HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 10 16 AIS DACPC Joint Meeting AIS with ATT
Planning Commission
Agenda
City Hall
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
541.726.3610
Online at www.springfield-or.gov
The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48
hours notice prior to the meeting. For meetings in the Council Meeting Room, a “Personal PA Receiver” for the hearing impaired is available. To arrange for these services, call 541.726.3710. Meetings will end prior to 10:00 p.m. unless extended by a vote of the Planning Commission. All proceedings before the Planning Commission are recorded.
October 16, 2012 _____________________________ 6:00 p.m. Work Session Library Meeting Room
______________________________________ CALL TO ORDER
PC ATTENDANCE: Chair Kirschenmann ___, Vice Chair James ___, Moe___, Salladay___, Bean ___, Brew___ , and Vohs____,.
DAC ATTENDANCE: Chair Clough ___, Vice Chair McMahon ___, Knapel___, Hall___, James ___, Burstein___ , Koivula___, Farrington___, Satre ___, VanGordon___, and
Hyland ___.
REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION
WORK SESSION ITEM(S)
1. Joint meeting with the Springfield Planning Commission and the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) to review draft priorities and procedures.
Staff: Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor
Matt Stouder, Engineering Supervisor
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Manager:
Greg Mott
Management Specialist:
Brenda Jones 541.726.3610
Planning Commissioners:
Johnny Kirschenmann, Chair
Greg James, Vice Chair
Steve Moe
Stacy Salladay
Denise Bean
Bob Brew
Tim Vohs
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 10/22/2012
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 DRAFT PRIORITIES AND PROCEDURES.
ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a Work Session with the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and review draft work subjects prior to Planning Commission and City Council goal
setting.
ISSUE STATEMENT: Council directed staff and the DAC to prepare issues for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to assignment of resources. This work
session is to review the first list of possible work subjects.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. July 23, 2012 City Council Directions 2. Results of “Dot” Preliminary Consensus Exercise
3. September 26, 2012 DAC Meeting Minutes
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
At the direction of the City Council, the Springfield Development Advisory Committee (DAC) was appointed and began regular meetings. The Committee
elected Renee Clough and Ed McMahon as Committee Chair & Vice-Chair, respectively. Planning Commissioner Greg James and Councilor Sean Van Gordon
are liaisons to the Committee.
The DAC initially met in late August, with a follow up meeting occurring on
September 26 to discuss and prioritize ideas related to reviewing the City’s
customer service processes and requirements of land use and economic development procedures, with the overall goal of helping the City be more
competitive in attracting economic development. Each DAC member submitted five items for discussion purposes, and like items were grouped together under common themes prior to members voting on top priorities for discussion with the
Planning Commission. The top five items from the discussion are shown below:
• Project Communication, Process and Advocacy
• Site Plan Review
• Fees
• Process Improvements
• Reactivate the Building Board of Appeals
Attachment 2 shows all items generated and discussed at the September meeting,
along with the corresponding number of votes each topic received. After a brief presentation by the DAC and staff, the Planning Commission is asked to discuss
priority items with the DAC and provide initial feedback if applicable. The DAC
and staff will return to the Planning Commission at work session after additional research and analysis of financial and statutory requirements occurs.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 7/23/2012
Meeting Type: Work Session/Reg. Mtg
Staff Contact/Dept.: Jim Donovan/DPW Matt Stouder/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3660
541-736-1035 Estimated Time: 45 minutes/05 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: Promote and Enhance our Hometown Feel while Focusing on
Livability and Environmental Quality
ITEM TITLE: APPOINTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, CREATION OF A MISSION STATEMENT AND APPROVAL OF A TIMELINE
FOR INITIAL DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AFFECTING THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD BY THE COMMITTEE, PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Work Session: 1) Review and approve applications received for participation on
the Development Advisory Committee, 2) Provide direction to the newly formed
Committee by approving a draft mission statement, and 3) Review and approve a conceptual work plan and timeline for the prioritization of issues for Council and
Planning Commission discussion in October.
Regular Meeting: Formally appoint members to the Development Advisory
Committee.
ISSUE STATEMENT: City Council considered creation of a Development Advisory Committee during their May 14, 2012 Work Session and directed staff to proceed with solicitation of
applications and prepare draft work plans for the creation of such a committee.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum
2. Development Advisory Committee Applications
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Staff has solicited for, and received, nine applications for a Development Advisory
Committee. The applicants self identify in all of the core categories endorsed by Council on May 14, 2012. The attached Council Briefing Memorandum provides copies of the applications and details on the logistics of launching the committee
and returning to Planning Commission and Council in October with a set of issues for consideration and next steps. Resources for the initial creation of the committee
are limited to staff time commitments and meeting materials.
Attachment 1-1
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 7/23/2012
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
To: Gino Grimaldi
From: Len Goodwin, Development and Public Works Director
Matt Stouder, Managing Civil Engineer
Jim Donovan, Urban Planning Supervisor
Subject: Appointment of Development Advisory Committee members
and initial direction from City Council and Planning Commission on formation, goals and process timelines.
ISSUE: City Council considered creation of a Development Advisory Committee during their May 14, 2012 Work Session and directed staff to proceed with solicitation of applications and preparation of draft work plans
for the creation of such a committee.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE: Promote and enhance our home town feel while focusing on livability and environmental quality.
The City of Springfield has a tradition of periodically reviewing development requirements and procedures with
the development community to increase efficiency, reduce costs and meet Council’s goals of providing sound
community and economic development, maintaining public infrastructure and improving livability. Effective communication with a diverse cross section of the community on proposed changes is integral to meeting those
goals and providing public involvement consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1- Public Involvement.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has solicited for, and received nine applications for a Development Advisory Committee. The applicants self identify in all of the core categories endorsed by Council on May 14, 2012. Copies of the applications are attached and this memorandum sets out recommendations on the logistics of launching the committee and
returning to Planning Commission and Council in October with a set of preliminary issues for consideration and next steps.
This memorandum provides information and recommendations for City Council to: 1) Review and approve applications received for participation on the Development Advisory Committee, 2) Provide direction to the
newly formed Committee by approving a draft mission statement, and 3) Review and approve a general work
plan and timeline for the DAC to compile a preliminary list of development issues for Council and Planning Commission discussion and prioritization in October.
1) Review and Approval of DAC applications.
During the May 14, 2012 Work Session, the City Council endorsed the DAC concept as an appropriate process
for the development community to communicate their priorities for updates to land use and development regulations and provide a level of Goal 1 public involvement appropriate to the scale of any code revision
project the Council authorizes. Staff solicited applications for committee participation using the following table of core categories, as amended in Work Session:
Attachment 1-2
Core Categories Discretionary Categories
Builder (Residential) Builder (Commercial)
Business Owner x 2 Minority Business Owner
Citizen-at-Large x 2 Large Employer
Sustainability Advocate x 2 Lane County Home Builders Assoc.
Consultant Services Consultant Services (Additional)
Developer Springfield Chamber of Commerce
Affordable Housing Interests Non-Governmental Organization
On the evening of July 3, 2012, the Springfield Planning Commission, acting as the Committee for Citizen
Involvement (CCI), reviewed the proposed committee categories of the proposed Development Advisory Committee (DAC). The CCI endorsed the citizen involvement opportunities represented by the proposed
committee categories. The Planning Commission also expressed interest in the future functions of the
committee and their role in the process as the CCI and Planning Commission. These interests included committee selection, the process for topic selection, analysis, and option development, and the employment of a
variety of public events, advanced communication techniques, and public hearing venues. The Planning
Commission’s role in the process is further discussed and reflected in Sections 2 and 3 of this memo; the table below represents the results of the recruitment process endorsed by the Council and Commission.
Staff received nine applications for the Development Advisory Committee between June 12 and July 11, 2012. The application materials submitted by the applicants are included in this AIS packet as Attachment 2. The
applicants self identify in all of the core categories endorsed by Council on May 14, 2012.
DAC APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATA
Applicant Builder
(Res.)
Business
Owner
Consultant
Services
Developer Citizen
At Large
Sustainability
Advocate
Affordable
Housing
Farrington X
Koivula* x x x x x X x
Satre X
Hall* x X x x x x x
McMahon* X x
Knapel* X x
Burstein X
Clough* X x
Hyland * x X
*Application materials asked applicants to check all categories that apply.
Attachment 1-3
The above distribution reflects an approach that selects single category applicants first and fills out the category list using the flexibility provided by the applicants who self identified in more than one category. It should be
acknowledged, and the Council may wish to reinforce the principle that the applicants will be required to
represent the category for which they are selected. Two additional observations are noteworthy: 1) two thirds of the applicants are JWT alumni, and 2) the lack of a second viable sustainability advocate.
With regard to Joint Work Team overlap, the alumni have self identified and fit into the categories identified by Council for professional development, however 6 of 9 JWT positions represent an imbalance of interests. The
overall make up is more balanced if a City Councilor and Planning Commissioner are added, however in lieu of
overlapping interests and active Council and Commission involvement, the Council may wish to have staff formally or informally recruit for additional committee members. The interests of sustainability, affordable
housing and business owners are under represented and could be served by major employer or professional market economics and real estate interests. With six committee members from the JWT and six from the public and other interests the Planning Commission and City Council targets of approximately 12 members and broad
based representation are met. Council and Planning Commission liaisons could approve additional committee members during initial meetings of the DAC.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council appoint the submitting members at or near the above distribution and direct staff to informally recruit three additional sustainability, housing and real estate
advocates from the public.
City Council may:
a) appoint from the list as received and approved herein,
b) form their own distribution of candidates in the selected categories from the pool, or c) appoint any portion thereof and direct staff to solicit additional candidates in specific categories.
Staff will proceed under direction of Council to inform candidates on the disposition of their applications and provide further instructions and timelines where appropriate.
2) Draft Mission Statement
The mission of the DAC should be set by the City Council with Planning Commission input, and a well articulated mission or purpose statement would inform the development of some general guidelines to be used in the selection of the topic areas to be pursued by the DAC as they nominate specific topics contained in the
Development Code that should be evaluated for their effectiveness and continued relevance to the community.
Staff Recommendation: Staff suggests that Council provide initial direction to guide the DAC’s activities in the
form of a draft mission statement. The following is provided as a sample for Council consideration directions:
The Development Advisory Committee shall: 1. review the process and requirements of land use and development in the City of Springfield; 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.
A draft mission statement may be modified by the DAC, Planning Commission and City Council in the initial
joint work session of the committee.
3) Review and approve a general work plan and timeline for the DAC to compile a preliminary list of development issues for Council and Planning Commission discussion and prioritization in October.
Attachment 1-4
The above diagram incorporates City Council and Planning Commission feedback from the July 16, 2012 Joint
Work Session on Committee, Mission Statement and Process. Key elements include:
1. DAC forms and focuses on ground rules, process issues (such as recruitment of new or replacement
members, duration of the Committee, etc.) and initial list of issues. Planning Commission review the initial list created by DAC in Work Session. (Oct. 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. 2013)
3. The Planning Commission and City Council conduct Joint Session to authorize process and initiatives. (Feb
2013)
4. The DAC conducts full review and approved public involvement procedures for initiatives. (July 2013)
5. Formal adoption procedures commence (Sept 2013)
1. DAC forms and
proposes
preliminary list of
potential code
revisions to PC for
draft review.
2.Staff & DAC
analyze PC-
approved draft
list and present to
PC for
refinements.
3. Council
Approves Final
List and Resources
for Review of
Code Provisions in
Joint Session
4. DAC Prepares
Public
Involvement Plans
and Reviews
Development
Regulations as
Directed by PC/CC
5. PC/CC Review,
Adoption and
Implementation
Procedures
Attachment 1-5
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Council select for appointment the nine current applicants, and provide direction on additional members who would further represent sustainability, affordable
housing and real estate interests. Council is asked to designate one member of the Council to serve ex officio,
and request that the Planning Commission similarly designate an ex officio member. Finally, staff recommends that the Council direct the committee members to consider the draft mission statement, with such
modifications as Council deems appropriate to make at the work session. And report back with a final recommended mission statement and with a proposed list of issues to be reviewed in a joint work session with the Planning Commission in October.
Attachment 1-6
PROCESS RESULTS FOR THE DOT EXERCISE
The Development Advisory Committee (DAC) met on September 26 to discuss and prioritize the most
important concerns of participating members. Members were each asked to submit a list of their
concerns in advance of the meeting. Members provided a short sentence describing their concern as
well as a narrative that provided additional detail for each concern.
The short sentence concerns from each member were compiled and transcribed onto large sheets of
paper. Each sheet, and the concerns listed on each sheet were given a number. Concerns listed on
Sheet 1 were given a number starting with “1”—e.g. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. Concerns listed on Sheet 2 begin with
a 2 and so forth. There were 8 sheets in total. No significance was attributed to the sheet or concern
numbering. The numbering allowed the Committee members to quickly reference specific concerns
during their discussion.
At the meeting on the 26th, members took time to clarify and discuss the various concerns that were
submitted. It was evident from the discussion that there some duplicate concerns and others which had
significant overlap. Members group the items that were similar in nature for the purpose of
prioritization. All of the original concerns, as submitted, were retained. Those items shown with the
strikeout text were grouped with other similar concerns.
A simple dot exercise was used to allow members to vote for their priority issues. The results of the
prioritization are shown below. At the conclusion of the meeting Committee members directed the
Chair and Vice Chair to meet with staff and prepare the findings of the meeting for presentation to the
Planning Commission. They were directed to rename those combined groups of concerns that received
the most votes.
Shown below are the concerns listed by the committee members. The sheet numbers and submitted
concerns are all listed. The number of votes cast for each concern is shown. Where a significant
number of concerns were grouped together, a new title (bold faced) was added.
The top three priorities identified by the Committee include: 1) Project Communication, Process and
Advocacy; 2) Site Plan Review; and 3) Fees.
SHEET 1
Site Plan Review 7 votes
1.1 Site Plan Review applicability
2.5 Elimination of Site Review in all but select situations
4.2 Eliminate the requirement for a Pre-Submittal Meeting for Major Site Modifications
5.6 Get rid of the need completely for Site Review if the use already fits within the zoning
Fees 7 votes
1.2 Fees
1.6 Incentivize the use of brownfields
2.1 SDC reductions and review phase in costs for new creative storm drain technologies
2.2 Water system and wastewater SDC reductions for new creative wastewater technologies
Attachment 2-1
2.3 Reductions in all SDCs and development review costs for retained and enhanced landscaping
and other pollution control agreements
8.1 Council review of the percentage of cost to cover for economic development
7.4 Cost differential for fees –those who are experienced, -those who need more help
6.6 Review the Planning Cost Recovery Model
7.3 Look at potential for reducing fees through technology
1.3 Off-site Improvement Agreements required as part of annexation
1.4 Public improvement standards
1.5 Local Improvement Districts 1 vote
1.6 Incentivize the use of brownfields
SHEET 2
2.1 SDC reductions and review phase in costs for new creative storm drain technologies
2.2 Water system and wastewater SDC reductions for new creative wastewater technologies
2.3 Reductions in all SDCs and development review costs for retained and enhanced landscaping and
other pollution control agreements
2.4 Secondary home development process for owner developer based on economic, demographic and
other factors 1 vote
2.5 Elimination of Site Review in all but select situations
SHEET 3
3.1 Creation of clear and objective standards for residential multifamily
Project communication, process and advocacy 10 votes
3.2 Develop an internal project advocate and leader for championing individual projects
6.1 Take every project in as it is
7.1 Interdepartmental interactions, (especially Planning and Building)
7.3 Look at potential for reducing fees through technology
4.4 Review the inspection process in order to ensure that it is consistent and complete
4.3 A tracking system to follow the plan review process
3.3 Develop a clearer decision process and an ultimate decider when various departments dictates
are in conflict on a given site
6.5 Limited staff access
3.4 Develop a basis for saying "yes" until you simply can't say yes
3.3 Develop a clearer decision process and an ultimate decider when various departments dictates are in
conflict on a given site
3.4 Develop a basis for saying "yes" until you simply can't say yes
3.5 Create universal processes for well water drinking protection
SHEET 4
4.1 Shift focus from imagined issues to statistical based real issues
4.2 Eliminate the requirement for a Pre-Submittal Meeting for Major Site Modifications
4.3 A tracking system to follow the plan review process
4.4 Review the inspection process in order to ensure that it is consistent and complete
4.5 Reactivate Board of Appeals 4 votes
4.6 Number of applications required and complexity of process 2 votes
Attachment 2-2
1.4 Public improvement standards
6.4 Amount of detail required during permitting process
SHEET 5
5.1 Streamline final plats
5.2 Don’t get hung up on low probabilities 2 votes
4.1 Shift focus from imagined issues to statistical based real issues
5.5 Defer long term planning goals and focus on what we can do now
5.3 Eliminate, or at least severely reduce, annexation agreements 2 votes
1.3 Off-site Improvement Agreements required as part of annexation
5.4 Support the local consultants so they can stay in business 1 vote
5.5 Defer long term planning goals and focus on what we can do now
5.6 Get rid of the need completely for Site Review if the use already fits within the zoning
SHEET 6
6.1 Take every project in as it is
6.2 Make the development code easier to interpret 2 votes
3.1 Creation of clear and objective standards for residential multifamily
6.3 Take a stand to the state and federal government 2 votes
6.4 Amount of detail required during permitting process
6.5 Limited staff access
6.6 Review the Planning Cost Recovery Model
SHEET 7
7.1 Interdepartmental interactions, (especially Planning and Building)
7.2 Build in a systematic process for receiving this type of feedback to code revision process 5 votes
7.6 Leave room on priority list for items that come up later in the process
7.3 Look at potential for reducing fees through technology
7.4 Cost differential for fees –those who are experienced, -those who need more help
7.5 Clear and objective standards
7.6 Leave room on priority list for items that come up later in the process
7.7 5-year review of UGB and buildable lands inventories.
SHEET 8
8.1 Council review of the percentage of cost to cover for economic development
Attachment 2-3
Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Meeting
September 26, 2012 @ 12:00 – 2:00 p.m.
Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth St. Springfield, OR
Attendees: Ed McMahon, Rick Satre, Shaun Hyland, Carole Knapel, Renee Clough, Mike
Koivula, Greg James (PC), Sean VanGordon (CC), Matt Stouder, Joe Leahy, Mark
Metzger, Karen LaFleur
Call to Order:
Chair, Renee Clough called the meeting to order.
Public Comment: none
Housekeeping:
Review of Council Direction –
Matt Stouder handed out and reviewed City Council and Planning Commission feedback
from the July 16, 2012 Joint Work Session on Committee, Mission Statement and
Process.
• The process outline was:
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)
3. The Planning Commission and City Council conduct Joint Session to authorize
process and initiatives. (Feb 13)
4. DAC conducts full review and approved public involvement procedures for
initiatives. (July 13)
5. PC/CC Review, adoption and implementation procedures. (Sept 13)
Question was asked if the committee was restricted to just code revisions or could
other items such as fees/customer service/etc. be discussed too? The response was
that yes, additional items could be discussed.
Meeting Time/Logistics –
• Renee postponed making a decision on setting regular meeting date/time due to
time restrains at this meeting. This will be discussed after the Joint DAC/PC
meeting in October.
• Ed McMahon asked that future meetings start promptly and the meeting room be
set up, and ready to go fifteen minutes prior to actual meeting time.
Attachment 3-1
Meeting Conduct –
• Reminded everyone to speak up and be polite.
• Asked that you be recognized by Chair or Vice-Chair before speaking.
• Keep your comments brief and to the point.
Voting Dot Exercise/Discussion/Prioritizing Issues to Discuss w/PC:
• Each of the committee members shared their list of five priority concern items
to the group prior to the dot exercise beginning.
• The committee reviewed the posted sheets and added additional items to the
lists. Discussion and prioritizing of the issues occurred.
• Motion:
A motion was made by Commissioner Greg James, to allow the Chair, Vice-
Chair, and support staff to take the list compiled today, and develop a draft
format for presentation to the Planning Commission, at the Joint Planning
Commission meeting, on October 16thwith the Development Advisory
Committee (DAC).
Motion was seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
• Motion Amended:
The motion was amended to also allow Chair, Vice-Chair and staff to have
some editorial ability to re-title the categories appropriately as the
committee discussed.
Motion was seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
• See the attached “Process Results List of the Dot Exercise” (dated 10-2-12) that
was revised by Chair, Vice-Chair, and staff.
Next Steps:
Confirm Meeting Time & Agenda Items
• The next DAC meeting will be the Joint DAC/PC Work Session meeting scheduled
for Tuesday, October 16, 2012 @ 6:00 p.m. in the Jesse Maine Room.
Adjourn:
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Attachment 3-2