HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Review and Discuss Proposal from Development Advisory Committee to Streamline Development Reviews AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/8/2016
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Anette Spickard Mary Bridget Smith
Staff Phone No: 541.726.3697
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Provide Financially
Responsible and Innovative Government Services ITEM TITLE: REVIEW AND DISCUSS PROPOSAL FROM DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO STREAMLINE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Provide direction to staff and the Development Advisory Committee (DAC)
regarding proposals to streamline development reviews.
ISSUE STATEMENT: The DAC was charged by Council to examine the Development Code and make
recommendations to Council regarding modifications that could enhance the
City’s competitiveness for new development investment. The DAC has developed two concepts that would streamline the review process. Certain policy
issues have been identified that require Council discussion and direction to the
DAC to help shape the final form of their proposals. The policy issues are discussed in further detail in Attachment 1.
1) The role of public involvement in development applications
2) Applicability and competitiveness of development review process 3) Timing, cost, and coordination of a Development Code amendment to
create proposed process
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Council Briefing Memorandum
Attachment 2 - February 1, 2016 Memorandum From Legal Counsel
Attachment 3 – February 1, 2016 Development Advisory Committee Memo Attachment 4 – Site Review Procedures
Attachment 5 – Examples of Site Plan Review and MDS projects
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The DAC has two proposed concepts for streamlining the development approval process. Both methods could improve the City’s competitive position in the
local market and provide security to developers, however there is a significant
difference in the timing, cost and applicability of the two approaches. The simplest improvement the DAC recommends expands upon the City’s existing
ministerial building permit and site plan review procedures by expanding the
definition of what applications can qualify for the Minimum Development Standards based upon the size of the footprint involved. If Council agrees with
the approach, staff is prepared to move this recommendation forward for
implementation.
The second proposal of the DAC is the creation of a new application process in
the Development Code that would create a “ministerial review” that would require the City to approve development applications that meet all of the criteria
contained in a checklist. The City Attorney’s office has analyzed this proposal and has highlighted a number of issues that Council needs to be aware of and understand the implications of before instructing the City to create this new
process in the Development Code. This proposal will require a substantial investment by the City to create the code amendments and process through the Planning Commission, Council and through the state for approvals.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 2/3/2016
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Anette Spickard, Director DPW
Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor
BRIEFING
Subject: REVIEW AND DISCUSS PROPOSAL FROM DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO STREAMLINE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: The DAC was charged by Council to examine the Development Code and make recommendations to Council regarding modifications that could enhance the City’s
competitiveness for new development investment. The DAC has developed two concepts that would streamline the review process. Certain policy issues have been identified that require Council discussion and direction to the DAC to help shape the final form of their proposals. The
policy issues are discussed in further detail in this memo.
1) The value of public involvement in development applications
2) Applicability and competitiveness of proposed development review process
3) Timing, cost, and coordination of a Development Code amendment to create proposed process
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE: Provide Financially Responsible and Innovative Government Services
BACKGROUND: The DAC has worked together with Springfield staff for several years to create innovative ideas
to improve the development review process in order to fulfill the Council’s goal of being “open for business”. The DAC members have contributed many hours of their own time to bring fruitful ideas to the City over the years and those have been implemented with success.
The Springfield Development Code now offers a range of application review methods based on
the size and complexity of the development along with a graduated fee schedule. (See
Attachment 4 – Site Review Procedures) While the City’s stated fee policy is to achieve 100% cost recovery, the planning fees are set at this time to cover approximately half of the City’s cost
and the general fund subsidizes the remainder. This was a deliberate choice made by Council
many years ago to demonstrate that the City is “open for business”.
Today the DAC has two proposals under consideration. A memo from the City Attorney’s
office (see Attachment 2) describes the two proposals and the issues that Council should consider in determining whether to direct staff to proceed with implementation of one or the
other. The two proposals could be considered mutually exclusive as it would not make sense to
implement both. The DAC is not in consensus on recommending either proposal and understands there are policy issues for consideration and is interested in the Council’s feedback.
Either method could improve the City’s competitive position in the local market and provide security to developers, however there is a significant difference in the timing, cost and
applicability of the two approaches. And so the DAC is interested in the Council’s guidance on a preferred approach.
Proposal #1 – Expand definition of MDS-major and MDS-minor to allow more
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM 2/3/2016 Page 2
applications to utilize that lesser level of review.
The DAC has reviewed the existing Type 1 ministerial MDS review procedures and proposes to
expand the allowed zoning districts and size limitations. The current process allows up to 5,000
square feet of expansion and modifications in the commercial and industrial districts under MDS Minor and 25,000 square feet under the MDS major application. The proposed expansions
include allowing MDS in all zones where the expansion or construction is at least 50 feet from
low density residential zones and size limitations of 10,000 for MDS Minor and up to 50,000 square feet of new construction or additions under MDS Major. As a Type 1 process, there is no
notice required; however the applicant or Director can request notice to mitigate the likelihood
of appeal. The application is reviewed concurrently with Building Permit review procedures and meets most commercial and industrial building permit review timelines.
Proposal #2 – Create a new process for “Ministerial Site Plan Review” This proposal creates a new application process in the Springfield Development Code that will
require the City to approve development applications that meet all of the criteria contained in a specified checklist to ensure compliance with the Development Code. This proposal will require a substantial investment by the City to create the code amendments and process through the
Planning Commission, Council and ultimately through the State for approvals.
See Attachment 5 for a list of recent site plan and MDS applications and approval timelines.
Two examples from the Site Plan Review section are highlighted as examples that would go through the Proposal #2.
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
1) The value of public involvement in development applications
Proposal #1 expands eligibility for an existing process that has been approved by the State.
Proposal #2 will take applications that would have otherwise required a Site Plan Review and instead process those using a “Ministerial” standard which means that staff would merely verify
that the plans contain certain checklist requirements for approval. This would eliminate public notice to the neighbors. It would be a pass/fail type of review with no consideration of public input. The benefit to the developer is less cost once the application is submitted because of the
elimination of the public notice requirement and possibly a shorter processing time although staff will still need to review the plans to ensure they meet our code requirements.
The issue for the Council to discuss is balancing the desire of developers to have expediency and certainty in the development approval process with the value of providing public notice to
neighbors about proposed developments.
2) Applicability and competitiveness of proposed development review process
Proposal #1 expands eligibility for an existing process that has been approved by the State.
Proposal #2 would be limited to commercial applications that do not require any zone changes
or plan amendments, are not in overlay zones, or are not in refinement plan areas such as Glenwood that have specific development requirements. The universe of potential properties
this proposal would apply to is limited. The applications would have to demonstrate how they comply with the City’s standard stormwater, fire safety and transportation codes with no modifications. Staff could not work with developers to design creative solutions to meet the
Development Code. It would be a pass/fail type of review.
The issue for the Council to discuss is the desire of developers to have a streamlined review
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 3
MEMORANDUM 2/3/2016 Page 3
process that eliminates staff discretion with the City’s values of customer service and flexibility.
3) Timing, cost, and coordination of a Development Code amendment to create proposed
process
Proposal #1 is ready to move forward for implementation.
Proposal # 2 will require the City to create new development code through the Planning
Commission with required public hearings and then submittal to the state Department of Land
Conservation and Development for approval. Another important consideration is the timing of when this tool should be created and how it would be coordinated with other comprehensive
plan policies and code amendment projects currently underway. The City is currently implementing the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Main Street Vision Plan code amendments, Downtown Design Standards code, Recreational Marijuana code amendments and the
Transportation System Plan code amendments. The logical timing to consider the creation of the new ministerial process concept would be after these project specific code amendments are finished and the City is going through a wholesale update and reformatting of the Development
Code. Proposal #2 will involve an investment of general fund resources not yet identified to bring to fruition.
The issue for the Council to consider is balancing the desire of the developers for a new process to be implemented through the Development Code with the resource limitations and current
development code priorities of the City.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council discussion of the issues and provide direction to the DAC as requested.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 3
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
,
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
,
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
2
2/27/13
SITE REVIEW PROCEDURES
Counter Determination (Recent MDS/SP-BP) NONE*
L.U.C.S/ Checklist ($ )
MDS MINOR ($726) LOW
MDS MAJOR ($1000)
MINISTERIAL ( $$?)
Site Plan Review (Type II $4222) STANDARD
Master Plans (Type III $18,814)
HIGH
Refinement Plan Amendments ($10,549)
*INTENSITY
SCALE
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1
MDS Major: 11 Applications 1/1/12 to 9/15/14
File Number Address &
Zoning
Square Footage
(Max 25k)
Consultant Tentative
Decision Time/Weeks
Typ114-00015 Industrial Blvd
/MUI
4520 Yes 5
TYP114-00009 14th&Main/CC 17,869 Yes 4
TYP114-00010 14th&Main/CC 20,202 Yes 4
TYP113-00028 Laura/LMI/CC 10,717 Yes 3
TYP113-00012 Laura/LMI/CC 23,372 Yes 4
TYP113-00004 ComBlvd/IND Change in Use Yes 8
TYP113-00003 MainSt/CC 2040 Yes 4
TYP112-00025 Shelley/LMI 2400 Yes 4
TYP112-00017 31st /IND 8550 Yes 5
TYP112-00011 OLY/IND 24,953 Yes 6
TYP-112-00009 28th/IND 12,000 Yes 5
Summary 45%CC 55%IND 12,662 avg 100% 4.7 week avg
MDS Minor: 22 Applications 1/1/12 to 9/15/14
File Number Address &
Zoning
Square
Footage (Max
5000 sq ft)
Consultant
(Y or N)
Tentative
Decision Process
Time/Weeks
TYP112-
00010
Gateway/CC 2096 Y 3
TYP112-
00012
South A/HI Change of Use N 4
TYP112-00015 RvrBend/MUC EMX Station Y Withdrawn/SPR
TYP112-
00028
57&Main/CC 80 (add drive-up) Y 3
TYP112-
00030
Thurston/PLO 320 N 2
TYP112-
00033
Commercial/HI Change in Use Y Withdrawn/MMDS
TYP112-00040 Centennial/CC 480 N 4
TYP113-00002 12th&S.A/CC Change in Use N 4
TYP113-
00009
33rd&Main/CC Change in Use N 6
TYP113-
00010
Mohawk/MUC 476 N 6
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 3
TYP113-
00013
44th&Main/CC 4860 Y 4
TYP113-
00014
Mohawk/MUC 2 new buildings
at sports bar
Y Withdrawn
TYP113-00015 Nugget/LMI 5,000 Y 5
TYP113-00019 17th&Main/CC 1,900 Y 5
TYP113-00023 Game Farm/CI 764 Y 2
TYP113-
00026
South F/HI 9130 Y 4
TYP113-
00027
4th&B/MUC 750 Mobile MRI Y 3
TYP113-00031 S.18th/HI 8910 Y 4
TYP114-00002 Olympic/MRC 64 - add drive-up window N 3
TYP114-00005 16th&Main/CC Change in Use N 5
TYP114-
00006
Shelley/LMI 864 Y 3
TYP114-
00014
21&Main/CC Change in Use N 9
Summary 63% C 31% I 6% P
2550 avg (5 COU, 3 WD) 74% Y 36% N 4.1 Weeks
LUCI APPS
Same Period
10
SPR Apps
Same Period
16
Site Plan Review (Added 11/13/14)
File Addr/Zoning Devt Sq Ft/Ac Type II /Notes Tent Dec/Wks
TYP212-00002 28th/ HI 34000 Y 4
TYP212-00004 47th/Main CC 3325 Y (LDR) 7
TYP212-00007 52/HBR LMI 161000 Y (Ext 2) 20*
TYP212-00009 Intl/ CI 70,000 Y 7
TYP212-00011 Jasper Rd LDR Fee est. Y (SPS) 0*
TYP212-00012 WD Y 0*
TYP212-00014 Gwood HI * Y 0*
TYP213-00002 Jasper LDR 13 ac* Y (SPS park) 7
TYP213-00005 28th/ HI 53000 Y Storage 4
TYP213-00004 Mohawk/ CC 35000 Y Bank 4
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 3
TYP213-00007 63/Main MDR 9000 Y LDR 5
TYP213-00009 Franklin MUC 40000 Y Hotel 8
TYP213-00015 R St/ MDR 23000 Y 4
TYP214-00001 Pheasant CC 600* Y Cell twer DU 7*
TYP214-00007 WillHi LDR 9800 Y 4
TYP214-00010 A St MDR 4700 Y 4
TYP214-00017 Q St MDR 14000 Y 5
TYP214-0000 Shadylane LDR 19400 Y 4
18 apps/ 5* I-5
C-4
R-8
36,632 avg Notes 5.1 weeks
*exempted from summary category
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 3