Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 07 15 WS City of Springfield Work Session Regular Meeting Minutes approved by the Springfield Planning Commission: September 2, 2014 MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD TUESDAY, July 15, 2014 The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in a work session in the Jesse Main Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, July 15, 2014 at 6:15 p.m., with Commissioner James presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Chair James, Vice Chair Nelson, Commissioners Kirschenmann, Moe, Vohs, Salladay and Bean. Also present were, Current Development Manager Greg Mott, Senior Planner Mark Metzger, City Attorney Lauren King, Joe Leahy and Management Support Specialist Brenda Jones and members of the staff. ABSENT None WORK SESSION 1. Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Update STAFF REPORT: Jim Donovan introduced Building and Land Development Manager Matthew Ruettgers, who assisted with the project. Mr. Donovan offered the staff report. He noted the previous developer input process was completed in early 2013, after which the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to appoint the DAC to commence work on the top three priorities. The DAC made significant progress towards its top priority of streamlining Ministerial Development Standards (MDS) and Site Plan Review procedures, with a focus on ministerial site plan review standards. The purpose of the work session was to review the status of work products, timelines and necessary resources for completion of top DAC priorities. He directed Commissioners to the Agenda Item Summary and attachments included in the agenda packet. He reviewed the DAC Mission Statement as adopted by the City Council and reviewed the tables in Attachment 1 and 2, and provided an overview of Attachment 3, Standards Applicable to Ministerial Site Plan Review & Application Submittal. He noted it was challenging to convert stormwater improvements, access and circulation improvements, legal issues with exactions for street improvements, and easements and continuation of utilities to ministerial formulas, to create the implementation structure and the applications. Staff would advise the City Council that additional time and resources to complete required engineering work would be required, to be enable the City to move forward with opportunities including the Glenwood priorities, major projects in the City, major redevelopments of the existing hospitals, and possible hotel and conference center developments. He directed Planning Commissioners to Attachment 4, Ministerial Site Plan Review, which listed the work to be completed. Mr. Donovan introduced Renee Clough, DAC Chair. Ms. Clough reported the DAC had worked on conceptualizing and confirming that it was possible to have ministerial site plan review. She said the benefit of the ministerial option would allow local people to process site plans more quickly than with discretionary site plan review. Companies from outside of the area considering developing student housing or call centers looked for locations where the review process would be economical and fast, and the ministerial process provided those efficiencies. The DAC was fine tuning how the ministerial process would work with existing options. The DAC was considering recommending contracting with outside resources to help with some of the transportation, sewer and stormwater design standards. She noted several DAC members had become inactive or left the committee, and there was a need to replace two or three members. Mr. James said two DAC members provided testimony at the July 7, 2014 City Council meeting in support of the need for additional resources to get the ministerial option work completed. In response to Ms. Bean, Ms. Clough said the DAC was pleased with its progress that had been well thought out, well planned and thorough. City of Springfield Planning Commission Work Session Minutes July 15, 2014 Page 2 Mr. James iterated that when the MDS was in place, streamlining the process for moving projects through the permitting process would be good for developers and for the City. In response to Mr. Kirschenmann, Mr. James said the City Council had been receptive to the testimony from the DAC members. He noted he and City Councilor Sean VanGordon had served on the DAC. Responding to Ms. Salladay, Ms. Clough said the DAC had discussed ministerial site review fees, but had not reached a decision. Mr. Donovan stated a reasonable person should be able to look at the ministerial standards and a plan, and be able to determine whether or not the standards had been met. He said staff would be back with full draft language prior to the adoption process, as well as a request to seat new DAC members. 2. Appeal of Director’s Decision for Laurelwood Subdivision TYP314-00005 STAFF REPORT: Mark Metzger offered the staff report. He said staff would provide background that would help Commissioners understand various elements of the appeal. The purpose was not to argue the staff position in advance of the public hearing. The briefing would cover the steps followed in processing the subdivision application and the criteria which were applied in evaluating the proposal. The staff presentation was intended to provide context and background. The context would focus on geographic and topographic issues. He reviewed the Vicinity Map and the Conceptual Local Street Map, and topographical features of the proposed development. The following documents provide information for consideration during the public hearing: • Attachment 1: Staff report responding to appeal issues raised by the appellant. • Attachment 2: Original Staff Report and Decision which has been appealed. The report contains the criteria for approval which were applied to the subdivision application and the conditions of approval applied to bring it into conformance with City planning and engineering standards. • Attachment 3: The appeal application and supporting materials submitted by Ms. Yarnall. • Attachment 4: The document submitted by Ms. Parmenter as an intervener in support of the appeal. • Attachment 5: A compilation of all comments received during the comment period for the subdivision. • Attachment 6: The Laurelwood Subdivision application and supporting exhibits. Mr. Metzger explained the subdivision plan review process was a Type II process, which required public notice and was reviewed by staff. Staff made a decision and there was an opportunity for appeal of the decision. The subdivision plan review process included a development issues meeting with Hayden Homes’ representatives months before the application was submitted to the City. At the pre-submittal meeting, Hayden Homes presented the best draft of the subdivision plan. Staff reviewed the plan and offered comments and corrections, after which Hayden Homes resubmitted the revised plan as a final application. The Development Review Committee graded the final application and staff collected input from different agencies. Staff then prepared a staff report which consisted of comments from various disciplines and agencies, in response to the approval subdivision approval criteria. Staff issued a decision which included a notice that the applicant could appeal the decision within a defined period of time. The decision was mailed to everyone who submitted comments. After the tentative plan was approved in concept, the technical staff in transportation and civil engineering prepared a public improvement plan that included many details and any minor adjustments to the subdivision plan, but did not change the overall layout of the subdivision. Mr. Metzger called for questions from Commissioners. Mr. Vohs said a minor issue was the pathway. He asked if the City considered the pathway to be vital, given that it had been fenced off. Mr. Metzger said transportation staff felt the pathway was vital, although it had not been used much since the 1980’s. He invited Public Works staff Mike Liebler and Clayton McEachern to offer comment. Mr. Liebler, City of Springfield Transportation Planning Engineer, said the current path was a pre-existing path. As part of site plan review, he had visited the site. The path was in good condition and, as shown on the maps, there were planned connections at the south end of 55th Place from the cul de sacs which connected into the existing path. There were other pathways to the north through the easement between Main Street and the slope. He acknowledged there may be grade issues in the future. In the future, the corridor could be extended south into the Jasper Natron area. There were limited allowed uses in the Bonneville Power Administration City of Springfield Planning Commission Work Session Minutes July 15, 2014 Page 3 (BPA) easement, but the value of the easement was that it provided a natural area for the neighbors to use. It served as a pedestrian and bicycle connection throughout the neighborhood. Mr. Metzger stated the BPA easement provided opportunities for the future. The lack of shade trees and overhead wires did not provide a park-like setting. However, in the past, Eugene has taken a similar BPA alignment and developed hiking trails in southeast Eugene. Mr. McEachern said the Booth Kelly Road was currently a dirt road. The City planned to develop that road into a major pedestrian/bicycle corridor through the City. Lauren King suggested raising additional questions at the public hearing immediately following the work session. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:55.p.m. LCOG Minutes Recorder – Linda Henry ______________________ Greg James Planning Commission Chair Attest: ____________________ Brenda Jones Planning Secretary