HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 11 01 Development Input ProcessMEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF HEARING: Work/Regular November 1, 2011
PLANNING
TO: Springfield Planning Commissioners COMMISSION
TRANSMITTAL
FROM: Jim Donovan, DSD Urban Planning Supervisor MEMORANDUM
Matt Stouder, P.E., Public Works Land Development Supervisor
SUBJECT: Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments to revise Site Plan Review
and Minimum Development Standards (MDS) submittal requirements and review procedures-
Case Number TYP411-00004
ISSUE
AMENDMENTS OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE A TYPE IV REVIEW
PROCEDURE PURSUANT TO SDC 5.6-115. THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWS ALL
CODE AMENDMENT PROPOSALS, CONSIDERS PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND ADVISES THE
CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE, MODIFY OR DENY THE PROPOSED SDC AMENDMENTS
BY ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION.
DISCUSSION
The City of Springfield’s Development Services and Public Works Departments have 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.
In June of 2010, the City Manager, City Attorney and Directors of the Public Works and
Development Services Departments met with representatives of the local development
community to solicit feedback on the City’s development review process. The Developer Input
Process (DIP) was subsequently conducted by Development Services and Public Works’ staff
with representatives of the development community, meeting 15 times over the last year. The
set of proposed code changes before the Planning Commission tonight reflects that portion of
the Joint Work Team’s work recommending modifications to Site Plan and MDS submittal and
review procedures. Additional information regarding the full suite of efficiency recommendations
from the JWT is contained in Attachment 3.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Advise the City Council, by motion and signature of the attached Order and Recommendation
by the Planning Commission Chairperson, to approve the proposed SDC amendments by
Ordinance at their public hearing on December 5, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: SDC Amendment Staff Report, Findings and Order
Attachment 2: Proposed SDC Amendments
Attachment 3: Developer Input Process Summary
SDC AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT, FINDINGS AND ORDER
APPLICANT
City of Springfield ‐ TYP411‐00004
REQUEST
Amendment of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) Sections 5.15‐100‐125, 5.17‐105, 5.17‐120, and 4.2‐105 –
Modifying Site Plan and MDS submittal and review procedures.
BACKGROUND
The Developer Input Process (DIP) is an element of the Development Fee Study and Cost Recovery Project, which
was initiated by Council in early 2010. Members of the development community submitted input during the fee
project suggesting that efficiency and other measures should be considered prior to reviewing processing costs
and fees. After an open house listening session with City executives, a nine member self‐selected Joint Work
Team representing local developers and professionals from the consultant community was formed to work with
City staff. The JWT determined that Site Plan Review, City departmental roles in development review procedures
and overall customer service were the top areas of concern. A large portion of the JWT’s time was dedicated to
reviewing and streamlining the City’s Site Plan Application and Minimum Development Standards application
requirements and processing procedures. The final step for the JWT’s process improvements is to have proposed
changes codified and enacted where necessary. The following staff report addresses the criteria of approval for
the proposed amendments to Springfield Development Code noted above and more specifically detailed in
Attachment 2. Attachment 3 provides a summary of developer input, additional process improvements and
future code recommendations from the 2010 Developer Input Process.
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA FOR SDC AMENDMENTS
SDC 5.6‐115 establishes criteria that must be met in order to approve this request. “In reaching a decision on
these actions, the Planning Commission and the City Council shall adopt findings which demonstrate
conformance to the following: (1) The Metro Plan; (2) Applicable State statutes; and (3) Applicable State‐wide
Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.”
(1) The Metro Plan;”
“The Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan [Metro Plan] is the official long‐range general plan
(public policy document) of metropolitan Lane County and the cities of Eugene and Springfield. Its policies and
land use designations apply only within the area under the jurisdiction of the Plan. The Plan sets forth general
planning policies and land use allocations and serves as the basis for the coordinated development of programs
concerning the use and conservation of physical resources, furtherance of assets, and development or
redevelopment of the metropolitan area.” P. I‐1
Staff Response and Finding:
The Metro Plan is a “general” policy document that must be implemented by more detailed zoning and land use
regulations found in the SDC. Policy statements in the Metro Plan recognize the need to encourage new
development by mitigating conflicts between land uses, protect existing land inventories through efficient land
use, consider the costs of regulations on housing, utilize development and re‐development opportunities to
Attachment 1-1
improve access to all modes of transportation and preserve natural resources (Metro Plan Policies A.3, A.33, B.2,
B.15, C.8 and F.4).
The Springfield Development Code is the City’s DLCD‐ acknowledged implementing ordinance. While not
specifically mentioned in the Metro Plan, Site Plan Review procedures (including MDS) are an important
implementation tool designed to accomplish the various policy goals of the Metro Plan during development
review at the local level. The proposed changes to the SDC are designed to increase understanding, reduce
processing time and control costs, they are limited and procedural in nature and do not change the role or
function of the Site Plan Review process within the basic framework of the SDC or Metro Plan.
Finding: The proposed Site Plan and MDS modifications are procedural amendments of an acknowledged
implementing ordinance and are therefore generally consistent with Metro Plan policy. No specific Metro Plan
policies apply to the proposed code amendments.
“(2) Applicable State statutes,”
Staff Response and Findings:
The proposed code changes are technically post acknowledgement amendments of an implementing land use
regulation adopted in accordance with ORS 197.175 therefore ORS 197.610 relating to amendment procedures
must be addressed. Additionally, because the proposed changes involve Site Plan Review submittal requirements
ORS 227.178 is also addressed below.
POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PROCEDURES‐ ORS 197.610
“197.610 Local government notice of proposed amendment or new regulation; exceptions; report to
commission.
(1) A proposal to amend a local government acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation or to
adopt a new land use regulation shall be forwarded to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and
Development at least 45 days before the first evidentiary hearing on adoption. The proposal forwarded shall
contain the text and any supplemental information that the local government believes is necessary to inform
the director as to the effect of the proposal. The notice shall include the date set for the first evidentiary
hearing. The director shall notify persons who have requested notice that the proposal is pending.
(2) When a local government determines that the goals do not apply to a particular proposed amendment or
new regulation, notice under subsection (1) of this section is not required. In addition, a local government may
submit an amendment or new regulation with less than 45 days’ notice if the local government determines that
there are emergency circumstances requiring expedited review.
Finding: The proposed code changes are amendments to an acknowledged land use regulation therefore the 45
day notice required by ORS 197.610(1) has been provided to the State, a copy of which has been made a part of
the file record for this proposal. No comments have been received from DLCD. If adopted, follow up notice of the
changes shall be forwarded to DLCD in accordance with the above statute.
LIMITED LAND USE PROCEDURES‐ ORS 227.178
“Final action on certain applications required within 120 days; procedure; exceptions; refund of fees. (1) Except
as provided in subsections (3), (5) and (11) of this section, the governing body of a city or its designee shall take
final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change, including resolution of all
appeals under ORS 227.180, within 120 days after the application is deemed complete.
Attachment 1-2
Staff Response and Finding:
Site Plan Review is a limited land use decision pursuant to ORS 227.178. The proposed amendments to Site Plan
Review submittal requirements allow the applicant and Director to reduce or defer initial information
requirements and do not significantly affect public notice, discretionary decision making, the 120 day limit or
appeal procedures performed by the City of Springfield during Site Plan Review.
MDS is a ministerial permitting process subject to clear and objective standards. The proposed Minimum
Development Standards amendments are designed to further clarify the process and standards for review and
approval of permits through administrative procedures.
Finding: The proposed amendments are efficiency measures that will have no negative impact on the existing
public notice, discretionary decision making, 120 day limit or appeal procedures of Site Plan Review and are
therefore consistent with SDC 227.178.
“(3) Applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.”
GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ‐ OAR 660‐015‐0000(1)
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING OAR 660‐015‐0000(2)
GOAL 3: AGRICULTURAL LAND OAR 660‐015‐0000(3)
GOAL 4: FOREST LANDS OAR 660‐015‐0000(4)
GOAL 5: NATURAL RESOURCES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES OAR 660‐015‐0000(5)
GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY OAR 660‐015‐0000(6)
GOAL 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS OAR 660‐015‐0000(7)
GOAL 8: RECREATIONAL NEEDS OAR 660‐015‐0000(8)
GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OAR 660‐015‐0000(9)
GOAL 10: HOUSING OAR 660‐015‐0000(10)
GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OAR 660‐015‐0000(11)
GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION OAR 660‐015‐0000(12)
GOAL 13: ENERGY CONSERVATION OAR 660‐015‐0000(13)
GOAL 14: URBANIZATION OAR 660‐015‐0000(14)
GOAL 15: WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY OAR 660‐015‐000(15)
GOAL 16: ESTUARINE RESOURCES OAR 660‐015‐000(16)
GOAL 17: COASTAL SHORELANDS OAR 660‐015‐000(17)
GOAL 18: BEACHES AND DUNES OAR 660‐015‐000(18)
GOAL 19: OCEAN RESOURCES OAR 660‐015‐000(19)
Staff Response and Finding:
The proposed amendments respond to local input from the development community and are designed to make
existing submittal requirements and review procedures more flexible and efficient. With the exception of general
conformance to Goals 1 and 10, the proposed efficiency measures do not significantly impact implementation of
any Statewide Planning Goals or Administrative Rules.
GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMNT‐
A) Nature of the Amendments: The existing notification procedures of the SDC for Site Plan Review are
unchanged by the proposal; MDS procedures are ministerial in nature and do not require notification.
B) Amendment Process: Public notice of Planning Commission and City Council public hearings for the
proposed code changes were printed in the Register Guard on October 21, 2011 in accordance with SDC
Attachment 1-3
5.2‐115B; 45 day notice of the proposed amendments was provided to DLCD in accordance with ORS
197.610.
GOAL 10: HOUSING‐ The proposed amendments are intended to clarify, reduce and defer certain Site Plan Review
submittal standards. The results are clearer, more objective submittal standards, decreased plan
preparation costs and reduced processing times where site plan review is required for multi‐unit
residential development.
Finding: The proposed amendments of the SDC are efficiency measures that conform to State‐wide Planning Goals
1 and 10; the remainder of the Goals do not apply.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION
Staff has demonstrated that the proposed amendments modifying Site Plan Review and Minimum Development
Standards application submittal standards and review procedures are consistent with the applicable portions of
SDC amendment criteria of approval listed in SDC 5.6‐115: (1) The Metro Plan; (2) Applicable State statutes; and
(3) Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the attached Order and forward the proposed amendments
to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption.
Attachment 1-4
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION FOR ] TYP411‐00004
THE AMENDMENT OF SPRINGFIELD ]
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.15‐100‐]
125, 5.17‐105, 5.17‐120, 4.2‐105 and ]
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
1. On June 2, 2011, the following application was initiated by the City of Springfield: Amendment of the
Springfield Development Code (SDC) Sections 5.15‐100‐125, 5.17‐105, 5.17‐120 and 4.2‐105 to amend the current
Site Plan Review Application Submittal Requirements and Minimum Development Standards Application review
procedures.
TYP411‐00004 – City of Springfield, Applicant.
2. The application was initiated and submitted in accordance with Section 5.4‐105 of the Springfield
Development Code. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 5.2‐115 of the
Springfield Development Code, has been provided.
3. On November 1, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed SDC amendments.
The Development Services Department staff notes and recommendation together with the oral testimony and
written submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing have been considered and are part of the record of
this proceeding.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the proposed SDC amendments are consistent with the criteria of Section 5.6‐115(1‐3)
of the Springfield Development Code. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and
conclusion in Attachment 1, Staff Report and Findings.
ORDER/RECOMMENDATION
It is ORDERED by the Springfield Planning Commission that approval of TYP411‐00004 be GRANTED and a
RECOMMENDATION for approval forwarded to the Springfield City Council.
__________________________________
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attachment 1-5
PROPOSED SDC AMENDMENTS
CASE NUMBER TYP411‐0004.
The following are proposed amendments of the Springfield Development Code (SDC), Sections 5.15‐100‐125,
5.17‐105, 5.17‐120, and 4.2‐105 – Modifying Site Plan and MDS submittal and review procedures.
The proposed code amendments are formatted in the following manner:
¾ Section 5.15‐100‐125: Minimum Development Standards‐ existing and proposed versions, shown in their
entirety due to significant changes to the MDS submittal and processing standards. (See Developer Input
Process Summary for more background information on deferral of information and processing times).
¾ Section 5.17‐105B.2: Site Plan Review Purpose and Applicability‐ proposed enabling language for
consistency with the proposed MDS standards, identified in Track Changes.
¾ Section 5.17‐120: Proposed language for Director discretion to determine minimum submittal standards
on Site Plan Review Applications; an example of new Site Plan Review Submittal Application
Requirements is included. (See Developer Input Process Summary for more background information on
expansion of qualified consultants, deferral of information and Director discretion).
¾ Section 4.2‐105A.4: Infrastructure Standards‐Transportation‐Public Streets: Existing and Proposed
language to clarify and streamline the requirements for submittal of a Traffic Impact Study. (See
Developer Input Process Summary for more background information.)
Attachment 2-1
SECTION 5.15‐100‐125: MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (EXISTING):
5.15-105 Purpose
Minimum Development Standards (MDS) are intended to support economic development by minimizing City review
for minor additions or expansions or changes in use as specified in this Section. MDS shall ensure compliance with
specific appearance; transportation safety and efficiency; and stormwater management standards specified in this
Code and otherwise protect the public health, safety and welfare.
5.15-110 Applicability
A. MDS apply:
1. To developed properties that do not require either Site Plan Review as specified in Section
5.17-105 or a Site Plan Modification as specified in Section 5.17-145; and
2. Within Springfield’s city limits only; and
3. Within commercial, industrial and public land zoning districts only, where there is an
addition or expansion of:
a. Fifty percent or less than the existing building gross floor area and/or impervious
surface area; or
b. Five thousand square feet or less of additional building gross floor area and/or
impervious surface area, whichever is less.
c. Serial expansions shall be limited so that the standards specified in Subsections a.
and b., above are not exceeded in a 3-year period.
EXCEPTION: The installation of items, including but not limited to, internal sidewalks or
bases for benches that are less than 50 square feet in area, or covering existing storage
areas with a permanent structure that is not enclosed, or a fully enclosed temporary
structure shall not initiate MDS review; and
d. A change in use of a building or property.
B. Where there is an addition, expansion or change in use of a building or property containing
multiple uses, the property owner shall bring the entire property into compliance with the standards
specified in Section 5.15-120. However, required improvements shall be installed under the rule of
proportionality, based upon the number of businesses on the property. For example, if there are 3
businesses on the property and there is only 1 change of use, then only 1/3 of the improvements
necessary for the entire property area shall be required to be completed for that use. If the property
contains more than 3 uses, the Director and property owner may enter into an agreement so that as a use
changes or expands, a percentage of the property shall comply with MDS requirements with the intent that
the total property will meet MDS requirements over time. This agreement shall not affect the MDS
timelines specified in Section 5.15-125.
Attachment 2-2
EXCEPTIONS:
1. In cases where the proposed addition, expansion or change in use is an espresso stand,
the Director may waive the MDS requirement on properties containing existing multiple uses.
2. Where the property is currently in compliance with all of the standards specified in Section
5.15-120, MDS shall not apply.
5.15-115 Review
A. MDS is reviewed under the Type I review process, unless the Director finds that the proposed use
should be reviewed under the Type II review process.
B. A copy of any required ODOT Right-of-way Approach Permit application shall be submitted
concurrently with the MDS application, where applicable.
5.15-120 SDC Standards Applicable to MDS Approval
In order to grant MDS approval, the Director shall determine compliance with all applicable standards specified
below. Final occupancy is contingent upon the completion of required site improvements.
A. A 5-foot wide landscaped planter strip, including street trees, with approved irrigation or approved
drought resistant plants as specified in Sections 4.4-100 and 4.2-140 shall be installed between the
sidewalk and parking areas or buildings.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Where there is an unimproved street, a 4-foot wide landscaped planter strip shall be
required to be set back 1 foot from the property line.
2. Where there is insufficient space for the landscaped strip required in Subsection A., above
due to existing buildings, street width, paved parking, changes of elevation or location of utilities
including catch basins, the Director may approve:
a. Decorative fencing located immediately behind the property line. The fencing may
be wrought iron or masonry and shall be subject to the fence height standards of the
applicable zoning district and the vision clearance setbacks of Section 4.2-130; and/or
b. Landscaping equivalent to the amount required in Subsection A., above may be
placed at the property corners or other areas of the property that are visible from the
street.
Attachment 2-3
B. Trash receptacles and outdoor storage areas shall be screened by a structure or enclosure
permanently affixed to the ground as specified in Section 4.4-110.
C. Bicycle parking spaces shall be added to meet the numerical standards for the appropriate use or
upgraded to meet the standards specified in Sections 4.6-140, 4.6-145 and 4.6-155.
EXCEPTION: In cases where the number of bicycle parking spaces cannot be met due to lot/parcel size or
physical constraint, the Director, in consultation with the Transportation Planning Engineer, may reduce the
standard without a Variance if a finding is made that the reduction will not have an adverse impact on
public safety.
D. Parking and circulation areas shall be paved and striped and wheel stops installed as specified in
Sections 4.6-100 and 4.6-120. Required paving and other impervious surfaces on the site shall comply with
on-site stormwater management standards as specified in Section 4.3-110 for required parking, circulation
area and storage area impervious surfaces only.
EXCEPTION: In cases where the number of vehicular parking spaces cannot be met due to lot/parcel size
or physical constraint, the Director, in consultation with the Transportation Planning Engineer, may reduce
the standard without a Minor Variance if a finding is made that the reduction will not have an adverse
impact on public safety.
E. Access to the public right-of-way shall comply with Section 4.2-120.
1. Where the property abuts an improved street, any non-conforming or unsafe driveways, as
determined by the Transportation Manager, shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and
sidewalk.
2. Where the property abuts an unimproved street, any non-conforming or unsafe access
points, as determined by the Transportation Manager, shall be:
a. Removed by the use of fencing, extruded curbs or other method of approved
barricade; and
b. The property owner shall sign an Improvement Agreement guaranteeing future
participation in a Local Improvement District.
3. If an existing driveway or access point is closed, the Director may require a joint use
access agreement with a neighboring property as specified in Section 4.2-120.
F. Concrete sidewalks shall be installed where the site abuts a curb and gutter street as specified in
Section 4.2-135.
G. Streetlights shall be installed as specified in Section 4.2-145.
H. The development shall connect to public utilities as specified in Sections 4.3-105, 4.3-110, 4.3-120,
4.3-125 and 4.3-130 and comply with the Springfield Building Safety Codes, where applicable. Easements
may be required as specified in Subsection 4.3-140. (6238)
Attachment 2-4
5.15-125 Timelines and Conditions
The property owner and/or applicant shall comply with the standards specified in Subsection 5.15-120 within 90
days of the Director’s approval as follows:
A. Submittal of a Final Plot Plan within 30 days of the Director’s approval that states the starting date
of all required improvements demonstrating compliance with all approval conditions required to meet the
standards specified in Subsection 5.15-120. Submittal of a Final Plot Plan shall include the following
additional material, where applicable:
1. The original recorded Improvement Agreement.
2. Any required ODOT Right-of-way Approach Permit.
EXCEPTION: If the ODOT Right-of-Way Approach Permit cannot be obtained by the time line
specified in Subsection A., above, the Director may defer the submittal of this document until the
start of construction date specified in Subsection C., below.
3. A copy of a recorded joint use access/parking agreement.
4. A copy of a recorded private easement or the original public utility easement.
B. The signing of a Development Agreement by the property owner within 45 days of the Director’s
approval of the Final Plot Plan.
C. The construction of the required improvements shall begin within 90 days of the MDS decision. If
this time line cannot be met, the applicant may submit a written request for a time line extension as
specified in Subsection D., below.
D. The Director may allow a one-time extension of the 90-day start of construction time line specified
in Subsection C., above due to situations including but not limited to, required permits from the City or
other agencies, weather conditions, and the unavailability of asphalt or street trees. If the time extension is
allowed, security shall be provided as specified in Section 5.17-150. The time line extension shall not
exceed 90 days.
E. If the time line established in Subsection C., above is not met and the applicant has not requested
an extension as specified in Subsection D., above, then the Director shall declare the application null and
void if the property is occupied and the property owner shall be considered in violation of this Code.
F. If the time line established in Subsection C., above is not met and the applicant has requested an
extension as specified in Subsection D., above and that time line as not been met, then the Director may
require that the improvements be installed as specified in Section 5.17-150. (6238)
Attachment 2-5
SECTION 5.15‐100‐125 MDS STANDARDS (PROPOSED):
5.15‐105 Purpose
Minimum Development Standards (MDS) are intended to support economic development by minimizing City
review for minor additions or expansions, changes in approved use categories, or where land use conflicts have
been mitigated or eliminated as a result of prior development approvals, zoning or regulation. The purpose of
MDS procedures is to provide the minimum level of ministerial review that guarantees compliance with applicable
development standards. MDS approvals shall ensure compliance with specific appearance; transportation safety
and efficiency, and storm water management standards of this Code or other applicable regulations as necessary
to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Minimum Development Standards include the following range of review procedures which shall be applied
subject to applicability and locational standards contained herein. The Director shall determine the appropriate
MDS approach from the following list of MDS review procedures:
1. Building Permit Only (BPO): If no additional site review or MDS procedures are required by this code,
building permit procedures and timelines shall be used to determine compliance with applicable
standards of this code. Applicable zoning overlay applications may be processed concurrently with
building permit applications.
2. Land Use Compatibility Inspection Application (LUCI): This ministerial planning review and/or site
inspection process may be used to demonstrate that: a) the subject site is in substantial compliance with
previous approvals, and b) existing improvements satisfy required standards. LUCI process shall not be
used when other provisions of MDS or Site Plan review apply.
3. MDS Minor Application: This process shall be used for expansions or additions on an existing
development site that do not exceed five thousand square feet.
4. MDS Major Application: This process shall be used for expansions or additions to certain existing
development sites where the expansion or addition does not exceed twenty five thousand square feet of
new impervious area.
All MDS applications may be submitted concurrently with a complete Building Permit application; the applicant
assumes all liability and responsibility if concurrent reviews necessitate the revision of either permit in response
to ministerial review.
5.15‐110 Applicability
A. MDS regulations shall apply as described below:
1. Land Use Compatibility Inspection procedures shall apply where the property is currently in
compliance with all of the standards specified in Section 5.15‐120, and the Director has verified
compliance with the above standards through a ministerial land use compatibility inspection and/or
review of prior land use approvals.
2. MDS Minor provisions shall apply within all commercial, industrial and public land zoning districts,
where there is a) new construction, an addition or expansion on a development site of up to five
thousand square feet, or b) a change in land use classification or building occupancy of a structure or
property. MDS Minor submittals shall comply with the standards of Section 5.15‐120 Subsections A.‐
H.
Attachment 2-6
3. MDS Major provisions shall apply only within Community Commercial, Light or Heavy Industrial and
Public Land and Open Space zoning districts where:
a. The proposed development does not abut a zoning district other than Community
Commercial, Light or Heavy Industrial and Public Land and Open Space, or,
b. The proposed development area is not located within 50 feet of residentially zoned or
designated property (as measured from the property line of the subject site and excluding
public rights of way), and,
ng
A.‐I.
4. MDS provisions shall only apply to developed properties located within Springfield’s land use
quire
B. Where there is an MDS application for addition, expansion or change of use category for a building or
inesses
For example, if there are 3 businesses on the property with equal impacts and there is only one change of
ns
lternatively, if a multi‐tenant space is being upgraded an owner may submit an MDS Major Application
s
DS
5.15‐115 Review
. LUCI and MDS applications are reviewed under the Type I review process, unless the applicant requests or
. Required public improvements and any additional required land use permits or approvals shall be
c. The proposed construction, addition or expansion will not exceed 25,000 square feet of
combined gross floor area and/or substantially reconstructed impervious area (excludi
asphalt overlays), and
d. Where the proposal will comply with the standards of Section 5.15‐120 Subsections
jurisdiction. Development proposals that exceed the size provisions of MDS standards shall re
Site Plan Review as specified in Section 5.17 of this code.
property containing multiple uses, the property owner may bring the entire property into compliance
with the standards specified in Section 5.15‐120 or the property owner may request that required
improvements be reviewed, approved and installed in proportion to the relative impacts of the bus
on the property.
use, then approximately 1/3 of the improvements necessary for the entire development area shall be
required to be completed to serve the proposed use. Improvements mitigating identified safety concer
shall be given priority.
A
where applicable proposing full improvements to the entire development site with a proposed phasing
plan stipulating a proportional percentage of the property shall comply with specified MDS requirement
for each change of use category or expansion with the intent that the total property will meet MDS
requirements over time. Upon approval of an MDS phasing plan, improvements consistent with the
approval shall be reviewed under building permit procedures. This agreement shall not exceed the M
timelines specified in Section 5.15‐125 unless otherwise approved by the Director.
A
the Director finds that the proposed use should provide public notice. The target date for MDS approvals
shall be 30 days from the date of submittal.
B
reviewed in accordance with this code.
Attachment 2-7
5.15‐120 SDC Standards Applicable to MDS Approval
gran compliance with all applicable standards specified
elow. Subject to review and approval by the Director, the applicant may request deferral of plan details
upon
drought resistant plants as specified in Sections 4.4‐100 and 4.2‐140 shall be installed between the
EXCEPT
Where there is an unimproved street, a 4‐foot wide landscaped planter strip shall be required to
be set back 1 foot from the property line.
2. ndscaped strip required in Subsection A., above due to
existing buildings, street width, paved parking, changes of elevation or location of utilities
hind the property line. The fencing may be
wrought iron or masonry and shall be subject to the fence height standards of the
b. at
the property corners or other areas of the property that are visible from the street.
*Property lines,er
treet trees, fencing and planting information may be noted and details deferred to Final MDS Plan
B. ered and connected to the sanitary system in accordance with the
Engineering Design Standards Manual as applicable. All outdoor storage areas shall be screened by a
cations;
owever materials and construction types may be noted and details deferred to Final MDS Plan Approval
C. added to meet the numerical standards for the appropriate use or
upgraded to meet the standards specified in Sections 4.6‐140, 4.6‐145 and 4.6‐155.*
ever, details may
be deferred to Final MDS Plan Approval or Building Permit Submittal.
In order to t MDS approval, the Director shall determine
b
demonstrating compliance with standards of SDC 5.15‐120 until Final MDS Plan Submittal, building permit
submittal or building permit occupancy as noted herein. Final approvals and/or occupancy are contingent
the completion of all required site improvements. Application materials shall be submitted as required on
application submittal checklists and in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the following standards:
A. A 5‐foot wide landscaped planter strip, including street trees, with approved irrigation or approved
sidewalk and parking areas or buildings.*
IONS:
1.
Where there is insufficient space for the la
including catch basins, the Director may approve:
a. Decorative fencing located immediately be
applicable zoning district and the vision clearance setbacks of Section 4.2‐130; and/or
Landscaping equivalent to the amount required in Subsection A., above may be placed
setbacks and dimensioned landscape areas shall be shown on all applications; howev
s
Approval or Building Permit Submittal.
Trash receptacles shall be screened, cov
structure or enclosure permanently affixed to the ground as specified in Section 4.4‐110.*
*Property lines, setbacks, and the location of covers and screens shall be shown on all appli
h
or Building Permit Submittal.
Bicycle parking spaces shall be
*Long term and short term bicycle parking areas may be noted on all applications; how
Attachment 2-8
EXCEPTION: In cases where the number of bicycle parking spaces cannot be met due to lot/parcel size or physical
constraint, the Director, in consultation with the Transportation Planning Engineer, may reduce the standard
without a Variance if a finding is made that the reduction will not have an adverse impact on public safety.
D. Parking and circulation areas shall be provided. Paving, striping and wheel stops shall be installed as
specified in Sections 4.6‐100 and 4.6‐120. Required paving and other impervious surfaces on the site shall
comply with on‐site storm water management standards as specified in Section 4.3‐110. .
EXCEPTION: In cases where the number of vehicular parking spaces cannot be met due to lot/parcel size
or physical constraint, the Director, in consultation with the Transportation Planning Engineer, may
reduce the standard without a Minor Variance if a finding is made that the reduction will not have an
adverse impact on public safety.
E. Access from the proposed development area to the public right‐of‐way shall comply with Section 4.2‐120.
1. Where the proposed development area abuts an improved street, any non‐conforming or unsafe
driveways, as determined by the Transportation Planning Engineer, shall be removed and
replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
2. Where the proposed development area abuts an unimproved street, any non‐conforming or
unsafe access points, as determined by the Transportation Planning Engineer, shall be:
a. Removed by the use of fencing, extruded curbs or other method of approved barricade;
and
b. The property owner shall sign an Improvement Agreement guaranteeing future
participation in a Local Improvement District.
3. If an existing driveway or access point is closed, the Director may approve a joint use access
agreement with a neighboring property as specified in Section 4.2‐120.
F. Concrete sidewalks shall be installed where the proposed development area abuts a curb and gutter
street as specified in Section 4.2‐135.
G. Streetlights required to serve the development area shall be installed as specified in Section 4.2‐145.
H. The development area shall connect to public utilities as specified in Sections 4.3‐105, 4.3‐110, 4.3‐120,
4.3‐125 and 4.3‐130 and comply with the Springfield Building Safety Codes, where applicable. Easements
may be required as specified in Subsection 4.3‐140. (6238)
I. MDS Approval pursuant to Section 5.15‐110, Subsection 4 shall also meet the following submittal standards in
addition to A‐H:
a. The applicant shall prepare an MDS Site Assessment of Existing Conditions meeting the following
standards:
o The plan shall be drawn by a licensed engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land
surveyor.
Attachment 2-9
o The plan shall provide the name, location and dimensions of all existing site features
including, but not limited to significant stands of trees, watercourses shown on the Water
Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their riparian areas, wetlands, flood designations and
slopes.
b. The applicant shall provide an MDS Site Plan meeting the following standards:
o Prepared by a licensed engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor.
o Proposed building envelopes
o Location and dimension of proposed landscape areas including percentage of landscaped
coverage
o Required screening*
o Required street tree location and types
o Planting List*
o Dimensions of the Development Area
o Where applicable, location of existing planned or proposed transit facilities*
o Area of all property to be reserved conveyed of dedicated.
c. The applicant shall submit an Improvement and Public Utilities Plan meeting the following
standards:
o Prepared by a licensed engineer where utility systems are proposed.
o Location and width of proposed easements
o Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed rights of way
o Location of existing of proposed utilities and infrastructure on or adjacent to the subject site
including the following as applicable: storm water management systems, sanitary sewer
mains, power, water mains, gas, telephone and cable connections. .
o Drainage patterns and connection points with supporting documentation to demonstrate
the proposed system will function consistent with the City of Springfield Engineering Design
Standards and Procedures Manual.
* The applicant may request deferral of plan details demonstrating compliance with standards of SDC
5.15‐120 until Final MDS Plan Submittal, building permit submittal or building permit occupancy as noted
herein.
5.15‐125 Timelines and Conditions
The property owner and/or applicant shall comply with the standards specified in Subsection 5.15‐120 within 3
years of the Director’s approval as follows:
A. Submittal of a Final MDS Plan within 90 days of the Director’s approval, including the following additional
material, where applicable:
1. The original recorded copy of any required Improvement Agreement.
2. Where applicable, any required ODOT Right‐of‐way Approach Permit shall be submitted prior to
construction of improvements with ODOT right of way.
3. Where approved, a copy of a recorded joint use access/parking agreement.
Attachment 2-10
4. A copy of a recorded private easement or the original public utility easement.
B. The signing of a Development Agreement by the property owner within 90 days of the Director’s Final
MDS Plan approval and issuance of the Development Agreement. A Building Permit may be issued by the
Building Official only after the Development Agreement has been signed by the applicant. No structure or
site shall be occupied until all improvements are made as specified in this Section, unless otherwise
permitted below.
C. The construction of the required improvements shall begin within 2 years of the signing of the
Development Agreement. If this time line cannot be met, the applicant may submit a written request for a
single one year extension of the 2 year start of construction time line specified above.
D. If the time line established for the start of construction in Subsection C. above is not met and the
applicant has not requested an extension, then the Director shall declare the application null and void.
E. Upon satisfactory completion of site development, as determined by a Final Site Inspection (prior to the
final building inspection), the City shall authorize the provision of public facilities and services and issue a
Certificate of Occupancy or otherwise authorize use of the site.
F. All required improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Final
Building Inspection for the development, unless improvements have been deferred for good cause by the
Director as noted below:
1) A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued prior to complete installation and approval
of improvements, if security is filed with the City.
2) Required security shall equal 110 percent of the cost of the design, materials and labor, as
determined by the Director. Required security may consist of cash, certified check, time certificate
or deposit, or lending agency certification to the City that funds are being held until completion.
3) If the installation of improvements is not completed within the period stipulated by the Director,
or if the improvements have been improperly installed, the security may be used by the City to
complete the installation, or the security may be held by the City and other enforcement powers
employed to prevent final occupancy until the improvements are completed. Upon completion of
the improvements as certified by the Director, any portion of the remaining security deposited
with the City, including any accrued interest, shall be returned.
***
5.17‐105 SITE PLAN‐ Purpose and Applicability
A. The purpose of Site Plan Review is to: Facilitate and enhance the value of development; Regulate
the manner in which land is used and developed; Ensure the provision of public facilities and services;
Maintain the integrity of the City’s watercourses by promoting bank stability, assisting in flood protection
and flow control, protecting riparian functions, minimizing erosion, and preserving water quality and
significant fish and wildlife areas; Provide for connectivity between different uses; Utilize alternative
transportation modes including and walking, bicycling and mass transit facilities; Implement the Metro
Attachment 2-11
Plan, applicable refinement plans and specific area plans and development plans; Minimize adverse effects
on surrounding property owners and the general public through specific approval conditions; and
Otherwise protect the public health and safety.
B. Site Plan Review is required for:
2. Multifamily residential, commercial, public and semi-public, and industrial development or
uses, including construction of impervious surfaces for parking lots and storage areas, including:
a. New development on vacant sites and redevelopment as a result of demolition and
removal of existing buildings and impervious surfaces on a formerly occupied site, except
where a proposed development qualifies as an MDS Application in accordance with SDC
Section 5.15.
b. Additions or expansions that exceed either 50 percent of the existing building
gross floor area or 5,000 square feet or more of new building gross floor area and/or
impervious surface area, except where a proposed development qualifies as an MDS
Application in accordance with SDC Section 5.15.
***
5.17‐120 DIRECTOR DISCRETION TO DETERMINE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
5.17-120 Submittal Requirements
All Site Plan applications shall be prepared by an Oregon licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer or
Surveyor as determined by the Director. - A Site Plan shall contain all the elements deemed necessary by the
Director to demonstrate that provisions of this Code are being fulfilled and may include, but not be limited to, the
following:
(THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE ABOVE ENABLES THE FOLLOWING DIP REVISED SITE PLAN APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL INFORMATION)
Three (3) Copies of the Following Plan Sets for Pre-Submittal –OR-
Three (3) Copies of the Following Plan Sets for Submittal.
All of the following plans must include the scale appropriate to the area involved and sufficient to
show detail of the plan and related data, north arrow, and date of preparation.
All plan sets must be folded to 8½” by 11” and bound by rubber bands.
Please Note:
9 These plans must provide enough information to enable the City to determine that the
proposed development is feasible, but are not necessarily required to be detailed
construction level documents.
9 The City’s Engineering Design Standards Manual, while not land use criteria, may be used,
in whole or in part, by the City Engineer to determine the feasibility of a proposed plan.
Attachment 2-12
9 Nothing herein should be interpreted as implying any requirement in contradiction of
Oregon Statute or Oregon Administrative Regulation.
a. Site Assessment of Existing Conditions
Prepared by an Oregon licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer or Surveyor
Vicinity Map
The name, location and dimensions of all existing site features including buildings, curb cuts,
trees and impervious surface areas, depicting what is remaining and what is being removed. For
remaining structures, also indicate present use and size. Setbacks from property lines and
distance between buildings.
The name, location, dimensions, direction of flow and top of bank of all watercourses and
required riparian setback that are shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map on file in
the Development Services Department
The 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries on the site, as specified in the latest adopted
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amendment or Letter of Map
Revision
The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in SDC 3.3-200 and delineated on the Wellhead
Protection Areas Map on file in the Development Services Department
Physical features including, but not limited to trees 5” in diameter or greater when measured 4 ½
feet above the ground (stands of more than five (5) trees may be shown as a cluster with mix of
trees species noted), riparian areas, wetlands and rock outcroppings
b. Site Plan
Prepared by an Oregon licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer or Surveyor
Proposed buildings: location, dimensions, size (gross floor area applicable to the parking
requirement for the proposed use(s)), setbacks from property lines, and distance between
buildings; measured setbacks shall be prepared by an Oregon licensed Surveyor when minimum
setbacks are shown.
Location and height of existing or proposed fences, walls, outdoor equipment, storage, trash
receptacles, and signs
Location, dimensions, and number of typical, compact and ADA parking spaces including aisles,
wheel bumpers, directional signs, and striping. ADA access routes from public rights-of-way shall
be designated including at grade connections
Dimensions of the development area, as well as area and percentage of the site proposed for
buildings, structures, parking and vehicular areas, sidewalks, patios, and other impervious
surfaces
Observance of solar access requirements as specified in the applicable zoning district
Attachment 2-13
On-site loading areas and vehicular and pedestrian circulation
Access to streets, alleys, and properties to be served, including the location and dimensions of
existing and proposed curb cuts and curb cuts proposed to be closed
Location and number of bicycle parking spaces
Note location of existing and planned Lane Transit District facilities (within ½ mile)
Area and dimensions of all property to be conveyed, dedicated, or reserved for common open
spaces, recreational areas, and other similar public and semi-public uses
Phased Development Plan – where applicable, the Site Plan application must include a phasing
plan indicating any proposed phases for development, including the boundaries and sequencing
of each phase. Phasing must progress in a defined sequence addressing street connectivity
between the various phases and accommodating the logical extension of other required public
improvements, including but not limited to, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, water, and
electricity. The applicant must clearly indicate which phases are proposed for approval under the
current Site Plan application and which are deferred to future review procedures.
c. Existing Improvement and Public Utilities Plan
Prepared by an Oregon licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer or Surveyor
Location and width of all existing easements
Location, widths (of paving and right-of-way), and names of all existing streets, alleys, dedications
or other right-of-ways within or adjacent to the proposed development, including jurisdictional
status other than City. Indicate connection points for roof drainage
Location and type of existing street lighting
Location of existing and required traffic control devices, fire hydrants, power poles, transformers,
neighborhood mailbox units, and similar public facilities
Location, width, and construction material of all existing and proposed sidewalks, sidewalk ramps,
pedestrian access ways, and trails
Location and size of existing utilities on and adjacent to the site including sanitary sewer mains,
stormwater management systems, water mains, power, gas, telephone, and cable TV. Indicate
the proposed connection points. Detail must be proportionate to the complexity of the proposed
project.
Show existing and proposed spot elevations or contours, and direction of drainage patterns.
d. Proposed Grading, Paving, & Utilities Plan
Prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer, except where noted below.
The approximate size and location of stormwater management systems components.
Attachment 2-14
Location, widths (of paving and right-of-way), and names of proposed streets, alleys, dedications
or other right-of-ways within or adjacent to the proposed development.
Location and width of all proposed easements
Location and type of proposed street lighting
Information on existing slopes over 5% shall be prepared by an Oregon licensed surveyor and be
drawn with 1 foot contour intervals lines; land with a slope over 10 percent shall be shown with 5
foot contour interval lines.
e. Landscape Plan
Prepared by an Architect, Landscape Architect, or other Landscape Professional approved by the
Director.
Location and dimensions of landscaping and open space areas to include calculation of
landscape coverage.
Where applicable, screening in accordance with SDC 4.4-110.
Location of existing and proposed street trees.
f. Architectural Plans
Where abutting residentially zoned properties, exterior elevations of all proposed structures over
140 square feet for the development site, including height, shall be shown.
g. On-Site Lighting Plan
Location, orientation, and maximum height of exterior light fixtures, both free standing and
attached.
Type and extent of shielding, including cut-off angles, and type of illumination, wattage, and
luminous area.
Additional Materials That May be Deferred at the discretion of the applicant until Final Site Plan or
Building Permit Submittal:
List in chart form the proposed types of landscape materials (trees, shrubs, ground cover).
Include in the chart genus, species, common name, quantity, size, and spacing.
Attachment 2-15
Where plants are proposed as part of the stormwater management system, a planting plan shall
be provided.
Irrigation Plan showing location of backflow preventers and above ground utilities.
Photometric test report for each light source.
An applicant may submit conceptual floor plans in order to have staff address resolution of
potential nuisance conflicts.
Additional Materials That May be Required by the Director:
IT IS THE APPLICANT’S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE IF ADDITIONAL
STANDARDS/APPLICATIONS APPLY TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT
SHOULD CONSIDER UTILIZING PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS AS DISCUSSED IN SDC 5.1-120.
A developer may be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to identify potential traffic
impacts from proposed development and needed mitigation measures.
Where a multi-family development is proposed, any additional materials to demonstrate
compliance with SDC 3.2-240.
Riparian Area Protection Report for properties located within 150 feet of the top of bank of any
Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) or within 100 feet of the top of bank of any direct
tributaries of WQLW.
A Geotechnical Report prepared by an Engineer must be submitted concurrently if the Soils
Survey indicates the proposed development area has unstable soils and/or a high water table, or
if required by the City Engineer.
Where the development area is within an overlay district, address the additional standards of the
overlay district on plans and narratives.
Where physical aspects of a proposed development, including but not limited to scale, odor,
noise, glare or vibration, will impact less intensive surrounding uses, the Director may request
submittal of conceptual floor plans or other information necessary to determine compliance with
applicable standards.
If five or more trees are proposed to be removed, a Tree Felling Permit as specified in SDC 5.19-
100.
A wetland delineation approved by the Oregon Division of State Lands must be submitted
concurrently where there is a wetland on the property.
The applicant must demonstrate that an application has been submitted for any required federal
or state permit and provide a copy of the application upon request.
Where any grading, filling or excavating is proposed with the development, a Land and Drainage
Alteration permit must be obtained prior to commencement of development.
Where applicable, any Discretionary Use or Variance as specified in SDC 5.9-100 and 5.21-100
Attachment 2-16
An Annexation shall be submitted prior to submission of application, as specified in SDC 5.7-100,
where a development is proposed outside of the city limits but within the City’s urban service area
and can be served by sanitary sewer
***
4.2‐105A.4: Thresholds for Traffic Impact Studies (Existing)
A. General Provisions.
4. A developer may be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to identify potential
traffic impacts from proposed development and needed mitigation measures. The study shall be
included with a development application, in any of the following instances:
a. Where the Public Works Director determines that a TIS is necessary to support a request
for a Variance from the transportation provisions of this Code.
b. When a land use would be estimated to generate 500 or more vehicle trips per day as
specified in the current version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation
Informational Report. The basic requirements for a TIS are specified in the Department of
Public Works Standard Operating Procedures which may be amended by the Public Works
Director as necessary to address potential impacts of specific land development proposals.
c. Where the Public Works Director determines that a TIS is necessary to address known
traffic safety or street capacity concerns associated with the proposed development, the Public
Works Director will determine the nature and extent of the TIS.
d. The Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director, may modify TIS requirements
consistent with TransPlan and the intent of this Code when existing conditions make their strict
application impractical or inconsistent with accepted site planning or transportation planning
principles.
4.2‐105A.4: Thresholds for Traffic Impact Studies (Proposed)
4. An applicant may be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to identify potential
traffic impacts from proposed development and needed mitigation measures. A TIS is
required if any of the following criteria are met:
a. Peak Hour Threshold
If a change in land use or intensification of an existing use generates 100 or more
trips during any peak hour as determined by procedures contained in the most
recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual,
a TIS shall be performed by a registered professional engineer.
b. Average Daily Traffic Threshold
If a change in land use or intensification of an existing use generates 1,000 or
more trips per day as determined by procedures contained in the most recent
edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, a TIS
shall be performed by a registered professional engineer.
Attachment 2-17
c. Variance and Known Issues Threshold
The Public Works Director may determine that a TIS is necessary to support a
request for a Variance from the transportation provisions of this code or where
traffic safety, street capacity, future planned facility, or multimodal concerns may
be associated with the proposed development.
d. The nature and extent of the TIS scope shall be determined by the Transportation
Planning Engineer based upon a trip distribution and assignment prepared by the
Applicant. At a minimum, locations impacted by more than 20 trips during the
identified peak hour shall be included in the trip distribution and assignment.
e. The Director, with the approval of the Public Works Director, may modify TIS
requirements consistent with applicable local and regional transportation system
plans and the intent of this Code when existing conditions make their strict
application impractical or inconsistent with accepted site planning or transportation
planning principles.
***
Attachment 2-18
DEVELOPER INPUT PROCESS SUMMARY
CASE NUMBER TYP411‐0004.
Introduction:
This document is intended to summarize the work performed by the Joint Work Team during the Developer
Input Process of 2011 and inform the Staff Report and Proposed Amendments of Case Number TYP411‐0004.
Further information is included in the referenced appendices contained in the file record.
Background:
The City of Springfield’s Development Services and Public Works Departments have a tradition of periodically
reviewing development requirements and procedures with the development community for efficiency and
continued compliance with applicable rules and regulations. In June of 2010, the City Manager, City Attorney
and Directors of the Public Works and Development Services Departments met with representatives of the local
development community to solicit feedback on the City’s development review process. The City Manager and
Directors of Public Works and Development Services Departments took immediate actions to address specific
concerns identified in that early meeting and directed staff to work with the same representatives to refine and
address additional concerns. Staff created a framework for the Developer Input Process, organized a Joint Work
Team consisting of 9 members from the local development community, refined general comments to specific
focus areas and commenced work in October of 2010.
Time line for the process:
June/July
2010
•Initial Open
House &
Executive
Action
Sept 2010
• Formation of
Developers
Input Process
& JWT
Sept.'10 ‐
May '11
•Course of
Committee
Meetings
June 2011
•Draft Products
and Open
House
Nov 2011
• Planning
Commission
Work Session
and Public
Hearing
Dec 2011
•City Council
Work Sessions,
Public Hearing
and Adoption
Dec 2011
• Implement DIP
Code Changes
and Work
Flows
Jan 2012
•Resume Fee
Study Project
Spring 2012
•Conclusion of
Fee Study and
Efficiency
Changes
2011/2012
Quick Facts:
• Origins of DIP Process‐ DSD/PW/CMO Listening Meeting on June 23, 2010
• Executive Action Response Letter‐July 2, 2010
• JWT Initial Meeting‐ September 30, 2010
• JWT Priorities‐ Site Plan Review Issues, PW Role in Development and Customer Service.
• JWT Meetings‐ 14 Work Meetings, 3 Open Houses, 1 Meeting with Eugene Staff
• Accomplishments‐ Site Plan Review Submittal and Process Improvements, Expanded MDS Procedures,
Revised Traffic Impact Study Requirements, Paper and Process Reductions, Customer Service Training,
Increased Communication Between Departments and Development Community.
• Additional Recommendations: Review of Development Review Structure, Fee Reductions, Review of
Regulations for Non‐Profit Housing Providers,
• Council Goals Met‐
• Next Steps: Adoption of JWT Code Amendments, Resume Cost of Services and Fee Analysis Project,
Comprehensive Planning Involvement, DIP 2014
JWT Members:
Attachment 3-1
Jim Donovan, City of Springfield/DSD
Matt Stouder, City of Springfield/PW
Brian Barnett, City of Springfield/PW
Dave Puent, City of Springfield/DSD (Retired prior to end of process)
Michael Liebler, City of Springfield/PW
Joe Leahy, Emerald Law/CAO
Monica Anderson, Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers
Craig Horrell, Hayden Enterprises
Shaun Hyland, John Hyland Construction Inc.
Mike Evans, Land Planning Consultants
Eric Hall, Eric Hall Architects
Carole Knapel, KPFF Consulting Engineers
Rick Satre, SchirmerSatre Group
Kristen Karle, St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County, Inc.
Renee Clough, Branch Engineering
Ed McMahon, Lane County Home Builders Association
The JWT voted on and selected three main areas of focus at the Sept. 30, 2010 Open House: Site Plan Review
Process Improvements, Public Works’ Role In Development Review and Customer Service in Development Review.
Site Plan Review Process Improvements
The JWT’s general direction for site plan improvements was premised on two common themes arising from
developer feedback:
1) The amount of site plan application materials and the level of detail that must be provided early in the
review process is a burden for smaller or less complicated projects and needs to be revised or deferred,
and
2) The one size fits all approach to requiring Site Plan Review is overkill for smaller or less complicated
reviews and warrants a discussion of where it should be required, reduced or removed.
Preliminary Work: Initial work meetings included review or discussions of the following background materials:
• Site Plan Review SDC Article, Standard Process and Statutory Framework
• Site Plan Application Submittal Requirements, Practical and Legal Necessities
• Site Plan Review In Context with Other City of Springfield Review Procedures
• Site Plan Review in Other Jurisdictions
• Comparative Analysis of Eugene’s Development Review Procedures
Submittal Requirements: The JWT reviewed all submittal requirements shown on current application materials
and identified specific information that could be reduced, eliminated or deferred to final submittals, including
building permits. A modified Site Plan Application Checklist prepared by the JWT is ready for implementation
upon adoption of enabling language in the code. The enabling language gives discretion to the Director to identify
the minimum information necessary for review procedures from the list of codified submittal standards. The
approach is an acknowledgement of the fact that “one size does not always fit all” for site plan reviews. The
proposed code language provides the Director the flexibility to analyze submittal requirements on a case by case
basis and allows the application list of submittals to be changed without need for an ordinance.
Attachment 3-2
Expanded MDS/Reduced Site Plan Review: The Minimum Development Standards (MDS) of Springfield
Development Code, Section 5.15, are a Site Plan Review “light” approach that was originally adopted by Council to
streamline and encourage re‐development and improvement of properties located along Main Street. The existing
MDS process provides flexible timelines and a proportionality clause that allows required public and private
improvements to be installed using simple proportionality. During the January 13, 2011 meeting of the JWT, the
group considered a staff proposal to expand MDS provisions to include small to mid‐range development in the
City of Springfield. With input from the JWT, the proposal has evolved to the current code change proposal and
includes significant expansions of the existing MDS procedures:
• Increasing the size cap on MDS review for Community Commercial, Industrial and Public Land and Open
Space zoning districts from 5,000 to 25,000 square feet for new structures and paving would allow more
mid‐sized development proposals on property in established areas to be eligible for ministerial review ;
• Inclusion of code provisions that allows flexibility for submittal of detailed information. Deferring some
submittals from initial application to final reviews, building permit or occupancy inspection will delay
certain design costs until after initial land use approvals are issued and in hand; and
• Inclusion of a code provision extending timelines for construction of required improvements for mid‐sized
developments and allowing some significant improvements to be made under the rule of simple
proportionality as described in the MDS standards. This would provide more flexibility for the financing
and construction of required improvements.
• MDS Applications can be submitted concurrently with Building Permit Applications, similar to standards
review procedures used in other jurisdictions.
• Target timelines for MDS Major Applications is approximately 30 days.
• Maps have been created showing the distribution of sites eligible for expanded MDS procedures.
Net Affects: Expanding MDS provisions as described above is an incremental yet significant change that will
immediately reduce the number of sites required to go through full Site Plan Review procedures. Fees will remain
unchanged until the off sets of reduction and deferral are reviewed and the pending fee analysis is completed.
Additional Site Plan Review Considerations: Two other legitimate questions of Site Plan Review were also raised
for consideration in the course of JWT meetings: 1) Can Site Plan Review provide an exemption or pre‐approval
for non‐profit housing and allow compliance with multi‐unit design standards at the building permit level? And,
2) Can Site Plan Review be further reduced or eliminated in lieu of overlay districts similar to the Eugene method?
The ability to reduce or eliminate site plan review procedures on a City wide basis under the Developer Input
Process was limited by:
• Required review for consistency with Metro Plan policies and legislative decision making procedures
including significant public, Planning Commission and City Council involvement.
• The need for comprehensive review for compliance with other major planning project currently under
way in the City such as the 2030 Metro Plan Update and the Downtown and Glenwood Refinement Plans.
• Inconsistency with Funding limitations, Fee Analysis Timelines and JWT priorities.
In short, elimination of Site Plan Review and implementation of individual overlay districts or the provision of City‐
wide exemptions for individual groups warrants an examination of the structure and ability of the Springfield
Development Code to implement numerous Metro Plan policies. Consensus was that the discussion was beyond
the scope of this committee and was better had in the context of larger policy initiatives. (See Eugene Process
Memo, attached; Conclusion and Recommendations.)
Attachment 3-3
Additional Efficiency Improvements: The following efficiency and cost saving measures were also identified and
implemented administratively during JWT meetings:
• Reducing Title Reports – The revised site plan submittal checklist includes more flexible guidelines for site
deed and title submittal requirements where ownership has not recently changed. Proposed changes will
reduce the number and/or frequency of title reports required, thereby reducing costs to applicants and
consultants.
• Reducing Paper Plan Production – Current site plan pre‐submittal and review procedures require an
applicant to submit approximately 25 paper copies of site plans and documents for the creation of legal
records and review procedures. The number of plans currently required is a significant cost to produce.
Staff has implemented a proposal that reduces the number of paper copies by approximately 80%,
utilizing electronic submittal technologies. Applicant submittals are reduced to 3‐5 paper copies and
circulated to site plan review partners using email and Laserfiche technology. The implementation of this
of this JWT idea is reducing preparation costs for the applicant and saving handling time and storage costs
for the City while preserving communication and review opportunities for internal and external
development review partners.
• Increasing Preparer’s List ‐ The list of qualified professionals that are allowed to stamp and/or submit site
plans for review has been increased to reflect current levels of expertise across the development
community. The proposed changes would allow principal consultants more discretion to determine the
number of design professionals necessary to prepare less complicated development proposals.
Public Works Role In Development Review
Public Works Department staff co‐authored and designed the Developer Input Process and PW management team
has embraced the results of the JWT. The findings and conclusions of this self examination and participative
process review include:
• demonstrated willingness to review past procedures and regulations
• professional adherence to statutory requirements and City Council Goals
• new vision from restructured leadership in the Engineering and Transportation Division
• flexibility to defer storm water, transportation and grading submittal requirements
• flexibility to re‐structure TIS submittal requirements
• increased availability of staff and supervisors involved in development review
• empowerment of engineers to make decisions and implement change
TIS: One specific example of current staff’s responsiveness is the revised Traffic Impact Study triggers outlined in
proposed revisions to SDC Section 4.2‐105. The JWT raised concerns about the triggers and content of required
traffic studies during review of submittal information; Transportation staff responded with a proposal that
clarifies PM Peak and Average Daily Trip (ADT) triggers, provides a two step process of scoping and review for
analysis of specific variance requests, and allows the Director(s) the flexibility to limit and focus TIS analysis to
known issues in the transportation system.
As the JWT’s work has progressed, the reciprocal education process has also improved communication and
understanding of shared roles, responsibilities and expectations for efficiencies, effectiveness and customer
service. Some long‐held misconceptions and misunderstandings have been dispelled on both sides of the process
and replaced with a greater appreciation of both the development and review processes.
Attachment 3-4
Customer Service in Development Review
Development Services and Public Works Department staff have used the JWT experience to improve the following
recent advancements in customer service:
• The PW Department’s recent re‐structuring and advancement of new leadership brings a new customer
service ethic to development review procedures.
• The Public Works and Development Services Departments have physically re‐structured to create a
development review office environment that fosters better communication and quicker processing times.
• A revised Customer Service Training has been created by the Public Works and Development Services
Departments that addresses general principles and focuses on the development review process. The
training is being prepared for City‐wide use.
• New city wide and development review customer service principles are in general circulation and being
used by supervisory staff to improve all aspects of the development experience.
• Customer Service is a primary tenet of the current DSD/PW re‐organization discussion.
The following customer service principles are visible throughout the development review offices:
City of Springfield Development Services Principles
• Encourage growth and development that improves community livability in a sensible, well planned manner.
• We work to get to “yes” within our regulatory framework.
• Risk is permitted and encouraged. The preference is to take risks in an effort to get to “yes” rather than
saying “No”.
• It is necessary to say “no” at times since everything will not fit into our regulatory framework. How we say
“no” is a critical customer service skill.
• Employees are empowered to make decisions and be creative problem solvers at the lowest levels of the
organization.
• We work as a team and speak with one voice. Internal differences are respected and considered healthy as
long as they are addressed directly and resolved in a timely manner.
• Decisions are made in a timely and confident manner.
***
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
SERVICE PRINCIPLES
1. We’re glad you are here!
2. We appreciate your needs.
3. We ask that you respect our responsibilities.
4. We are your partners not your opponents.
5. We will work together to accomplish our common goals!
***
Attachment 3-5
Conclusion and Recommendations
At the final Developer Input Process Open House Meeting, the Joint Work Team acknowledged that they had
accomplished the task that was put before them by the City and Stakeholders. The group also noted other
opportunities identified during the process that they or similar stakeholder groups need to be involved to create
process efficiencies, not just more processes. Examples of existing or suggested projects cited by the group
included:
• 2030 Plan Adoption, Phase II Implementation Actions
• Legislative Review and Update of the Springfield Development Code
• Review of Residential Multi‐Unit Design Standards and Exemptions
• Code Changes For Executive or Expedited Approvals and Rapid Development
• Periodic Review of SDC Fees
The JWT recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council adopt the recommended code changes and
further consider the role of the Developer Input Process and JWT in making future decisions regarding the
development review process in the City of Springfield.
Attachment 3-6