Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

No, no, it's automatic. No, no. Who would I pay that money to? Yeah.

Hiya.

Can you hear on YouTube? Can you hear on YouTube?

Thank you. Thank you.

I will now call this meeting to order. Welcome to the May 19, 2026 meeting of the Salem Planning Commission. Megan, would you please call the roll?

Commissioner Brindell?

Here.

Commissioner Fott? Here. Commissioner Freibach? Here. Commissioner Heller? Absent, excused. Commissioner Infante? Here. Commissioner Levin? Here. Commissioner Rhodes? Here. Commissioner Tev? Here. Commissioner Slater? Absent, excused.

We have quorum. Okay, item number three, public comment. If there's any interested citizens who are here to address the commission on specific agenda items other than the public hearings, deliberations, and the merits of land use issues revealable by the planning commission, please go to the nearest podium and state your name and address for the record. Comments will be limited to three minutes. Item number four, the consent calendar. I believe the only item we have is 4.1, approval of the minutes.

I believe for Commissioner Levin to make the motion. I move that the minutes for the approval meeting be approved.

Commissioner Vieira-Brendel?

Aye.

Commissioner Fott?

Aye.

Commissioner Prybak?

Aye.

Commissioner Infante?

Aye.

Commissioner Levin? Aye. Commissioner Rhodes?

Aye.

Commissioner Tev?

Aye. Motion passes. Are there any resolutions? I do have a motion. I have five on the amended agenda. Do I have a second for that? Discussion on that? Vote.

Commissioner Vieira-Brendel? Aye. Commissioner Fott? Aye. Commissioner Freibach? Aye. Commissioner Infante? Aye. Commissioner Levin? Aye. Commissioner Rhodes? Aye. Commissioner Tebb?

Aye. Okay, motion passes. So new agenda item number five is for

Good evening. Tammy Stars, engineering admin manager, public works engineering.

Quincy, can you help her with her presentation?

Okay, so this is our five year capital improvement plan, which is fiscal year 2027 through fiscal year So I always like to start with our purpose, and our purpose is to create a transparent CIP, establish a risk-based priority list, match the priority list to limited resources in a thoughtful and responsible manner, consult with our internal CIP review committee for our Council on Policy C-9, and then we report. Let's see that.

You can just grab that and drag it to anywhere on your screen. Yep.

Analyze the report on the city's organizational capacity to fund future maintenance of projects proposed to be added to the CIP, and that was added this year from last year's budget committee meetings. There was a motion, and I'll go over that in a minute. So Policy C-9, the revision that we had this year from budget committee last year was they wanted us to analyze our organizational capacity to fund future maintenance of new projects. that would be proposed to the CIP. So we added new criteria for scoring operational maintenance costs. We added that criteria to parks, transportation, and utilities. So for any new projects that came into those categories, we added that criteria. We also added an operational impact statement, which is added to any new project in the CIP. And then that was to get us started. And in the future, we're going to continue to gather cost impacts Parks, we're thinking cost by acre, maybe in park classification for transportation, it would be by type, like a pedestrian crossing and intersection street lights would be by linear foot. Utilities would be pipes by linear foot, facility improvements, and it's really gonna depend on the type of facility and the utilities. So the highlights of this year's CIP was we programmed 118 projects, $260.1 million. We have a rate transfer that comes from the utility rates that are paid, $163.8 million. We have system development charges at $12.1 million. State and federal grants, $7 million. Our 2022 safety and livability bond, there's $116 million per grant. and urban renewal is bringing in another 23.1. Some of the newer projects highlighting is the Franzen Reservoir Cover and Liner. That was in last year's CIP. We actually budgeted for it, but it is now fully funded in the five-year CIP. There's 19.7 million for rehab and replacement projects, and that's done in the utility. The Fairview interpretive space for the park, we just were granted an $824,000 grant. And we also are getting five, actually six new grants at 18.8 million for transportation projects. So some of the challenges we had this year, we had some funding reductions and those were with utility rates. So we were reduced by 4.2 million. And this slide just shows a couple of the projects that we had to push or reduce. So the bridge repair at Garen Island, we pushed that one year, the Fairmont reservoir upgrades, the north primary clarifiers, and then we reduced the, TMDL project, the total maximum daily load, as well as the retrofit plan. And then Deer Cave and Dry Culvert got moved one year. Some of our key projects, and I believe this is Morningside Park, the picture. And so we have Bailey Ridge Park development. That project just bid, and it will be going to construction soon. Ground Road Park development continues to be designed, Fisher Road Park, and Bush's Park Shelter improvements and restroom, and that was being funded by the 2022 bond. In stormwater, we have the Fisher Road stormwater improvements, the Center Street storm drain replacements, and the 16th Street culvert. For transportation, we have the Marshall Street Urban Upgrades, We'll See the Wall. That was one of the new grant projects we received. Along with Fisher Road Sidewalk Infill was another one of those. 2027 Pavement Repair and Rehabilitation, that is another bond project. And the City of San Juan Bicycle and Ped Upgrades, that is one of the new grants as well. Urban Renewal Agency continues to have their streetscape improvements. That was a 20 year program. And I think we're at about year 12. And then an affordable housing development in South Salem. So here's some utility key projects. We have the Garrett Island flow maintenance that's helped keep water going into our We have an increase in the S4 Davis Road pump station capacity, the Portland Road water improvements, the friends and reservoir covered liner, and the Weisner pump station improvements. For wastewater, 12th Street sanitary sewer, Joplin and Satter sewer pump stations. Those are assessments right now. And then the Ferry Street pump station improvements. At Willow Lake sell secondary clarifiers. Those are all funded as well through the five year CIP. The outfall diffuser repairs and the river road gate 14 replacement. This shows a chart of allocation by infrastructure category. So the bond 2022 bond includes those projects in parks, transportation, IT, the civic center, the fire stations, and the affordable housing and library sites. You'll notice that airport, from last year's, the airport went down and that was due to grants. So that's my presentation. Do you have any questions?

I just had a few questions on a few of the transportation items. Did you just find out if I just go through them one by one? Sure. I guess the first question I had is, Kathy asked for a protected bike lane on the Iraq-Tofa Vista sidewalk infill project a few months ago.

I thought that project was maybe fully funded. Anyway, the answer to your question

And then the next same project, is that subject to transportation planning rule, 0830, where they, you know, if you add an additional lane on Ontario, it's got to go through an enhanced review from the state?

I believe there's a $5 million project limit for that rule. Yeah. Okay. Well, in that case, in either case, I think this question also got asked at the budget committee. We have not done that analysis, but the project is essentially just filling a gap on commercial at South Commercial between those two areas. full arterial section. So we haven't done the TPR analysis that you referenced, but it's really just meant to fill that gap for all modes of transportation.

Cool. And then the last question I had, I read through there and you guys talked about maintenance, short-term maintenance, but not long-term maintenance. So like, you know, for the project on Commercial Street and then the urban upgrade for Pringle, the current Yeah, I'm not sure that we'll actually build that whole stretch out to the full Collector Street standard.

I think we'll be strategic about where those center turn lanes are added for just the reason you're talking about, not only in terms of capital costs but also maintenance costs. We're just about to begin design on that project, reached what the final section is going to be there yet.

And then the last one, I've already said the last one. The downtown street scene projects, I know Liberty and Commercial are both like high crash, high-end record orders in the city. I think they're probably like number one or number two on the list. It just didn't seem like the project that they completed

Yeah, I appreciate the question. I think the goal of the downtown streetscape program has been more, and it's been most of the blocks, I believe, have been more on the side streets, like State Accord, where our focus is. and the scope has been more about revitalizing the existing infrastructure i think they have they have done pedestrian bull bouts where it makes sense to shorten the crossing distances and you know refreshing striping and those kind of things but the goal of the project was never kind of that safety look on the marine commercial that you're referencing i think we're

can i just remind the commissioners to speak really loudly because we don't have microphones in this room where we're at tonight and it'll be hard maybe for people in the audience or people on youtube to hear you they're not really speaking loud and projecting

public hearing is a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change uh megan can you read the statement of criteria

This is a public hearing to consider case number CPCNPCZC26-01 for property located at 355 Hawthorne Avenue Southeast. The criteria applicable to this hearing are listed in the Salem Revised Code under chapters 64.025 E2 plan map amendments and 625.005 E1 quasi-judicial zone changes. Failure to raise an issue prior to the close of the public hearing with statements or evidence sufficient to afford the planning commission and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the land use board of appeals luba on that issue a similar failure to raise constitutional issues relating to Proposed conditions of appeal precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence or testimony. The Planning Commission will then either continue the public hearing or leave the record open for at least seven days.

All right, Miller, take it away. Well, it's kind of hard to follow that catching intro, but...

All righty, so as Megan mentioned, I'm here to talk about the minor comprehensive plan change, neighborhood plan change, and zone change for 355 Southern Avenue Southeast. This is a property that is currently owned by the St. Luke-Kaiser School District, and we're proposing the change from the comprehensive plan designation of industrial IMD to IC, industrial commercial, and so also amend the neighborhood plan as well from industrial to industrial commercial. And the zone change will be from IP industrial park to IC industrial commercial. So this is just a brief subject property view of it. So kind of in the east area of Salem, just north of the airport, you know, access to I-5, Marriott State Route 22, and just south of State Street. So the current conditions, the current zonings, and yeah. So in this case, the comprehensive plan, as you can see right now, is, you know, IND industrial around here. And just a few years ago, this property went through the same process, went from industrial to industrial commercial, as did some of these other properties in the area. So you can see that already the area is starting to shift towards a more transitional industrial slash industrial commercial, you know, composition. so this property here is kind of sandwiched between two industrial commercial properties and it's a similar situation with the zoning of the property the yellow there is the industrial park zoning designation which is what it currently is and it's also boarded by the industrial commercial to the north and south as well as some other zoning designations that also allow more commercial uses such as the ibc industrial business campus zone where there was this hotel development a few years ago so you can see that the The surrounding area of the property is becoming less heavily industrial, more focused on allowing a variety of commercial uses. So related to the written public comments, there were no public comments received as part of this. The South East Sandal Neighbor Association did provide a letter of support as part of this application. Otherwise, there have been no other comments from public agencies about this. So as I mentioned before, for the approval criteria, so the proposed change from industrial to commercial, the is that as this is for the school district, the long-term goal is to allow the school district to have a wider variety of educational services uses. And so in this case, the IC zone allows all education services uses, while the IP zone is very restricted in the number that it allows. This while also representing the change in the surrounding area to moving towards more commercial uses. This also aligns with the property owner in the school district to allow a great variety of educational services uses. Regarding the public facilities that are available, the area is highly developed and so there's already a wide variety of public facilities available in the streets nearby as well as the neighboring properties. And as I kind of mentioned previously, The mix of land uses is already shifting towards more commercial uses. The zoning and comprehensive plan designations of the surrounding properties are shifting towards more commercial uses away from heavy industrial. So some industrial uses are still permitted in the IC zone, but it is kind of more of a transitional zone as we shift from heavy industrial to lighter industrial and more heavier commercial uses. And as I'm I'm sure you're aware, with the rest of the staff report findings, this goes into a lot more detail as it's meeting the approval criteria, but as analyzed based off of the statewide planning goals, as well as the goals of the main plan, the zone change to industrial commercial does align with those values of allowing a greater variety of uses, especially for education services uses, which would be a greater benefit to the public, and allow the property owner, the Salem-Kaiser School District, to provide a greater impact to the community. And it's the, you know, pretty much the same story with the zone change. So as we're going from industrial park to industrial commercial, this is also a clear better suit for the property, aligned with this great variety of education services uses. And with the TPR analysis, the proposed zone change will not have an effect on the existing systems surrounding it either. So, you know, based off of the live uses in the new zone, there won't be any adverse impacts related to it. So with that, the staffs are commissioned to approve the minor comprehensive plan map amendment from the National Commercial as well as the neighborhood plan map amendment and the zone change from Um, in which section is that? Because I know we talked about the existing uses that are in the surrounding area, but I'm saying the school district would just be proposing you know, perhaps some other training opportunities, but regardless, those would still be permitted uses in the zone, and so it would still be part of the long-term goal of allowing a variety of uses on the property. Right, yeah. Yeah, so the school district hasn't submitted, you know, building permits or a site plan review for the, you know, formal change of use of the existing building that's there, but, you know, those uses would be permitted in the IC zone, If the school district or another tenant comes in, they would be permitted to do those uses as well.

I've seen this property before. I noticed the northwest section of that property is a lot of grass area, vacant. I know currently in the reports that there's no opposed.

Sorry. Yeah, so it wasn't proposed as part of this application. But for future development, it would still have to go through the formal process of site clean review to check for a lot of uses and all that. And so it would still be possible in the future if they wanted to partition out that property that would be sold to another property owner. But regardless, at least right now, would just be to utilize the existing building for those education services uses. So right now there's no additional development plan.

Thank you. So I work just south of here. I drive by every day. So I noticed there are bulldozers in the front working on landscaping. Was there, so there's a Wells Fargo building there now. Do we know the build year for that and if that was the first building on site or if there was other structures?

Let's see. So off the top of my head, the existing building, let's see, I believe it's been there for almost 20 years. And it's otherwise been used, I think, most recently except for Wells Fargo for our call center. And otherwise, that is the extent. I can look into it more and get back to you on it. But at least right now, I know the building's just been there a while. And the school district, at least right now, utilize what's there but if they were to propose at least a different redevelopment it looks a lot to go through you know cycling just curious as far as the potential contamination from older building materials or field disposal or whatever else might be there right can you specify where you saw the well was this like a near the california um no in that oh oh so it's a different property just kidding Oh, like this property?

Yeah, I think it's one of those two. Yeah, sorry.

No worries.

The colors are throwing me off a little bit. Because it's the whole. So we'll be serious. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Alrighty, thank you. I think I missed, and I appreciate Megan for

with this project and the next, but not related to these projects.

I've had prior business relationships with the Collins firm and

We have 15 minutes to present. Please state your name and address or award into the record.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, fellow members of the Planning Commission. For the record, my name is Mark Shipman. I'm a land use attorney with South Elk Grades, 250 Church Street, Southeast, Suite 200, Salem, Oregon, 97301. Here this evening representing the Salem-Kaiser Public Schools and the Salem-Kaiser School District, a property owner and applicant on this request. Also here with me this evening is Joel Smallwood, the coordinator of operations and logistics for the district and also with me is rachel bellart an associate attorney with our law firm staff did a very good job with respect to reviewing our applications and we concur with the staff report on hawthorne our proposal meets all the approval criteria changing the zone and giving the applicant the necessary flexibility as quincy noted to operate the

No questions. Is there anyone from the neighborhood association here to testify? I already have the public testimony sheet. It is blank. So there's no public testimony for this. Is there anyone who did not sign up on the sheet that would like to testify? Applicant, you're free to come up for rebuttal. I need it, thank you. Do any of the commissioners have any additional questions for staff?

Okay. to adopt the staff report and approve case number CPC-NPC-ZC26-01. Do we have a second? Second. We have just a little bit.

Open for discussion.

Commissioner Vieira-Brendel? Aye. Commissioner Fott? Aye. Commissioner Freybeck? Aye. Commissioner Infante? Aye. Commissioner Levin? Aye. Commissioner Rhodes? Aye. Commissioner Tev? Aye.

Motion passes. Okay. This time, second time around, I got the highlighter. Moving on to the Okay. So Megan, would you read the statement of the study period?

this is a public hearing to consider case number cpc npc zc 2602 for the property located at 1505 front street northeast the criteria applicable to this hearing are listed in the salem revised code under chapters six four dot zero two five e two Plan map amendments and 265.005 E1. Quasi judicial zone changes. Failure to raise an issue prior to the close of the public hearing with statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Planning Commission and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue. precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals, LUBA, on this issue. A similar failure to raise constitutional issues related to proposed conditions of approval precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence or testimony. The Planning Commission will then either continue the public hearing or leave the record open for at least seven days.

Okay.

Bryce, I feel like it's been a minute. Yeah, it has been. Always a pleasure. Great to be back. Thank you, President Vieira-Verdel, fellow commissioners, Bryce Bishop of the Planning Division, and I'm here tonight to present another comp plan zone change request and also a report. So here's a city map showing the location of the property with the star there. It's at 1505 Front Street, Northeast. It's obviously in an area that's in the north downtown, along the Wapland River. It's right up on Front Street and it's south of Norway Street and north of Shipping Street. Here's an aerial photo that shows the property in question. with the white highlighted box there around it. So we have an area that is characterized with a mix of uses. There is a variety of residential uses present in this area. Single-family dwellings in the Grand Neighborhood. There's multifamily development to the west. The former True Brothers can reside here. to the south of this property that has been approved for substantial mixed-use redevelopment. And then to the north and to the east and to the southeast, as you can see on the arrow photo there, there are a series of industrial-type buildings And so the site is in a well, in a circulation system, the traffic circulation system in this area is pretty robust, with Hood Street and Market Street being minor arterials, the Commercial Liberty couplet being major arterials, obviously, in north-south access, you know, from Kaiser and from Portland into the downtown. And also Front Street is a minor arterial, which is heavily trafficked, is a operated and leased by, or it's owned by Burlington, Oregon, and Santa Fe, and it's leased to Portland and West River Railway that runs a short line railway on this track. So in terms of the comprehensive plan designation of the property, it's currently designated river-oriented mixed-use. there was our single project which was a multi-year project to update the comprehensive plan and there were associated you know comprehensive plan map and zone changes that were associated with it to implement the vision that was established for the community and not data comp plan and at that time because of properties proximity to the river uh it we ended its existing river ring and mixed use estimation there wasn't a change to that property The proposal tonight is to change the River Orange mixed-use designation to IC Industrial Commercial, and that would be, as Alkin indicates in their statement, consistent with the kind of enclave of industrial and industrial commercial complaint-designated properties to the north and east of the property. In terms of the Grand Neighborhood Plan, it was adopted by the City Council in 1983. manufacturing, which is down by the Churitse, former Churitse. But this is a section is currently mixed use riverfront in New York. And it was changed to mixed use riverfront in 2022 which had specific goals and intents under the comp plan. So when we looked at that, based on the proximity of the property to the river and to the north downtown and the intent of that designation, we changed the zoning of the property through the Art Signal Project and other properties to the south that were currently reverberating in mixed use to NUR. And the NUR zoning was based on extensive outreach with the Chamber of Commerce and property owners in the area to try to come up with a better way to implement the visions of the north downtown that have been in place for a long time in this area to get future results. And there was an overlay zone that applied in the past called the Riverfront High Density Overlay Zone. And there was CO zoning. And so there was kind of a checkerboard The proposal is to change the zoning of the property to IC to align with the industrial commercial comp plan as proposed. In terms of surrounding context, as I kind of mentioned previously, the areas to the north and the east and the southeast have large industrial type warehouse buildings apartments across the vacated portion of Water Street and further to the north along the riverfront there are single family dwellings and then of course to the south we have the former True Brothers site which has been has received land use approval for future development of a new urban mixed-use neighborhood and of course the great wine of Greenway applies to the property In terms of the property itself, it's 1.43 acres in size. The park is flat. There are no natural resources used present, no wetlands or waterways, no trees. It's going to be seen on the screen. It's an existing warehouse building. It doesn't have a railroad skirt on the east side. It's between Front Street and the building. And there is an access easement that provides access to some of the tenants in the building on the west side. That access easement is half of essentially what Water Street the western boundary of the property. That was vacated, 33 feet went to the east, and then 33 feet went to the west, and over that western portion there is an easement providing access. And that is important in terms of, in the staff report there was reference of a code interpretation in terms of access being excessive to the use, and it has to be allowed in order to cross one zone to get to another zone. The zone that you're, the use that you're trying to get to has to be allowed in the zone you're crossing. So it would be possible. I see them. But in terms of existing uses in the building, there is a furniture store in application of various metals, and there is a chimney and fireplace store that also provides some contracting services in terms of chimney repair. So those are our own instances that are existing in the building today. So here's just kind of a bird's eye view looking to the northwest that shows the property and the surrounding context of the multifamily and the large kind of industrial type buildings to the north and to the east there and to the southeast. And then here's another view looking to the southwest. So kind of similar, or similar context there. So in terms of the approval criteria, as identified in the staff report, were not met in the proposal, and therefore we are recommending denial. But I'll go through the next slides and this will kind of highlight some of the criteria that we feel aren't met by the proposal. So one is whether or not the proposed designation is equally or better suited for the property. area. It's an important area in the downtown, the north downtown, close to the downtown, close to the river. It's had this long-standing property. It's a fine designation of a river in mixed use. So the question is, what's more appropriate? A river in mixed use to recognize the long-standing compliant designation of it and the vision that's been associated with the property since 1979? Or do we go with the more view in terms of how it's currently developed and the uses that are there? And so I see and mixed use. And so staff's conclusion based on the assessment of the criteria is that the river and mixed use designation is the most appropriate designation for the property as it stands today. You know, the IC zone allows a pretty wide variety of commercial and industrial uses, including some that could be impactful to residential uses to the west and also future redevelopment of the mixed use neighborhood itself. And kind of contrary to the vision, contrary to the vision that the city is, you know, desiring to say in the IC zone include heavy wholesaling, recycling depots, you know, various industrial service uses and other things that, you know, are in staff's opinion incompatible with that river ring and mixed use comp line designation. And also another key element of the river ring Buildings that are built up to the street, support from windows, canopies and awnings for weather protection, access along the river, between Front Street and the river. And so the NUR zone, because it was specifically tailored to achieve those visions, is a better fit for the property than the IC zone, because the IC zone has very minimal standards. It has basic setbacks, high restrictions, but it doesn't have anything included in it that would kind of promote that pedestrian-friendly mixed-use development pattern. potentially make a future access to a future use on the property difficult if that use wasn't also allowed in the NUR zone to the west where that easement is. So here's just a quick slide that shows the intent of the reverberative excuse designation. Under the single area comprehensive plan, it's felt sort of promoting an extensive commercial and residential uses, taking advantage of the scenic natural and recreational qualities of the river, and then really it's trying to promote a customer-friendly development pattern that extends that environment from the downtown to this important area of the city, just to the north of the downtown. And then there were some grand neighborhood policies And that is trying to increase riverfront development opportunities for urban uses to take advantage of the riverfront, promoting a mixture of commercial lots and higher density residential, and then again taking advantage of the scenic and recreational qualities of the river through sensitive placement of buildings. So those are some of the grand neighborhood plan policies that are in conflict with the proposal. So that's kind of the question. What is the better zone and designation for this area to arise and grow? And so, again, staff's assessment is that the existing harborland and ignored zone are the best suited for that. And one thing about the NUR zone is that it recognizes existing uses. There's provisions in the zone that allow for continued use and continued development. And it also even has provisions for allowing general manufacturing and general warehousing with some size limits. For instance, you can do new general manufacturing and general wholesaling in a building that hasn't even been used for that in the past, as long as the total square footage of the building on the site doesn't exceed half the building square footage on the site, or 10,000, whichever is greater. And then you sell some of the products you're making on site, or you sell some of the products you're wholesaling on site. commercial aspect to it as well. So there is the ability to have some new industrial uses, but then also existing industrial uses can stay. If they cease to be occupied in a building for a year or more, they can come back again And here with the continued use status, you can bring it back. If you convert the use to a use that's allowed in the zone outright, then you would lose that continued use status. And then if you're making changes to the site in terms of maybe doing additions to the building or changing the site, The zone, depending on the scope of it, whether it's a substantial change, a major change, or a minor change, there's different standards that come into play. If it's minor, there aren't any standards that come into play. So then your zone is intended to recognize existing use as there, allow it to continue, but as things change over time, try to push it towards that greater long-term vision that is represented by that river running excuse decimation. And then, in terms of some of the examples of how important this area is for the city is that we had an all year process for our Salem to evaluate what is the best vision for this property, you know, and based on the existing comp plan designation, we wanted to keep that. And so then we changed the zoning to fully align with it. which the IC zone in the past did not really fully align with the intent of the river running mixed-use designation. And the property is also within a climate-friendly walkable mixed-use area as required by state law. There's one of three. There's the downtown, north downtown, and the third one with Salem. And those are areas under state law that we have to designate to promote higher-intensity development, pedestrian-friendly access, walkability. And so this is in one of those areas. So it's important for that. And also the city has been awarded a $2.7 million raise grant to study improvements on Front Street along the corridor where the rail line is present with the road, because that's obviously kind of a huge When we're working on the True Brother site in the railroad, it's a challenge. We have a railroad line that goes down the middle of the city, my arch area. So that race grant funding would be used for planning and engineering and design for that improvement. And then also the city is in the middle of the process of establishing a potential proposed new urban renewal area, the north waterfront urban renewal area, that would go essentially between the riverfront downtown urban renewal area and the north gateway urban renewal area, and then all the way up to the city limits. Kaiser along this kind of corridor area next to the waterfront, but Spain, you know, different neighborhoods. And then, you know, as tax increment is captured, you know, with development, you know, money can be used to, you know, do front street infrastructure improvements, creek improvements, rail crossing improvements, and all the other things that are kind of challenges for redevelopment in this area. So just kind of intended to explain that this is an important area. It's close to the downtown and next to the waterfront. It's kind of a jam, and so we're trying to preserve that. And that's what the compound designation does currently for the site. And then also there's the approved, the entitled, you know, with land use entitlement, rated element of the former True River site, six-story, three, six-story mixed-use buildings, ground floor commercial, 382 dwelling units, a second floor, open space and amenities, a food hall building, a winery, and a general purpose market with pedestrian access throughout the site and along the One Climate River with the One Climate Greenway path. And so if that comes to fruition, if funding can be fully achieved, that will be a huge change for the neighborhood and so in line with the vision for this area of the city. And as I mentioned, this is just a slide that kind of talks about what the NUR zone does. Recognizes existing use, allows it to continue and evolve over time to help incrementally push it towards fully complying with the long-term vision. There's building setbacks. Buildings have to be out to the street. Percentages of ground floor windows. Building entrances have to be oriented in the street. Parking location beside or behind buildings. And all of those things aren't achieved in the IC zone. They just don't have the same level that goal. So in terms of testimony, it's within the Grand River Association. We didn't receive any comments from the association, and we did receive one public comment that came in after the staff report was available that was provided to you, and they were just, you know, just expressing concern about the applicant's analysis of the industrial uses to the north not considering the kind of departments to the west. And with that, Yeah, so based on the facts and findings in the report, we would recommend that the request not be approved to go to IC. Happy to answer any questions.

I have a question about the, since you brought up the trip family property and that proposed development, can you actually go to the site plan or the overview that shows the... One of the birds that I used?

Yeah, that one. Okay, yeah.

So with the rail line that's running directly in front of this property and is ultimately bisecting it from the other industrial property that's connected to it, how do you envision this property being connected with what is essentially the existing multifamily and proposed or intended mixed-use and residential to the south. Is, for example, pedestrian and traffic would flow through on that kind of intended or compliant road through that field?

We don't have, you know, the trooper website, you know, that development did not have, there was not a proposal on this portion of it. Well, I think it was not, I don't want to speak out of my league here, but I don't know if that was part of the sale that was included with the main site. It was a future development option, so we didn't see any kind of, we don't have any plan for that yet.

I guess the intent of my question is what is the vision for that broadly, because currently straight between that existing housing and this property is largely unimproved. And, you know, of course, it takes time. But right now, it's not really, it doesn't feel like a place that is comfortable for this. And I know that's the intent of the future vision. And the Salem, our Salem plan. But I just wanted to know if that was, if you had any idea about that.

Well, certainly we want the city to access, you know, through the site. The development here that was approved has a driveway that subs to this property and that driveway would continue through. There have been various, I think at one point maybe there was a discussion in a soccer stadium on that portion of the property. But, yeah, we would certainly love to see, you know, the zone give us guidance in terms of, you know, what is required. There's pedestrian requirements, you know, between Front Street and the river, you know, and there's also a path that's required along the Willamette River there. So when, you know, when this property, if it were to come in for its own site plan or application, we would apply those mixed-use riverfront zone standards. address and say, okay, well, how are you providing your pedestrian connection through the site to get to the White River? And so it really would rely on the zone and the standards of the zone. Because we have not done like an urban design kind of vision for addressing how all the properties would be connected. It would kind of be developed to the development community and the property owner with their architect or their design professionals to design something that the standards

Right. So generally speaking, though, the assumed or implied intention is that ultimately that the subject property would ideally be located off of that bisecting street, not the front street. No, because... Because of the rail line. Yeah, yeah.

That's a real challenge. Okay. Because, yeah, the Portland and Western, they use that, sir.

So the development to the west of the subject property is multifamily, is that correct?

Correct. And how long has that multifamily been there?

I do not have an answer to that. I do not research that. I think it's been there for many years. Yes.

Since 91.

91. I've been told 91. 91. Yeah.

Thank you. So now we're talking about over 30 years of coexistence with a multifamily effectively across the street from the property. So the next question is, since there has been voiced a conflict with the possibility of adjacent multifamily uses, et cetera, with a IC zone that's been effectively an IC zone, next question is how many police incidents have there been between the apartment complex and the subject property tenants where there has been a conflict by the apartment users from activity by the industrial property or there have been problems as far as pedestrian streets, intersections, excuse me, problems with pedestrians, and accidents, et cetera, between the properties in general.

I did not research police reports, see what kind of reported criminal activity or conflicts have occurred between the industrial, the existing building and the family to the west. And in terms of, I did pull crash data.

I have to suggest on both cases, the response would be benign.

So the possibility of there being a conflict as suggested by

Jennifer Kellis in her comments suggest problems with future potential multi-family residential and I also need to comment that the mixed use zoning for the entire swath of property was a dream by the city of Salem its planning and did not necessarily touch base with reality in the same sense that they did a mixed-use zoning between Liberty and commercial that was somewhere between 50 and 100 years ahead of its time and they also did rezoning in West Salem where they took a substantial amount of property in West Salem that produced substantial tax revenue and zoned it into oblivion and I honestly I don't see the justification in maintaining the multi-use zoning for that parcel that is existing developed and abuts industrial use. So my comments after whatever motion comes forward will be to object to the city's denial. I think that multi-use zoning was a great idea at the time, Not realistic.

But there was the, you know, there is, you know, a three, six or mixed use buildings and for a new urban neighborhood that has been proposed.

I understand that, but that still is more than a block to the south. And even if it was adjacent, I see zoning allows for the potential commercial use and occupancy?

I guess what I would say, though, like I said in the report, is that I guess the variety of industrial commercial zone uses, you know, like heavy wholesaling, which, you know, we don't have those types of, you know, impactful uses on the property, but the IC zone would allow for the potential for that. And also, the IC zone doesn't have any, you know, requirements to, like, enhanced the appearance of the built environment over time, or that in the OR zones, you know. And again, it all kind of comes down to the proximity of the site and staff spinning to the north downtown and Atlanta River. It's just, you know, a block away.

So if for the next 50 to 100 years that building continued its use and occupancy with the permissions that are granted under the current situation that would be more desirable than accepting the reality that it's an IC zone building?

Well, once it goes IC, then it opens it up to additional uses and it's forever, you lose, you know, you, it's more, it's less likely that you would see, one, one thing IC zone doesn't allow the same, you know, residential use variety. You know, the IC zone only allows residential uses in mixed use buildings where you could you know, just standalone residential development at higher density. So, you know, if the indoor zone goes away, then it's just lock-in IC.

I will answer that by saying that the market demand by a potential business person looking at the adjacent development is going to use

as a primary consideration in locating their business there. So the possibility of somebody looking to locate a warehouse distribution facility that's going to service that commercial block would be normal and reasonable in the same sense that

that small bay industrial spaces are needed in communities where they had never been needed before because of a major industrial commercial property was developed there. So my thought is that the market will determine the occupancy

allowed uses and businesses that are there today would still be able to continue if we did not have to approve this change?

Yeah, a business that existed in the zone on the effective date of the ordinance for our salmon, which is August 24th, 2022, they're considered continued uses in development and they continue.

Okay, and they have all the extra benefits from the non-conforming uses as well?

you know, for a year or more, two years, three years, you can come back and put that in there, that same use. But once you convert it to something that is allowed, then you can't take it back.

Can you upgrade any part of the building, the exterior facade? Like, is there any restrictions?

Yeah, there's standards in there to talk about for continued development in terms of minor alterations and additions, major alterations and additions, and substantial alterations and additions. So the more significant in terms of the changes you're making to the site, the more standards of the zone that come into play. If it's just minor changes to the site, you're not affecting very much of it, then the standards are very minimal.

So, I mean, the setback alone, next to the building, next to the road...

It's meeting the setback.

Huh?

It's up to zero. Right, so if you were to...

decided to upgrade the side of the building, you're not compliant, right?

No. In terms of where it sits today, at the property on it, along the front, and it isn't on shipping, but it is on Norway, the zone is calling for buildings to be up next to the street. Where it wouldn't have compliance would be the amount of ground floor windows facing the right-of-way. It wouldn't have awnings and canopies for weather protection along those right-of-way. Those would be kind of some of the things that it would not be in conformance with.

Any other questions?

Does this zone change have any impact on the operations of the railroad?

Well, you know, in terms of, I do not know in terms of what legal, any kind of agreements that the railroad has with the, you know, adjacent, but it doesn't, the zone change is only affecting the property. It doesn't affect, you know, the line, the railroad line, you know, so they would still be able to use it now. Obviously, if it's NUR, you know, there's A business could be there today that could utilize that railroaster and load products onto cars. But obviously, if it's NUR, that won't be. And whether or not the railroad would look at that in terms of having maybe ground floor commercial next to a railroaster, I don't know. But it's not about being a railroad by itself, but a property that's on this other property.

kind of adding on that so i know the intent of the front street area is to increase walkability um it doesn't seem like the city has right of way to install a sidewalk on the west side of front street because there is that rubber on the spurs there is that correct

That would be part of what the raise grant would be looking at for, like, establishing multimodal, you know, corridor for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians. With the former tour bugger site, the idea would be, you know, come down Front Street and then that you would divert over to the Lama Greenway path that they were closing. For that side, then you'd go along and then you'd come back. But the long-term idea for the study of investing money in the study and read it all on the front street would be to how to effectively deal with the railroad and then also have bicycle lanes and pedestrian access to that area. barrier, you know, that cuts across, you know, biking, pedestrian, and traffic flow. So that would be a part of the long-term study of how, with that very smart money, how to achieve that and meet all the goals.

The property is part of the Arizona Industrial Act. I'm assuming they use the railroads for it. solution that would relocate the railroad spur, which might not be consistent with the pedestrian-friendly area.

I'm sure that would impact that industrial block owner's use of the road.

You're speaking to this use right here? Yes. And then using that spur, having access to it? Yeah.

Oh, sorry, I had one more question. The list of existing businesses in here, maybe you could just say exactly which of these uses is allowed in the NUR zone, and which is...

Which would be continued? Yeah. So, I don't know, well, I didn't run math, you know, all the square footages, but if you had a different manufacturing use, so Murphy's Fireplace and so on, as they're not picking up more than 50% of the footprint on the building on the site. or 10,000 square feet, whichever is greater, that would be an allowed general manufacturing use because general manufacturing is allowed if it meets those size requirements and if they're selling what they're making on the site. So that would be allowed as a type of general manufacturing use. There's also Mongoose metals and powder coating. They provide sandblasting powder coating of metal products. That would be an industrial service use. That would not be, you know, that would be allowed, you know, be allowed to continue to use. The desk dealer would be like, depending on, I don't, I didn't know exactly if they're more of a, if they're wholesaling or if they're retail sale type of establishment, but retail would be allowed. Or if it was wholesaling, again, they would be allowed if they're not taking up more than 50% of the total building footprint for that use and they're selling products on the site, which they would be. And then there's also the, the part of the building and grant services and construction contracting element where they repair chimneys. And so that would be a use that would not be building and grant services is not a permitting use in that UR. And it would have to be continued.

with the Lama River.

The same thing is how to focus on redeveloping and trying to make it more family, pedestrian friendly, especially by the river. There's upgrades and changes from the south up to the river. Now what we see from the north going south towards the bridge and everything.

This looks like, I mean, with the new development

I mean, that's a step in the right direction to develop along with the Willamette River, which, as we all know, front, you know, riverfront properties. Keep it in line with nature and what, you know, what we love and what the city likes, especially with the west development right there. that dentist building that's right in that corner at the very end of the apartment complex. And you said that that field is not part of Truro?

No, that wasn't part of Truro. It would have been. There was also a subdivision that they did, you know, with the development that reorganized a bunch of the existing prior platted lots, and that was a separate northern lot that didn't have a specific proposal on it.

So you mentioned that there's more flexibility for the property. residential, multi-residential, retail, it's got retail there. They could, they have that flexibility to do that.

NUR zone, they could. And they could in IC as well. IC that allows residential and mixed-use buildings. So it'd have to be, you know, ground floor commercial with residences above, no minimum density. It could be just like one unit above a building, essentially. But I guess So yeah, both IC and NUR allow a variety of commercial uses. IC allows industrial, more than NUR doesn't. But in terms of commercial opportunities, they're generally pretty similar, I would say. But the NUR provides more flexibility in terms of residential allowance than IC does.

You guys ready? All right, let's buckle up. Hello, Bryce. We butt heads a lot, and this is one of those situations. We clearly are looking at the same glass of water, and he sees it half full, half empty, and I see it half full. No matter what I say to Bryce, he's never going to see it differently, okay? For the record, Mark Shipman, Land Use Attorney at Salt Hill Griggs, 250 Church Street SE, Suite 200, San Morgan 97301. Here this evening representing me out from the property owner, which is the Eleanor M. Beckman Trust. Here with me on behalf of the property owner is Loren Beckman. He is the trustee of the trust. He's sitting right next to where I was sitting. Also with us tonight is Shadia Jones, Trust's Commercial Real Estate Broker, who has represented the Beckman Trust over 10 years on this property and their leasing. And also with me is Rachel Ballard, associate with the firm. This case is really important to my client. Since our Salem went in, my client has struggled to get tenants into the building, and essentially our Salem has strangled this property to the point that there is less than 60% occupancy in the building. Murphy's and Mongoose are essentially, they're the same companies. Murphy's, the chimney cleaners, and Mongoose, the metalworking, they're related companies. The only other two companies that are in that building right now is the cue ball, and they're still having pool tables in there. So they've got pool tables in there. And Saffron, Saffron Supply. And the reason Saffron Supply is in that building is because Saffron bought a property from the Truett family to the south on the east side of Front Street. So they have, if you drive down Front Street, take a look off to your left hand side, South Front's got the building there, there's a nice sign up there, that's their building, they bought that from the Truett family. Staff feels that the zone change from IG to MUR as a part of our saving was balanced. It's really not, as you'll hear from me and as you'll hear from Lauren and Shadia. And that's why we submitted this request, because it has substantially affected their use of the property and the value of the property. What we're requesting is we're trying to come in with something that's balanced, and we need you to correct the zoning on the property accordingly. So I have Bryce hand out a couple handouts to you. One is our PowerPoint presentation. The other is a proposed condition of approval for our request. And you can take a look at those as we go through the presentation. So as I identified earlier, staff took a really narrow view of our application. And as you can imagine, we don't agree with the staff report. Our proposal can meet all the approval criteria. We drafted appropriate reflective findings that identify that we can satisfy all the criteria. But staff views this application differently than we do, as I noted. So you know what's interesting about this request? It's the same attorney team. that drafted the comp plan zone change, neighborhood plan change for the school district on Hawthorne that unanimously approved tonight is the same team, Rachel and myself, that drafted the Beckman Trust application. Same application, same criteria, same request, yet a very different staff recommendation. So why is that? Well, there's two reasons. And I've got my staff reasons up there. This comes out of our incomplete letter that staff sent to us in January of this year. And you can kind of filter through the first part of it. But there's really two primary reasons. And this gets back to what Bryce was talking about earlier. The staff took a real hard view that since this property had been designated as river-oriented mixed use since the late 1980s, that was That was the end of the discussion. For them, that was non-negotiable. It didn't matter that the Beckman property had been zoned as heavy industrial for more than 35 years with this river-oriented mixed-use plan designation on it. And then the second thing the staff have hard work with is the change that I see would not allow the long-term goals of the city as implemented through the R-Salem process. And I don't want to get into the minutiae, as are a lot of the minutiae with respect to R-Salem, but there are some great questions that you guys were throwing out earlier to Bryce, and I hope those could be raised again with me. I'd love to address them. So what if, in the 1980s, the late 80s, so then 88, 89, when the City of Salem adopted the river-oriented mixed-use comprehensive plan designation and applied it to the subject property, what if they got it wrong? What if they overreach? What if this property never should have been designated as river-oriented mixed-use? Well, Bryce had a slide up earlier that kind of identified the purpose and intent of the river-oriented mixed-use designation. It's intended to be commercial, dense commercial, residential uses, capitalizing the scenic, natural, recreational qualities of the Willamette River and Proxima Riverfront Park. create a pedestrian-friendly development that extends from the environment from downtown along the riverfront. And it's applied to properties generally along the Gladden River, both north and south of downtown. So why did the City revise its comprehensive plan, text, and map to adding river-oriented mixed use in the 1980s? land use. And the reason for that is that in the early 1970s, with Governor McCaul, we had a couple of important laws that were passed. One was the Lime and Greenway Plan in the early 1970s, and the other was the protection of our Oregon beaches with respect to public access. Those both work went hand in hand. The City of Salem adopted the Willamette Greenway Plan in September of 1979. And it's shown on the current zoning map there. The boundaries identify the green, which is kind of nice. And it cuts through in a very defined location and area. So you can see it runs north-south. It cuts through, and it cuts through interesting on the former Truett Brothers property. in an interesting pattern. You'll note that our property is starred. Our property is not in the Willamette Greenway. Never has been, was not intended to be in the Willamette Greenway. Unfortunately, our property was included in the River Oriented Mixed Use designation. Now, this is important. We're not abutting the Willamette River. We're not in the Willamette River Greenway. We're not adjacent to the Willamette River. We have no access to the Willamette River. Nor do we have any views of the Willamette River. We've got none of that. So was that an overreach? Well, if you take a look at the general intent of the mixed, of the river-oriented mixed-use designation, I would say yes, definitely was an overreach. So I know that, I understand why staff wanted to resell the property to MUR as part of our As planners, we like to have our zoning follow our nice, neat definitions of our comprehensive plan designations. We don't like to have mismatches. It creates problems with how we handle certain applications, how we write certain findings. We like the things to be aligned. Is it absolutely required to legally? The answer is no, it's not. but it is cleaner. So staff through our Salem proposed this change in 2022, even though for the prior 32 years, the Beckman Trust property coexisted just fine with the Willamette Landing Apartments to the west. And our zoning was IG, our zoning wasn't even IC. We were allowed, the Beckmans were allowed to put in heavier industrial uses on the property. So what do we do now? Well, we've got a better plan and proposal for you than keeping it as MUR. One that we believe will sort of balance the property, allow the property to use for productive, beneficial use, because the continued use provisions in the MUR zone under the R-SAIL are not great. They're not great. There's limitations with respect to floor areas. There's, there are, Bryce brought up a great, a great point with respect to the, with respect to the formal code interpretation of the Planning Commission, which I think affects our ability to try to put in any more industrial uses into this MUR building. I don't believe it's allowed, if you take a literal or formal look at the formal code interpretation. We're not asked What we believe is this will allow for future mixed-use development to occur on the subject property if and when the property is ready for redevelopment. So just by way of background information, our firm, myself, I represented the Truitts for over 10 years in teeing their property up for redevelopment. It was a hard pull and it was a lot of effort. And when David Truitt died, that's when the family decided to collectively put the property up for sale. That's what killed the future for that family to redevelop that property. Oh boy. Okay, there we go. We're not asking you to go back to IG. We're not asking you to go back to heavy industrial. We felt that IC would be a great transitional zone. And you heard that from Quincy tonight with respect to the Hawthorne property, right? He used those exact words, that the IC zone is a great transitional zone. It's a great transitional zone between what is potentially going to occur to the south on the Cannery site, It's a transitional and it provides a buffer with respect to the heavy industrial zones and uses to the north and to the northeast of the subject property. And the other thing that we're proposing to do is we're proposing to limit the uses in the IC zone. We're looking to limit three uses in the IC zone. We're looking to keep the Outsourcing Table 551 uses, but to essentially strip out park and ride facilities, heavy vehicle trailer sales, and heavy vehicle and trailer services storage. We try to go through and take a hard look with respect to uses that we didn't think were appropriate in an IC zone in this neighborhood based on the fact of the intent of the MUR provisions. So what does it do? Essentially, it would allow the applicant to continue to lease out their building for IC-related uses. And the building hasn't been used outside of the Mongoose Metals. The building's typically used for warehousing. It's storage. It's got high docks. It's got loading bays in it. There's a rail siding on the entire east side of the of the building, I'm not sure how you're going to get, you're not going to get pedestrians down that side unless the building's torn down in some manner because there's no room for any pedestrian activity. I'm not sure as a pedestrian why you'd want to walk between the rail siding and the building at that location. It would allow the subject property to be continued to use not only for contractors, but also for the existing storage uses. And an interesting thing that we thought of is that the building in IC allows for self-storage. And I'm surprised that the Beckman Trust has made contact with either the landing apartments. And with respect to whether or not folks could come in and do self-storage on their property. They certainly would be allowed to do it on the Kennedy site if those get built. Now, I'm not suggesting the change is forever, and I don't think we're not advocating or anticipating that's going to happen. But if the Camry project doesn't get built and you saddle the Beckman family, the Beckman Trust, with these limitations on the property, it's going to sit there forever until somebody else comes along. The cost for the redevelopment of the Camry site is over $350 million for those three towers that they're proposing to put in. That's essentially $115 million per tower. for about 100, 110, 120 apartments above the retail space. I'm really hoping that Aaron Stickney and Silver Square Capital are successful. I really do. Because that would be exciting for Riverfront, it would be exciting for the Truett property, it would be exciting for that corridor north of Front Street. But if it doesn't happen, then you're really hamstringing and you're holding the Vecna Trust hostage. And I don't know that holding them hostage over plain gold that doesn't really have an actual reality is a great idea. So I'm hoping that you agree with me in whole or part that the NUR is not a great zone and that the IC would be a much better zone to move to as well as the designation. And if you do agree that it should be re-designated and re-zoned, there's another wrinkle. And Bryce brought it up. And that's the formal code interpretation. And I love this code interpretation. Bryce rattled it off so quickly that it's just like, I've got to slow down and think it through. So the concept is that under Stapp's interpretation, of this form of code interpretation, which the Planning Commission, not you, but your predecessors back in 2004, they made a determination that, for example, the Willamette Landing Apartments, which are zoned anywhere, would not be allowed to cross the Beckman Trust property to enter their property. And the reason is because apartments aren't allowed in the IC zone. However, when you look at that code interpretation, I use the word absurd. And I don't think our zoning law should be interpreted to render an absurd result. What's interesting about it, if I could go back to Here's the primary access to Willingham Landing. It's down South Street. And this primary access down South Street, you're driving between two heavy industrial uses and zones ahead of the industrial street. And when you drive down there, there's just a lot of industrial activity going on. There's distribution trucks coming and going. There's just industrial activity. And there's apartment residents that are just coming and going. I mean, they don't seem to mind. So someone identified that Willamette Landing was built in 19, I said the early 90s, someone said 91. Well, the Beckman Trust actually acquired their property, I believe in 96, but their property had been used for industrial purposes since the 1950s. And we went back through the city of Salem building permit process and identified all those uses with the help of staff, staff was great in identifying all those uses. But the reality is that the apartments came to the industrial use. They were built on that site when the heavy industrial uses were in place. And they co-existed there for decades. And there's been no problem. All these properties are fenced. The land property to the left there, it's got mature trees, it's got nice landscaping along their property. The Beckman Trust property doesn't have much landscaping, but it is fenced and secured. So where does this leave us? Where this leads us is hopefully on behalf of the applicant property owner, you would see that our request going to IC is appropriate. Our office is happy to take the lead in redrafting the staff report for the Planning Commission. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time. Otherwise, I'd like to reserve some time for final rebuttal.

I don't think there's any extra time, but do we have any questions?

It kind of sounds like there's maybe an idea in mind for what this property wants to be used for that just hasn't been proposed on yet.

Our property? The Beckman property? Yes. No. No, there's no plans to use it other than for warehouse distribution and storage as it's been used for decades. There's no...

So can I ask, so I was part of the R-Salem comprehensive plan exploration and implementation ultimately. In that process, is there a reason why it was not brought up at that point in time as a...

That was a great reason. Mrs. Beckman was dying. And that's just after her dad, Lauren, was appointed as trustee of the trust in 2022-2023. So the family was dealing with real issues, real life issues outside of our salon. And I don't know about you, but I get those things in the mail all the time. Notice about code update. I get them at my office. I get them at my house. And I'm in the business. And a lot of times, I realize, oh yeah, we're talking about this. Did I really dive into it? Did I really look at it? Is it affecting my office building? Is it affecting my home? A lot of times, the citywide changes that we go through and undergo and process, they don't necessarily affect us individually. We don't take the time to dig in. So I'm not sure if that's a good answer.

other questions? So if you go back to your slide where you showed your proposed alternate uses with the strike period.

So given that the current

designation for this property is intended to achieve a kind of walkable urban area is there a reason why the motor vehicle services line wasn't struck out considering that I personally would think that that would conflict with

No, no specific reason. I mean, we took a broad look. I mean, if you looked at it and said, hey, we think your list is good and we want to add motor vehicle services, I don't think we're going to, we're not going to die on that hill.

Okay. Same thing, I guess, with the taxi cabs and car services.

For which one again? Sorry.

Taxi cabs and car services.

Sure. You add that in. Taxi cabs and car services, that's changed. It's amazing how quickly, how substantially that's changed since the code has been updated.

Any other questions?

Thank you very much.

Is there a representative from the neighborhood association here?

No? Okay.

No one from the neighborhood association is here tonight to provide testimony. Public testimony, I do actually have some names on this sheet. I will note I believe one of them is the owner of the property, who I think has already had a opportunity to speak to their representative, but I would like to call Shadera Jones,

Hello, my name is Shadi Jones. My address is 777 Commercial Street SE, Staple, Oregon 97301. You have five minutes, thank you. Alright, thank you. I am a licensed commercial real estate broker and I have worked with the property owner on leasing the property for over 10 years. Our Salem removed the permitted uses that make this long-term industrial property viable. The previous zoning allowed a broad range of outright uses that kept this property marketable and leaseable. NUR removes those uses. Staff's reliance on continued use does not reflect market reality. Buyers, tenants, lenders, and insurers often view continued or nonconforming status as a risk, which can make financing harder to obtain, more expensive, or unavailable, especially for SBA and CMBS loans, and can complicate long-term leases that require lender approval. NUR also sharply narrows the buyer pool. The most likely buyers for a 35,920 square foot warehouse with dock-high floors and a rail spur, industrial investors, operators, logistics firms, storage developers, and manufacturers are largely excluded. Without significant demolition and redevelopment, this site is unlikely to attract mixed-use or multifamily developers. MUR also creates uncertainty when releasing and may lead to higher insurance premiums or coverage exclusions. The difference between MR and IC is significant and could amount to a $2 million impact. The city's rezoning has left this property in a very difficult position for both leasing and sale. We are not asking to restore every former use. We are simply asking to rezone the property to industrial commercial, which is less intensive than the general industrial zoning the site had for more than 50 years. Nearby industrial properties to the north and east remain unchanged, but this property did not. No comparable MUR sites nearby successfully support these uses, and there is no clear economic path for the property under MUR, whether for lease or sale. After more than a year on the market with no letters of intent, despite Salem's strong industrial market, The conclusion is clear. The zoning is the problem. The staff report appears to favor idealistic planning goals over documented financial harm to a private owner. I urge the commission to approve the application.

Do any commissioners have any questions for Ms. Joe, who is under time?

for a year is the landowner attempting to sell the property or are they trying to lease?

Lease. It's actually been over 18 months.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I just have a follow up question on that. Sure. Is it the entire property or parts of the property?

The entire property. That's the space that's available for, that's vacant I should say.

Do you happen to know, since you're a realtor for the Has any testing, geotech, hazardous, et cetera, been done on the property that would render it unfeasible for a more residentially-focused mixed-use property?

Not that I'm aware of. Oh.

There was some testing for hazardous stuff when you purchased it.

Oh, OK. So there was testing for hazardous when they purchased it. From a leasing standpoint, we wouldn't, if somebody came in and they wanted to test it, they would. No, not that I have, but Lauren is indicating that they did at one point have testing done on the property.

You don't know the results of that?

No. No contamination is what Lauren's telling me.

So this site could be repurposed for mixed use, like for residential purposes, if the buyer, the owner chose to go that route, especially with the west apartment, 11 landings to the west of it?

Under the current zoning, the MUR, I believe so.

So that's been discussed as possibly doing that?

No, no, there hasn't been any discussion about redeveloping it into a mixed-use development. There's... Like for residential use? No, no.

With the storefront tents?

No, no. And our major problem is right now, really, I have zero interest on that property since it was rezoned. And what that means is we're in such a demanding market for industrial right now that when that zone changed, it removed a significant amount of uses of tenants that are actually looking for space. And we can't put them in there. I mean, I have gotten calls and I have said you have to call the city. This is the zoning where you look it up yourself, and it's not permitted.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Paul Sanders?

and murphy's fireplace and stoves and i kind of see where this is going i'm real really confident that what they're representing is the best for what's been going on with that building and its usage I just think that's the only thing I really have to say. I just really strongly believe that what they're representing is best for the use of it that it has been used for and it will be continued to use for hopefully. We've been there probably about 10 years now. We invested a lot of money in developing the company, extending it. building it bigger and better. I think to move, it cost us about 30, $40,000. That was 10 years ago. And with the development that we've done, we probably spent easily 40, $50,000 more on top of it. So to move or have something get changed I think would substantially be detrimental to our company. I feel like it would probably cost at least $75,000 just to move and then develop on top of it to get it where it needs to be probably another at least $50,000 to $60,000. So I believe that what they're representing is fair and what should be considered to be put in effect.

Are you saying that if the change doesn't get approved that you would have to move?

I don't think that's the case, but I think they understand more of the benefits of it than I do because I'm not, I didn't dig deep into it like the representative for Lauren who probably has more answers on that than me because I'm not educated in that department, but it doesn't sound like I would be forced to move. Yes. I don't know any of the details about if that did come into effect. I don't know the law side of it.

How is the relationship between the building and the neighborhood behind you? It's been talked about a little bit with the interaction of the industrial components.

Oh, with the apartment. I don't know the name of the apartments back there, but our office manager, Heather, has a really good relationship with the manager of that complex. They talk frequently about things that happen, things that go on. We let them know if something's going on. They communicate with us. So we have a really good relationship, working relationship with the apartment complex and the managers back there. And also the people that walk their dogs through because, well, Heather, she's a dog lover. So they always, actually, there's probably about three or four people that come in, bring their dogs in and interact. So we have a really good relationship as far as that goes. There's no real conflict.

So your business is located in that building currently?

Yes.

So the agent for this lot or building mentioned that it's been on the market for over a year. If she was able to lease that building, would that force you to move?

Say that again?

So she said that the market for lease, if she hasn't been able to find a tenant for over a year, If she was able to find a tenant, would that force your business to move out?

No, because I think there's parts of it that are vacant, not all of it. So I don't think somebody leasing part of the vacant spots wouldn't make us move.

Okay.

Yeah. I think I answered that right.

About how much of the building do you lease out with your...

I would have to say it's probably about 10,000 square feet, right around there.

So about a third of the building size?

Yeah. A quarter.

A quarter, okay. Okay, thank you. Yep. All right. The applicant has five minutes for rebuttal, but I would ask there would be did run a little long. I don't know. It's after the rebuttal.

Okay, I apologize.

I'm following the script. I have been led astray.

Lisa, he had signed up on that.

But is he the applicant? Right, so you took all the time, Mark. So I think what the chair is saying is that the time given to the applicant, you already took it. So unless the planning commission wants to give more time to that.

Yeah, sorry.

What is the height limit for the NUR? So if you know, OK.

I have that. If I can go grab that, I'm praying for it. And I don't know how to write it. I know at least it's .

Yeah, so that's very consistent with our, yeah.

Which is, I think, the same as IC. So it's all about tall, urban, efficient use of land.

Right. Leading into the thought that if a mixed-use development were to be built on that site, they would likely have these suburbs?

Yes.

Yes, certainly that's like the Camry site. That height, it is close to the river, but yes, the height will give you better views.

And then if we were to adopt the staff report and they choose to do a development or modify the building for one of the existing uses and it maintains in that vein, would that development be held to the MUR standards in full, or would it, I'm assuming it would just go through the normal site plan review process, or any sort of variances, or?

Yeah, again, it depends on the level, and I continue to find this section talks about if it were to stay in MUR, there's minor additions and alterations, major additions and alterations, and then substantial

So just for clarification, if they keep that use, there would be a requirement, for example, that they have to cut in windows all along the one street? No. Just because?

Yeah. Unless they're proposing to alter the facade, to change something on the outside of the building, or if they're looking to do added additions to the building, then they can make it bigger. That's when those standards are really going to come into play. If they're just inside the building operating, it's a continued use. They can continue.

Thank you. So would facade consider siting? I mean, just looking at a few of those photos, there's some deferred maintenance maybe.

You know, in terms of the, you know, we have articulation standards in that zone that's only for multi-story buildings. So, you know, generally a facade, you know, if you're changing the siding of a building, you know, that would not trigger, you know, putting, you know, holes in the building, you know, for windows. It, you know, wouldn't trigger, you know, we're not doing anything to alter existing canopies, you know. So, please. I think it would be a minor example, I guess, because, you know, when we look at the facade articulation standards for multi-story buildings, we look for a differentiation between the ground floor and the upper floor facades with different materials, banding, and that type of thing, and that's obviously, it wouldn't necessarily be here. It's not a multi-story building along those sections, so again, I don't, signing would not be a trigger to put the canopies and awnings on things or

I was going to ask what the background is on why the city basically gave up their right-of-way on the street. I can't remember what that process was.

Well, that was done quite many, many years ago. So I did not look to see what, you know, I didn't pull the vacation ordinance in terms of why it was, you know, it was vacated. It could have, you know, oftentimes vacations are applicant initiated and it could have been to vacate the right-of-way. And they're not necessarily city-initiated vacations to eliminate it. So if a property owner comes and asks to maybe vacate right-of-way and the city assesses that there's no needed purpose for that street connection, then we would generally agree with that vacation. an assessment of special benefit, then the property owners have to pay on either side for the value of that vacation. And there's oftentimes, if there are utilities present, that easement is retained for utilities. So I don't know the specifics of why that was approved so many years ago.

I have a question. If we were to, maybe this is a question I'm not sure if it's for, but I know one of the proposed modifications to do it as a condition of approval is more about removing potential uses which I think is In addition to that, would we be able to, for example, incorporate some of the conditions of development that would ensure the softening of that edge on the pedestrian and residential side?

Yeah, that would be very possible. We've done that many times over the years. have a lot of industrial business campus zoning. Go to IC industrial commercial would require that a list of uses be established that restricts totally what they could do in the IC zone, but then also that they have to comply with the standards of the IVC zone. one zone and it's going to probably retain that on this site. And I would say that the list of uses, there's a long list of uses in that zone and I think those three that were identified in the IC zone. There's, it would be valuable, it would be, at least staff would find it valuable to maybe see if there's more that can be identified than just because it didn't seem like the applicant, like oh sure we can add that additional one in there. I think there's probably zone, you know, that could have noise impacts with, you know, some heavy hold of sampling, which is like outdoor storage of, you know, wrecked vehicles and things like that. So there's firing ranges, recycling depots, those are all things that could be allowed by CZO. So there's probably a greater list of uses that may possibly could be added to things that could be excluded that maybe not defeat their vision for the property, if that was to be the case.

So was that exploration considered during the review period? Any back and forth on it?

Well, we have not seen formally. I don't remember this application process and listed uses that they would be willing to exclude.

Prior to the application, we provided a list that we thought would be acceptable, that we, you know, maybe supported. I don't think the applicant thought it was limiting too many. But if the commission is considering maybe approving it with a list of limited uses, then I think the city would request that it be contained so that we could provide our proposed list of prohibited uses and at least provide the entire zoning chapter so you could see all the uses that are allowed and have that in front of you. We would do like to correct on the record that I think I heard Mr. Shipman say it was IG, and maybe he just misspoke, but we're happy to provide those maps into the record. It was previously IC before it was changed to NUR.

So the question, I see it for this evening from the conversations, is that there is a possibility that staff would enter into a conversation with the applicant as far as maybe adjusting the list of permitted uses.

under a condition of ic approval is that what i'm hearing i'm saying that we had provided that to the applicant before and did not come to an agreement but we're happy to provide to the planning commission what would be our proposal or what we think would be something that would limit some of the more impactful uses you know leather tanning recognizing the reality of uh time

proposal to the applicant should occur suggesting that we we stop now to allow for a conversation regarding proposed uses and then come back at the next meeting

Would that require a motion to continue the hearing?

Yes, if the commission wants to see a potential list of prohibited uses in the IC zone from staff and potentially design standards coming forward as a condition, then we can propose that if the hearing is continued.

And then I guess also just as a question I have for C. Billy, if we were to continue the hearing to a future date, With the applicant and city staff continue to negotiate during that time, or would that be what happened? Yeah, we didn't provide wouldn't occur during it.

We always answer the phone. I think it provides that again.

So what Commissioner Levin is suggesting is something that could.

Okay, so let's say if we continued it. Right now with the applicants still need to do their rebuttal at that next meeting.

Yeah, so if you continued it, then we would just kind of pick up where we left off with the next meeting or whatever date we continue it to, or we'd have presentation, and then everybody would get to testify again. So you wouldn't be limiting anybody's ability to testify, and the applicant would get rebutted at that point.

With your president's permission, would it be appropriate to ask the applicant if that's something they would consider?

Yeah.

I'd like to make a motion to ... Go ahead. Please. I'd like to make a motion to continue the hearing to date and time to be determined, and that the staff and the applicant have an opportunity to converse as far as defining for restricting permitted uses as allowed under the IC zone. I'll second that.

Commissioner Lubbock, do you have it to a date and time, sir, for our next meeting, June 9th?

absolutely if that date is okay with the applicant would that be prejudiced to come back on that date so they don't do a rebuttal today correct okay no rebuttal okay can we have a second to that motion with the definite date I guess open for discussion open for discussion

I think it would be helpful to have that list that was originally proposed by the planning staff and then the applicants' proposed list just be included perhaps on the record that when we return on the 9th.

I think that would be helpful.

May I comment, respond?

Go ahead.

I think the conversation that what's transpired as far as between the initial discussion from staff and the applicant is effectively set off to the side and has no benefit or meaning

Meaning, because it's at this point in time, in light of everything that's transpired here, I think they're going to approach the conversation with a different perspective.

So I would like to see, prior to the June 9th meeting, what the current proposal is.

Because the historical information really won't matter.

I think that the proposal by planning staff I guess eventually led to the rejection of this proposal or I guess the application because had it been acceptable by the applicant who would be here and it would be included as a condition of approval.

So I guess that's just my argument for wanting to see that.

I'd like to have a full background because it seems like there's been some conversations between staff and the applicant.

I don't know the whole background. Okay, so as it relates to our motion to continue this to the next hearing, can staff provide that for the next hearing so that we can review that as part of the record? Okay. Is there any other discussion about whether we want to continue this to June 9th? Okay, can we get a vote?

Commissioner Freibach?

Aye.

Commissioner Infante?

Aye.

Commissioner Levin?

Aye.

Commissioner Rhodes? Aye.

So we don't have any subcommittee reports.

However, on that note, I believe for the wetland subcommittee, we are going to move to cancel the meeting tonight. I don't know, we don't have a forum. I don't know what we do. So we'll just not have that. So now onto the planning and registration report.

Great. Well then, yes, now we have an item in this room again, Megan, June 9th? We'll be back. The only other thing I just thought I would let you know, nothing for the planning commission to do, but there's a, I don't know, phishing email type thing that's going around. it's on the website, so actually our applicant tonight got an invoice from me, an invoice from me saying, Planning Commission is happy to approve your application if you wire us, you just need to wire us the rest of the money you owe. And I had my name, it was like, it was from me. Yeah, so we had heard about this going around and having some people that had land use applications because, again, most cities put that on their website. This was our first one, so luckily the applicant was either representative, Mr. Shipman, who was able to say, no, that's not correct.

You know, but it looked pretty real.

It had the city's logo.

It had a lot of information about their application from our website.

It had, you know, my name and title. And I think the only kind of weird thing instead of like click this link to pay it was like call this number to wire us the money and then once you've done that reply to the email and then you'll get your approval so i send it to the city of sale of bitcoin address right so if anyone's watching this video you'll never ask you to wire us money we don't do that can you screenshot that and like send it just so that We've had that, we knew what's happening to other folks in our developer bulletins. We have a quarterly bulletin we send out to folks that submit permits regularly. And if you've never seen it and you do permitting, it's probably to your junk, but it's here. We send it out, so look for that. It's out of the junk inbox. But yeah, so if anybody in your communities that maybe doesn't know what the city might be, why don't you raise that with them? Or somebody said, I heard that the $3,000 I can get is an approval. One that's very low. Yeah, so that's . Okay.

Okay, at 7.40. Oh, no, that was our commissioner. Comments for the good order, was it? Was it the planning commissioner?

I was planning the commissioner.

Okay, any comments for the good order?

I had a quick one. I just want to note that I talked to Lisa and I just

When we walk that way, I frequently see people walking down the streets and doing other things where there is very clearly a space to put a, like some barricades, a temporary pedestrian ramp. I recently just visited the city of Berkeley and they've got these temporary pedestrian ramps all over the place. I think it's actually a city policy that when you're closing the sidewalks, do work, do close the travel lane, eliminates parking or whatever to provide people a safe route around the construction and that sets up for the way here. So I just wanted to have a discussion about it at a later time. Maybe not at the next meeting, but I think that might be a good one to have.

Yes, that's something we could put on the agenda for a different meeting.

Yes, I'll ask the new city traffic in here.

We are both on the Citizens Traffic Advisory Commission. Oh, okay. We used to be. The suggestion is that it would be transportation departments or division activity decision guidelines, et cetera, more than the Planning Commission, and that the request should really go to that direction.

I'll submit any request to any staff person that the Planning Commission directs me to and ask them to come.

So we're an informational discussion.

Yeah, okay. I guess from my perspective, we require conditions of approval on development and so if we didn't adopt a city policy, it would be a condition of approval to provide pedestrian access along the street. if a sidewalk is closed because developments do close sidewalks and a closed sidewalk and no detour is an adverse effect from development and so that would need to be conditioned and we do have a discussion to decide that it might be necessary for any project.

Well I came a little late so I missed the presentation. I didn't know there was like a formal presentation as part of that.

So it came right at the end of that. But there was a lot of great conversation. Staff were busy talking to people the entire time. There were counselors there as well. Yeah, I'm excited for the next phase. I did notice there was some phrasing that I didn't quite agree with. It said like, in the announcement on the website for the RAC, Repair and Advisory Committee, it said like, The riparian advisory committee has been involved the entire time. We've had one meeting where you told us what you were going to do. So that doesn't mean involvement, but I understand the optics.

So we're not in charge of the project yet. of phase one. That's all I'll say. We are taking over phase two, which is the hard phase, which is to bring in regulations. I'm excited for that work. We'll make sure the website is.

Yeah.