet to 5 feet. Along Aurora Lane a 10 foot planter would be required by the code and they are requesting a reduction of the code standard to zero feet. She added the pavement was 16 feet wide. Ms. Holtey explained that no City code can adequately address every situation. There are times when some flexibility is required to address reasonable but unique situations. That is when variances are granted. However, they are rare. She explained the six different criteria a variance request must meet. Is the use appropriate Is there a hardship that is not self-imposed Is this variance materially detrimental to the purposes of the code the City policies and regulations and surrounding properties. Is there an Impact to existing systems Is this the minimum necessary Ms. Holtey explained in detail how the variance request meets each of the criteria either outright or with a condition of approval. The Commissioners clarified the bus route and that the busses would not park in the public right of way. They expressed concern about the sharp corner turning onto Comet Drive. Ms. Holtey stated that notices were posted at four places on the school property and were mailed to residents within 250 feet of the school property. Since the notices were sent out, verbal comments have been received from two residents. Both residents expressed concerns about quality of life and property values being negatively impacted. She added there had been a request from another resident to participate virtually in this meeting but that individual has never signed in. There have been no written comments received. Ms. Holtey asked Public Works Director Matt Samitore for comments. Mr. Samitore stated there were fire hydrants and a water cut off valve that are in direct conflict with the proposed bus route which would have to be protected. He added there is a significant storm drain line at the end of Comet and we will need to verify there will be no damage to the storm drain system from bus traffic. He said the proposed turning radius would need to be verified with an engineer. He said there were a lot of comments about public streets. Aurora Lane is a minor public street which was put in a long time ago as a Planned Unit Development and was not up to standards. Those are no longer allowed. He reviewed the streets in the Kings Court subdivision saying they were 30 to 32 feet curb to curb which is a standard city street width. There is nothing to prohibit any vehicle using those streets. Everyone has access to public streets. He said regarding crosswalks and stop signs, the City is open to any citizen input. He said the city intersections which are not signaled are monitored annually and most of the time they do not meet warrants. There are rigorous state standards required to be met before a stop sign can be installed, however the City would be happy to do a study if there is an area of concern. He said he concurs with the traffic engineer’s assessment. If traffic is able to be reduced that would be an improvement to the transportation system. In response to the commissioners suggestion to route the busses from Aurora and travel up the existing drive to exit on Scenic, Mr. Samitore said there are topographic issues on the west side of the school which would cause problems with that route. It would take significant and expensive improvements to allow that to happen. Ms. Holtey asked if Mr. Samitore would recommend any additional conditions of approval. He responded he would like to hear from the applicant regarding the connections for the pedestrians dropped off on Aurora. He asked if there is school person monitoring the pedestrian gate on Aurora. Ms. Holtey asked if the site plan and architectural review was conditioned to adequately address any public works issues with the improvements. Mr. Samitore said it was. He expressed agreement with the application. Ms. Holtey stated staff recommends approval of the variance application subject to the conditions of approval. She explained the variance application needs to meet all the approval criteria in order to be approved. The commissioners had questions regarding the turn radius onto Comet Ms. Holtey explained there is a condition of approval the turn needed to be engineered and made to work. Public Hearing was opened Dan O’Connor, Agent Mr. O’Connor said based on the staff’s presentation there is sufficient evidence in the record to meet the criteria for approval. With regard to limiting or preventing people from dropping off and picking up on Aurora, it is suggested local children who walk to school be given special identification such as a lanyard in order to use the supervised pedestrian gate. Existing vegetation in the 5 foot landscaping buffer will remain. He added the turn onto Comet can be designed to preserve existing vegetation and improve the radius. The School District will stipulate to these things. He explained that without the variance to separate busses and personal vehicles, the busses would have to load and unload on Aurora which would create more problems. The variance is intended to minimize impacts to residents on Aurora by allowing the busses to load and unload off the street. He said the existing fence will partially screen the busses and they would not be idling. He clarified there would be a school presence on Aurora encouraging parents to relocate their drop off and pick up location. He added that signage and a police presence for the first few weeks of school might help. Mr. O’Connor said it was necessary to allow pedestrian entry at the gate on Aurora because local children used it. That was the reason for the identification suggestion. He acknowledged there was always going to be some people who would not follow the rules and it was a public street. He stressed that everything possible would be done to encourage drop off in the north parking lot. Todd Powell, Engineer. Mr. Powell stated all possible bus routes have been thoroughly explored, but could not make them work to alleviate the problems. They needed to address the traffic queuing up all the way to Scenic and the conflicts between parents’ vehicles and busses. They needed to create additional space for parent drop off. Just rerouting the busses did not create that space. He explained separating busses and expanding the north parking lot would minimize traffic congestion. He explained the turn for busses onto Comet was designed using a radius of 25 feet which is what is standard for emergency vehicles including fire trucks. This radius is actually 30 feet. In addition, the width of the paved lane is 15.5 feet which will allow the busses to increase that radius at they turn onto Comet. He said these drawings for planning purposes. The engineering will not be done until after the application is approved. . Regarding the relocation or preservation of fire hydrants, they will be relocated and replaced to bring them up to code. He added the storm drain would be protected. Mr. O’Connor reserved the right to rebuttal Public Hearing Opened. Mr. Mock asked for the approval criteria be displayed. Mr. Mock requested comments to be directed to the approval criteria. Amy Morris 1217 Crown Ave. Ms. Morris stated the curb across from her house is not red it is yellow and does not continue very far beyond the gate. She said people always park there, including teachers. She said expanding the parking lot was a good idea. She was concerned about removal of any existing landscaping across from her house because that would expose the buses more. She said the fence is not sufficient to mask the busses. She added that property values would be negatively impacted. She outlined ongoing problems impacting her property with the school traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular. She has not been able to resolve these problems with the school. Ms. Morris stated the lanyard suggestion would not work because the students would lose them. She expressed her frustration with the proposed bus route and the problems it would cause, stating that as citizens their opinions should be considered, along with the negative impact to their properties. Mitchell Price (remotely) 113 Aurora Mr. Price expressed appreciation for the City staff efforts to present clear and understandable data. He said the residents of the neighborhood were not given any advance notice nor had their input been solicited. He said he concurred with his wife’s comments on the Site Plan Architectural Review. He said the proposal really fixed one problem and created other problems. He felt it should be a “win/win” situation for all. Mr. Price said Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) 17.75.03(G) states “The parking lot landscaping shall be used to reinforce pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including parking lot entries, pedestrian access ways and parking aisles.” He said there would be safety issues with children arriving on foot trying to navigate through the busses to the school. He stated the code says “to achieve this objective, the following minimum standards shall apply. However additional landscaping may be recommended during the site plan.” Mr. Price said the applicant was not meeting these standards. He stated he also felt that there was no visual buffering and the busses would be visible even behind the fence. Mr. Price referenced CPMC 17.75.03 regarding planting areas and expressed dismay that none of those requirements would be met if the variance was granted. He read from CPMC 17.75.03 (1) Perimeter and Street Frontage Landscaping Requirements. “The perimeter and street frontage of all parking facilities shall be landscaped according to the standards set forth in the table.” He observed this also was not going to be followed. He commented that he thought the City should follow the rules set forth in the CPMC. He said his children attended Scenic and now Crater and he appreciated the school district, but he could understand the feelings of the residents. Mr. Price referenced CPMC 17.64.01 saying it had to do with loading requirements. He read “(E) in no case shall any portion of the street or alley be counted as a part of the required parking or loading space. Such spaces shall be designed and located as to avoid undue interference with the public use of streets or alleys.” He stated his belief was that the busses would cause undue interference with the public use of the streets or alleys and the variance should be denied because of this. Mr. Price referenced CPMC 17.75.13(1), General Connectivity, Circulation and Access Standards. “In achieving the objective of maintaining and enhancing the City’s small town environment it is the City’s goal to base its development pattern on a general circulation grid using a workable block system.” He stated the variance should be denied because it did not follow this code. Mr. Price said he thought the City should work with the School District on improving Scenic Avenue. In all the time the school has been here the street has not be widened or signaled or had any four way stops installed. He said there should also be a dedicated bus lane. Mr. Price expressed his opinion that lanyards would not work and simply asking parents to relocate the drop off location to the north parking lot would not work. Mark Saltmarsh 1203 Comet Ave Mr. Saltmarsh stated the gate at the end of Comet is currently locked and he thought if it was unlocked parents would attempt to drop off or pick up there and would conflict with the busses leaving the school. Gary Pierson 1020 Comet Ave Mr. Pierson expressed concern about the variance saying it seemed quite a stretch to try to justify it. He thought the turn onto Comet was too sharp and did not think the variance should be approved until it was proven the busses could make the turn. He asked how often variances were granted. He believed it was excessive to allow such severe reduction to the code standards. He expressed concern about the floodplain and impact on Griffin Creek. Ms. Holtey responded that Griffin Creek is a natural stream and it is a fish bearing stream. Mr. Pierson stated those impacts needed to be considered. Frida Ochoa 1205 Comet Ave. Ms. Ochoa said she was concerned about busses making the corner onto Comet and possibly hitting her home or various cars belonging to family members who parked in the street. She said the street was not wide enough for busses. The garbage men wouldn’t drive down the street because they could not turn around. It was too narrow. She was concerned their end of the street might be designated a no parking zone to accommodate the busses. Rebuttal Dan O’Connor, Agent Mr. O’Connor showed the slide with the site plan of the school property. He stated he believed the lanyard system would work. He said the school official at the pedestrian gate will be able to recognize the children who regularly access the school at that point. The lanyards can be replaced if lost. He did not believe the arguments in opposition pertained to the application. He stated he wanted to be very clear. He acknowledged the concerns of the residents and stated the School District was not trying to spring anything on anyone. He explained the situation was a serious safety issue. He showed how the traffic queued on Scenic Avenue. He said they needed to separate the busses from the parental vehicles. He said he did not think people were understanding this south bus route could be designed without any need for a variance. The variance is intended to minimize impacts on the residents to the south. Mr. O’Connor said he agreed with the comment about the yellow curb and the teachers parking there. He said once the parking lot is expanded they will be directed to park in the lot. That strip of the street would be designated as a no parking area. He acknowledged some parents might unload at that location but it would be only a minute or two and not all day parking. He reiterated the intention of the variance was to minimize impacts on the property owners to the south. Mr. O’Connor stated that concludes his rebuttal. He requested that the public record now be closed. The Public Hearing was closed Matt Samitore stated the City could place a reader board at the entrance to the school indicating local access only, with no drop off. Brad Cozza Made a motion to approve the variance request, Resolution 896. Amy Moore seconded the motion. The Commissioners requested the approval criteria be displayed again. They acknowledged the valid concerns of the property owners. They noted the street is 32 feet wide. There are no other areas in the City where bus access is restricted. They discussed whether or not they believed this was self-imposed by the School There was concern about parents who would continue to drop off children on Aurora. They agreed that having Public Works review the neighborhood to see if stop signs were warranted would be a help. They discussed safety issues and acknowledged the parking lot did need improvement. They noted the busses could simply use Aurora to load and unload without going onto the school property. They acknowledged moving the busses off the street made sense. They clarified the reason for the improvements and bus route was to separate the busses and passenger vehicles. They acknowledged there would still be safety issues with children entering from Aurora and having to cross where the busses were waiting to load. They stressed the fact that solid communication from the school regarding the changes would be important. Amy Moore stated the approval criteria have been met. She said it is unfortunate the situation on Aurora has existed for so long and there should be ongoing efforts to improve traffic at that location. They discussed the traffic issues on Scenic Avenue and possible mitigation efforts. Matt Samitore stated there could be no new evidence entertained. He said all the intersections were identified for planned improvements over the next 20 years as set forth in the Transportation System Plan. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, no; Kay Harrison, no; Amy Moore, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Brad Cozza, yes. Motion passed. A. Public Hearing and consideration of text amendments adding Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) Chapter 5.44 to provide standards and application requirements for placement of mobile food vendors inside the city limits. Applicant: City of Central point. File No. ZE-21003. Approval Criteria: CPMC 17.10, Zoning Text Amendments (Gindlesperger) The Commissioners agreed that due to the time, this item should be continued. Justin Gindlesperger introduced the text amendments adding Chapter 5.44 for mobile food vendors. He recommended the public hearing be opened and continued to the June 7, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. The Public hearing was opened. Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to continue the public hearing to the June 7, 2022 meeting. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Brad Cozza, yes. Motion passed. DISCUSSION VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS None. X. MICELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Pat Smith moved to adjourn the meeting. All members said aye. Meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m. Tom VanVoohrees, Planning Commission Chair