HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 01 15 AIS WS DPW DAC PRIORITY1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/15/2013
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Jim Donovan/DPW Matt Stouder/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3660
541-736-1035 Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Community and Economic Development and Revitalization ITEM TITLE: JOINT MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE AND THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION TO
REVIEW DAC WORK PRIORITIES FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL.
ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a Work Session with the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and review DAC prioritization of work subjects prior to a City Council discussion.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Council directed staff and the DAC to prepare issues for consideration by the
Planning Commission and City Council prior to assignment of public resources. This work session is to review prioritization of work subjects by the DAC.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Briefing Memo
2. DAC Priority Matrix Supplemental Information 3. DAC Minutes
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Pursuant to the direction of City Council, the DAC has begun the process of refining initial brainstorming materials into potential work areas based on background information presented to them and adaptation of criteria for creation of
a matrix reflecting the relative ranking of the subjects and group consensus at this stage.
After a brief presentation by the DAC and staff, the Planning Commission is asked to discuss priority items with the DAC and provide feedback on the results of the
DAC work and the criteria for initial ranking where applicable. The DAC and staff
will incorporate Planning Commission feedback into the next work session with City Council on March 11, 2013.
Financial impacts are limited to committee administrative costs, senior staff time and City Attorney guidance at this time. City Council will determine work
schedules and allocation of City resources upon review of the DAC’s work later this spring.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 1/15/2013
COMMISSION
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
To: Springfield Planning Commission
From: Development Advisory Committee (DAC)
Matt Stouder, Managing Civil Engineer
Jim Donovan, Urban Planning Supervisor
Subject: Review of DAC Work Plan Priorities.
ISSUE: The DAC has ranked a set of potential work priorities for Planning Commission and City Council consideration and eventual assignment of resources necessary to perform further review. The DAC is seeking
Planning Commission feedback on the ranking of potential work priorities, preliminary background materials used and the criteria adapted to guide prioritization and provide a framework for additional analysis.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE: Community and Economic Development and Revitalization
The Development Advisory Committee shall: 1. review the customer service process and requirements of land
use and economic development in the City of Springfield to be competitive in attracting development; 2. provide the Planning Commission and City Council with recommendations on improving this process and outcome consistent with the Council Goal of promoting and enhancing our hometown feel while focusing on livability and environmental quality; 3. provide a robust forum and venue for citizen participation in this process.
BACKGROUND: The DAC has been progressing along the lines of the concept and structure approved by the
City Council in May of 2012. The following is a brief timeline of the activities of the DAC since inception:
5/2012 City Council Authorization of DAC Concept & Structure
7/2012 Council Review of DAC Appointments
7/2021 CCI Approval of Appointments
7/2012 PC/CC Annual Joint Work Session on Schedule and Mission Statement
10/2012 DAC/PC Work Session on Priorities
2012/2013 DAC Meetings:
8/20/12- Formation and Operating Principles
9/26/2012- Top 5 Individual Concerns & Dot Exercise
11/08/2012- Criteria and Matrix Consensus
11/29/2012- Draft Matrix of Issues & Breakout Background Sessions
12/13/2012- Group Background Session and Final Matrix Consensus
1/10/ 2013- PC Joint Meeting Prep
With leadership from Chair and Co-Chair and liaisons from the Planning Commission and City Council, the DAC
has to date: 1) received a foundation of background information briefings and developed a joint understanding of
the topics of concern, 2) adapted preliminary criteria for analysis and review of work topics, and 3) reached consensus on a ranking of those concerns using the consensus process of adopted by-laws.
Staff has assisted with the provision of base background information, criteria for use in comparative analysis and guidance on the basic legal framework for development procedures. Summaries of DAC conclusions on
background information are attached to this report as Priority Matrix Supplemental Information; ranking and consensus results are detailed herein for Planning Commission’s understanding and consideration.
1/10/2013 Page 2
Work Areas
The DAC’s preliminary list of potential work areas included approximately 50 items based upon the Joint Work Team’s input and brainstorming activities of the committee. Each potential work item represented a specific
concern that was raised by the group. The topics were grouped and ranked by the DAC after discussion and
preliminary “ 5 dot” consensus procedures. The top work areas began to emerge and included the following general topics with some associated issues:
Site Review Applicability: The theme of this work area is the how, what, and where of requiring site review procedures. Areas of interest include examination of where site plan is required, comparative analysis with other
alternatives and building a better site plan model.
Project Advocacy and Communication: The theme of this work area is twofold: 1) whether or not an applicant has
a person to communicate with on the City review team that has the power to resolve conflicts, and 2) how are communication problems or competing values resolved quickly and efficiently within the City.
SDC Context: This subject is dedicated to the Committee’s understanding of the Systems Development Charge program and preparing the DAC to participate or submit feedback and fresh ideas to the existing sub-committee
work and City Council.
Fees: This potential work area is also twofold, 1) all fees related to the development process, and 2) planning
application fees specifically. The concern was the justification of fees, the process for updating and changing city
fees and the ongoing, albeit temporarily delayed, true cost analysis and planning fee project of 2011.
Incentivizing the Use of Brownfields: The theme of this work area is to address an ongoing environmental
concern (i.e. the cleanup of brownfield sites) through development and the use of SDCs, development fee reductions or other incentives.
The broader work areas are composites that include associated ideas and concerns; the complete list of issues demonstrated a need for the group to have a common understanding of the context and definition of the common
terms. To that end, staff provided general background information on the subject matter.
Background Information
Staff provided background information in two formats. A breakout group format was used to present sessions on the state and local background of Site Plan Review as a limited land use decision, and the statutory limitations,
fees, and local functions of the Systems Development Program. A group discussion was subsequently held to
discuss department fees, communication and advocacy. After presentations by staff, discussion and feedback was provided by the DAC. The DAC input was documented and is attached to this memo as Priority Matrix
Supplemental Information. This information supplements the matrix and provides insight into group
understanding of work subjects, criteria and statutory context.
With a draft list of work issues and a common understanding of the basics and background of each work area, the
DAC progressed to a discussion of criteria and the construction of a draft matrix and ranking system.
1/10/2013 Page 3
Criteria
The draft ranking of subjects for consideration by the DAC required a preliminary foray into methods of
comparative analysis. With input from the Chair and Vice Chair, staff presented a set of criteria adapted from a
priority based budgeting approach (Anatomy of a Priority Driven Budget Process, The Government Finance Officers Association, 2011). The criteria are currently being utilized by the City in budget exercises and are
designed to prioritize interests competing for limited time and resources. The criteria are limited to three general categories of intensity (1=low, 2=medium, and 3=high) and are not specific in terms of resources or time at this level of analysis. After some discussion and revisions by the DAC, an un-weighted set of criteria intended to
quantify the practicality of a review procedure and the potential for results that benefit the development community and the citizen at large was agreed upon. The following criteria appear on the matrix exercise:
1. Mandate: Is the work area mandated at the federal, state or local level? This criteria asks “why do we do
it?” and ranges from high levels of complexity (federal) to low levels (local) for revision procedures.
2. Resources/Cost: This criterion measures the practicality of the undertaking in terms of finances and staff
resources.
3. Public Involvement: This criterion is a measure of land use process required for revision by state and
local law.
4. Calendar Time: This criterion is a measure of time necessary for changes.
5. Difficulty: This criterion is a composite score of the first four criteria and is used to rank difficulty in
simple relative terms.
6. Council Goals Supported: This criteria simply lists the number of Council Goals, and therefore the
public’s interest, served. The criterion is not weighted for competing goals or benefits to the community.
7. Demand: This criteria ranks current demand and can be used later for cost-benefit analysis.
The 8th and final column is the DAC’s consensus ranking of the group’s priorities. This ranking is the level
of importance to the committee. It is the DAC’s opinion that moving the work items, or a sub-set thereof, forward
in this order will advance the mission statement adopted by the City Council.
DAC Matrix & Rankings
DRAFT – DAC PRIORITY MATRIX (12-19-12)
Item Mandate Resources Public
Involvement
Calendar
Time
Difficulty Council
Goal(s)
Supported
Demand Priority
Site Review
Applicability 3 5 5 5 18 1, 2, 6 1 1
Project Advocacy &
Communication 1 5 3 3 12 1, 2, 6 1 2
SDC Context 1 3 3 3 10 2, 6 3 3
Fees - General 1 3 3 3 10 1, 2, 6 1 4
Planning
Application Fees 1 3 3 3 10 1, 2, 6 5 5
Incentivizing Use of
Brownfields 1 5 3 5 14 1, 2, 6 3 6
1/10/2013 Page 4
Conclusion:
This meeting completes Step 2 of the process and timelines approved by City Council:
1. DAC forms and focuses on ground rules, process issues, and initial list of issues. Planning
Commission review the initial list created by DAC in Work Session on Oct 16, 2012. 2. Initial level of analysis with DAC will include filtering for statutory mandates and estimates of time
and resources; the draft analysis will be presented back to PC for first prioritization. (Jan 13, 2013) 3. The DAC and City Council conduct Joint Session to authorize process and initiatives. (March 11, 2013)
4. DAC conducts full review and approved public involvement procedures for initiatives. (July 13, 2013) 5. PC/CC Review, adoption and implementation procedures. (Sept 13, 2013)
Next Steps
The DAC’s next regularly scheduled meeting will be dedicated to incorporating the Planning Commission’s
feedback and preparing for Joint Work Session with the City Council. Steps 3 and 4 will involve Council authorization of priorities, resources and further analysis of specific proposals.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Commission is encouraged to review the priorities drafted by the DAC and offer feedback or make recommendations on the priorities, criteria or resources and public involvement requirements associated with specific proposals.
DAC Priority Matrix
Supplemental Information
January 2, 2013
Overview
This is an attachment to the DAC Priority Matrix to provide an overview of the proposed scope
for each item on the matrix. The background for how each item came to be on the matrix is provided
elsewhere and not repeated here. The DAC understands that the currently proposed scope of some of
these items overlaps with the work of other groups (past, present or planned near future). It is our
intent that, as those overlaps are discovered during more detailed work, we will coordinate our efforts
with those groups.
The information below was prepared based on our November 29th and December 13th meetings.
At the November 29th meeting, we broke into two groups. Each group was given an overview by staff of
Systems Development Charges and Site Plan Review as they exist today. Following the staff
presentation, the groups were given the opportunity to ask questions and brainstorm areas and
methods of improvement. Half way through the meeting, the groups switched to allow everyone the
opportunity to be involved in both topics. At the December 13th meeting, we stayed as one group to
receive an overview by staff of fees (Planning and Building Departments) and internal organization of
application reviews. Following the staff presentations, the group was again given the opportunity to ask
questions and brainstorm. Information provided to us during the presentations is attached as
appendices.
Systems Development Charges
Systems Development Charges (SDCs) are a long term “hot button” topic so it is not especially
surprising that the topic came up in the DAC setting. During preparation of the initial Priority Matrix the
DAC was primarily focused on using SDCs to promote “green” technology and design and the timing of
the SDC charges. However, during conversations to develop a descriptive scope and priority for the SDC
topic, the focus broadened. Even with the broadened focus, the areas of interest remained the context
of SDCs, not the methodology. One DAC member described the broadened focus as having three sub-
categories: incentivize, equity and rates.
Incentivize: This concept covers the idea of using SDC rates and income to encourage
development in the city as a whole, in specific neighborhoods, and/or on specific types of
property.
In addition to the current 50% reduction, some of the ideas brainstormed included:
lowering SDC rates for sites that already have improvements (to encourage denser infill),
simplifying the process for determining available credits
considering the feasibility of “monetizing” SDC credits and more easily making them
transferable (see also under “Rates”)
extending or waiving time limits for applicability of SDC credits
placing burden upon developers/property owners to track SDC credits applicable to a given
site over time
expanding the credits available to annexed but un- or under-developed properties
Equity: This concept covers the ideas of each person paying their fair share and equitably
allocating funds for projects proximate to where they are generated.
Some of the ideas brainstormed for addressing this were:
tying SDCs to a user instead of a property
“districting” SDC income so it pays for improvements relevant to the project/or in an area
likely to benefit the project/area generating the SDCs
Rates: Rates were not discussed as heavily as the previous two topics, but a few ideas were
brainstormed for possible ways to reduce rates, including:
An option for developers to sell and/or buy credits– whether in bulk and/or at a reduced
rate - then assign the credits to projects as they are needed
reviewing the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and “standards” for want vs. need items (an
example of want vs. need is that the city needs a street but wants street trees or at least
street trees at a certain coverage rate that in turn drives a standard applied to establishing
SDC rates). This may further extend to consideration of development standards versus the
community’s ability to then maintain public improvements provided by new development.
Site Plan Review
Site Plan Review has also been a long term “hot button” topic going all the way back to before
the Join Work Team was established and there is no surprise that it remains a high priority. As the
Priority Matrix developed, topics referring to Site Plan Review included a range from eliminating Site
Plan Review completely if the use already fits the zoning to eliminating it in all but select situations.
Other topics included the applicability of Site Plan Review and elimination of the mandatory Pre-
Submittal Meetings for Major Site Plan Modifications.
The sub-group discussion began with staff explaining the relationship between Site Review and
Oregon land use statutes. Staff also presented a time-line of the Site Plan Review process and the
differences between Type I & II. A Site Plan Review ladder of review procedures was also presented
along with a discussion about the 120 day process, Public Notice, and Limited Land Use decisions. The
sub-group discussions didn’t really modify the topics referring to Site Review but instead confirmed that
the topic requires further discussion. Following is a list of topics requiring further discussion:
Discuss the applicability of Site Plan Review and making more uses consistent with established
zoning permitted outright and eligible to proceed to the building permit application process
directly.
Could Site Plan Review be simplified, for example by using various methods such as accepting
that plans prepared under a “stamp” carry greater weight, streamlining checklist requirements,
etc.?
Clarify the change in use triggers to ensure that Site Plan Review is required only for changes in
land use to an entirely different category.
Look into broadening the flexibility for modifications.
Make sure that the modifications process doesn’t itself become too complex, costly, etc.
What can we do to prevent Site Plan Review from adding cost and time to the process for both
the applicant and the city?
Are pre-submittal meetings always necessary? If not, when should a pre-submittal meeting be
required?
The overall mind set of the sub-groups was that Site Plan Review was not always necessary and
added more time and cost to the process. It was suggested that we look at the process in other cities
and emulate the parts that work well that would result in decreased cost and processing time.
Project Communication and Advocacy
Since we participated in the evolution of this term, its scope is reasonably clear to us; however
we have discovered that of all our topics this is the most difficult to convey to others. All members of
the DAC understand that the city staff has recently undergone a rather significant change in internal
organization. We understand that this will affect our work going forward and may eliminate some of
our concerns without any effort by us. However, we feel that there are additional changes that should
be investigated. The recent changes related to the internal pyramid of job descriptions whereas our
concerns relate more to the internal pyramid of project review. While there are areas of overlap
between these pyramids there are also areas where they are unique.
Project Communication: We feel gains can be made in how project communication happens
internally among the various project reviews and between reviewers and applicant. A few ideas
of potential improvements are:
Maintain the same assigned staff from the Development Issues Meeting (DIM) through to
approval
Adjust the internal communication process between the Development Review Committee
(DRC) and issuing approval
One staff person to communicate with the applicant on behalf of all other staff, and have
that point person be empowered to be the lead in facilitating inter-departmental or inter-
agency conflicts that may arise during the review process (i.e., being a true project manager
rather than a scribe for the various departments/agencies)
Better educate the development community on the flow of project review so they can be
more effective with project conversations and be able to track in real-time where there
project is in the review process
Project Advocate: We understand that city staff needs to remain removed enough from a
project to perform a fair, objective and legally defensible review. This is concept intended to
represent a lead/point person in the review process that has the authority to resolve internal
conflicts, such as transportation requiring a driveway at the same location as fire requiring a
hydrant. The person should also have the authority to resolve grey areas of the code in favor of
the project. The assigned project planner is a logical person to act as the Project Advocate, but
it doesn’t have to be the planner; we can envision someone else being a better advocate for
some project types. We envision the Project Advocate as being a person already involved in the
project review process, or at least already employed by the city.
Fees
Our interest in fees is not how much is being charged, but is more focused on how to make a
dollar stretch farther. We feel there are opportunities for fee related efficiency gains to help reduce
expenses, thus allowing more to be done with the same fees. Some of the brainstormed ideas are as
follows:
Adjust the technical fee based on submittal format (paper, pdf, etc)
Accept digitally signed plans and consider waiver and/or reduction of the 5% technology fee
upon submittal of digital plans
Staff keep time cards tracking how much time they spend on each project (providing accurate
information for verification/time tracking on individual projects and determination of future
fees)
RC/EMcM