HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/2006 Work Session
.
.
.
"
City of Springfield h
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JUNE 19,2006
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 19,2006 at 6:27 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ballew, Lundberg, Ralston, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Cynthia
Pappas, City Attorney Joe Leahy, Administrative Assistant Julie Wilson and members of the
staff.
Councilor Fitch was absent (excused).
1. Staff Initiated Interpretation of Cluster Subdivision Standards within the Hillside
Development Overlay District of the City of Springfield.
City Planner Jim Donovan presented the staff report on this item. City Council will hear a Staff
initiated request for Interpretation during its regular session on July 17, 2006. The attached
Planning Commission Staff Report and Request for Recommendation will be discussed with City
Council on June 19,2006 to familiarize Council with the issues.
This interpretation is initiated by staff to confirm that the Hillside Development Overlay District
(Article 26 of the Springfield Development Code) permits Cluster Subdivisions as per the past
practice of allowing Cluster Subdivisions on property within the Hillside Development District
in compliance with the provisions of the overlay district. Planning Commission and City Council
endorsement of staff's interpretation will provide a measure of security for the development
community and resolve any interpretation questions which may arise during future development
review or appeals.
The Planning Commission on June 20 will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed
interpretation. After the hearing, the Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded
to the City Council for final determination in accordance with Section 4.050 of the Springfield
Development Code.
Mayor Leiken said there had been a lot of this going on in other communities. Bend had been
doing something similar over the last few years. He said he would be curious to hear the
comments from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Donovan said it was a logical use and there was precedence as it had been used in the master
plan for Mountaingate.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 19,2006
Page 2
.
2. Progress Report and Discussion of Development Code Reformatting Project.
Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. In May of 2005 the Council
endorsed a recommendation from the Planning Commission to reformat the SDC to make this
document easier to read and use. A staff technical advisory committee began working on the
project in December 2005 and expects to be completed by Spring 2007. The new format will
reorganize the existing 44 Articles into 6 chapters using a more flexible alpha-numeric reference
system.
The current phase of the code reformat project began in December, 2005 with the formation of a
staff technical advisory committee (TAC) to provide advice and guidance to the preparation of a
reformatted SDC. The TAC has met three times this spring and has recommended the following
actions: 1. convert the existing organization of the SDC from 44 separate articles into 6 chapters
that combine like subjects, e.g., all zoning districts in a single chapter, all development standards
in a single chapter; 2. a new format for each chapter that places information in proper sequence
with an alpha-numeric reference that is easy to cite, easy to locate and easy to expand for future
amendments; and 3. highlight all reformatting proposals that stray from a strictly editing exercise
into potential policy decisions. Attachment 3 was prepared as a prototype for Planning
Commission and City Council review. If Council endorses this format and organization, the
remaining five chapters will be prepared over the summer months.
.
At their June 6, 2006 work session, the Planning Commission reviewed the attachments listed
above and concluded that meeting by: 1. endorsing the proposed reorganization into 6 chapters;
2. endorsing the alpha-numeric format; and 3. recommending that this project keep to
reformatting as much as possible, but compile all policy issue changes for Council consideration
as a future Development Code project.
Mr. Mott referred to Attachments 2 (Proposed SDC Organizational Framework) and 3 (Prototype
of what the reformatted code would look like) included in the agenda packet. He described some
of the reformatting to combine sections that had duplication. The technical staff from Public
. Works (PW) and Development Services Department (DSD) were working on this to stay clear of
Ballot Measure 37 issues and policy issues. He referred to Attachment 4, which did include
some policy issues. The Planning Commission had recommended staff finish the reformatting
and make note of the questions regarding policy for a separate assignment. Attachment 4 had the
questions about policy that came up during reformatting. Staff tried to make the document more
user friendly and less cumbersome. The Planning Commission thought the policy issue
discussion could drag out the process. Staff wanted to make sure Council approved of how the
chapters had been defined. The style was not like current code.
Planner Gary Karp had been foreman of the project in the office. Mr. Karp said Mr. Mott had
explained the reformatting sufficiently.
Councilor Lundberg said she liked the format and felt it was easier to follow. She said she didn't
know about the numbering system, but assumed 3 referred to Chapter 3, etc. She said she was
not entirely clear the Planning Commission wanted the policy part separate, and noted the
process for bringing back certain policy issues that were more difficult to sort out.
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 19,2006
Page 3
.
Mr. Karp said they had only listed five policy items out of about twenty-five issues. He
explained.
Councilor Ralston said anything that made it simpler was good. He asked if we could get to the
Development Code online and asked if this would also be online. Yes. He asked if links could
be set up for referenced numbers.
Mr. Karp said the highlighted text was currently referenced while reviewing the reformatting.
He said those references would disappear when the document was finalized. He said cross
referencing was something they were considering once the document was completed.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to page 81 of 143 and the increase in fines for Land and Drainage
Alteration Permits to a criminal level. He asked if that was current with the new court fines that
had recently been adopted.
Mr. Leahy said they would look at that to make sure it was still adequate. He said an adjustment
was made to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) requirements, but those
would be reviewed.
Councilor Pishioneri said he knew there was some revisions made and updating being done.
.
Mr. Leahy said they would check with Environmental Services Department (ESD) to make sure
the amount complied with the EP A.
Councilor Ballew asked if there would be an index. Yes. She noted that Mohawk and Gateway
were not mentioned.
Mr. Karp said the plans in Gateway and Glenwood were separate. Refinements plans were also
separate and would stand on their own. There was a place held in the reformatting for those
plans.
Councilor Ballew said the reformatting looked better. She suggested staff move ahead and not
wait for the policies.
Mayor Leiken said he appreciated staff making this simpler. In order for someone to move
things along, they would still need a good land use consultant and land use attorney. Having this
reformatting in place could cut time for the developer. He asked about page 92 of 143 regarding
Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District. He discussed measure 37 issues and asked if this language
could affect this for the future of the City. He asked if the City would be o.k. with this language.
Mr. Leahy said one ofthe reasons these changes were housekeeping in nature rather than policy
was to prevent Measure 37 claims. Staff didn't want to write a new code that would give Ballot
Measure 37 claims substance.
.
Mr. Mott said part of the second part of the Mayor's question needed to be resolved by the Big
Look group. They would need to consider the affect of recreating the system that existed prior to
Senate Bill 100 that created the rural suburban communities around the boundary. The
Urbanizable Fringe (UPlO) was intended to say 'not to be annexed'. He discussed retrofitting
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 19,2006
Page 4
.
those neighborhoods once they were annexed. With Ballot Measure 37, particularly with
properties along the UGB, it started it all over again. He felt the City was better off to expand
the UGB and include those properties. The Big Look would have to change the law to make that
happen.
Mayor Leiken said the City Attorney and staff had done a great job for the City in land use
planning. Work like this continued to simplify what the City had been trying to accomplish.
Quality of life was a big issue. He thanked staff and the City Attorney for their work. This
reformatting would make life simpler to move projects along.
Councilor Ralston referred to page 92 of 143. He said the easiest solution would be to increase
the UGB. He asked if this made it easier or harder to develop in those areas.
Mr. Mott said this only applied within the UGB, between the city limits and the UGB. The City
granted annexation when it was a logical extension for City services.
Councilor Ralston said the document did not note that it was within the UGB.
Mr. Karp said language could be added to clarify that in the document.
(
Councilor Woodrow thanked Mr. Mott and Mr. Karp.
ADJOURNMENT
.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:55 pm.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Attest:
AmY~
City Recorder
.