MORNINGSIDE Civic Involvement Goals-
Fairview Hills (Simpson Hills) is a future subdivision development site of approximately 100 plus acres at the south portion of the old Fairview Training Center property. In March 2012, MNA Board received briefings on the proposed Fairview Hills portion of the Fairveiw Master Plan at the Fairvew Training Center property. The Board currently has addressed concerns about the 43.2 acres "pursuant to the requirements of the Fairveiw Mixed Use zone, SRC Chapter 143C, for property designated in Mixed Use on the Salem Comprehensive Plan Map." Fairview Hills Refinement Plan III for the development of the north phases of the Fairview Hills dose not comply with the Chapter 143C Fairview Master Plan. At a Planning Commission Hearing on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 MNA requested that Fairview Hills (Simpson Hills) Refinement Plan be sent back for more work to conform with the Fairview Master Plan. We also recommeded to the Planning Commission that, "because so many Fairview Master Plan polices and standards are not being followed, that this version of the Proposal be revised by Applicant in order to bring these plans into conformance, according to the detailed list submitted by MNA.
Salem Revised Code 143C
Fairview Master Plan
The Developer's proposed Refinement Plan
City Staff Report
Developer's Rebuttal Testimony
GeoPacific's Rebuttal Testimony
Supplemental Staff Report
The following is a transcript of the discussion that preceded the vote, beginning around 1hr 29min into the recording.
“I think that the type and standard of the development simply misses the mark from what was intended by the original Fairview Plan, and I absolutely understand the SFA group and Morningside group concerns expressed. I do, however, am forced to agree with staff that there are portions that are compliant with the guidance and direction, and I truly hope that through additional conversations with the Morningside group that the developer is able to meet a viable project as well as something that is going to function properly. The reality of the situation is simply that if the developer cannot in pretty short order come up with a plan that is acceptable to the folks who have spoken pretty clearly about their opinion, that there is probably the possibility that it will be challenged, and I think that is a simple reality. So I would very definitely encourage the developer to come up with a viable and acceptable compromise solution.”
“Yes I’d like to echo Commission Levin’s sentiments there. I feel that the Fairview property was designated to be a little bit special, to be more than what most of us knew in the surrounding community. I think that some of the language is somewhat vague and I think that is what’s part of our issue here, but I do agree that if there is not more concurrence between the parties, the neighbors and the developer, that this probably won’t be the end of this issue. That’s all I have to say.”
“I’m going to support the motion, and I’d like to compliment Mrs. Miller, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Santana for the passionate explanation or support of the project, and I share that passion. I’ve been following this project for the last 12 years, some of the original charrettes I participated in, and I really like the project. But the economic situation has changed, so I don’t think we are called upon to enforce the very, very highest standards that were laid on this six or eight years ago, and it seems to me that we have adequate testimony that this meets the minimum standards of the plan, and I support it.”
“I guess my feeling is that to me the plan seems like a pretty grand departure from the intent purpose of the Fairview Masterplan, and I guess I’m not guy-out but I don’t see it is imperative for us to develop this property right now if the economic climate isn’t suitable for it. There are are other properties that might be better fit or eligible for this kind of development, and I don’t think it is a good fit for the Fairview overlay. And with that I would not be in support of it at this time.
I too am going to vote in support of the motion. I do not do that easily. Although the Planning Commission’s role ends tonight, I can’t speak strongly enough to the applicants that you, I believe you do recognize, but I think you need to continue to recognize the importance of this particular property and it’s 100-year history, and I encourage you to continue the conversations with the neighborhood association and your neighbors to make this the best project. I do believe it is possible to have it fulfill in essence the desires that the masterplan intends, but it is going to take continued efforts on all parties parts to make that happen, and I encourage you to do that.”
Fairview Hills Refinement Plan Hearing UPDATE:
On June 4, the Salem City Council delayed judgment of a plan to build 440-unit housing development at the former Fairview Training Center in southeast Salem.
The builder, AKS Engineering & Forestry, wanted more time to work with neighbors who said they didn't like where the project is heading. The council granted the continuance.
On July 23, 2012 the firm asked the council for more time to finalize revisions.
In the 1990s, the relatively untouched land north of Battle Creek Road SE and Reed Road SE in Salem represented an opportunity to develop something special.
Years of planning led to the creation of the Fairview Master Plan, a vision of a model neighborhood that incorporates cutting edge building techniques and "green" technology.
Residents have voiced their distaste for the development called Simpson Hills. Some claiming the developer is not qualified and not living up to the Fairview Master Plan. The Morningside Neighborhood Association, private citizens, and Sustainable Fairview Associates all officially opposed the plan in the past.
"We have met with city staff to explore innovative ways to further comply with the tenets of the Fairview Plan," wrote Chris Goodell of AKS Engineers in a letter to the council. "Response to the updated plan has been generally positive and significant progress has been made."
Goodell said he needs more time to finish the updated plans and allow the community to give further input before the council considers approving the project.
JULY 23, 2012 HEARING - DELAYED
The first development on the Fairview site was the Pringle Creek Community, established in 2006. The second refinement, Linburg Green, was finalized in 2009. Simpson Hills the developer wants more time to work with MNA Board. AKS Engineering has asked the city council to delay judgment of the 440-unit plan and reschedule in order to "identify new opportuniteis for collaboration, work through differences and find common ground with MNA.