Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022 01 04 Minutes of the Joint Lane County_ Springfield_W PPApproved 2/23/22 Minutes of the Joint Lane County and City of Springfield Planning Commission Work Session and Joint Public Hearing Tuesday January 4, 2022 Roll Call - City of Springfield Planning Commissioners: Chair Sophie McGinley, Vice-Chair Andy Landen, Grace Bergen, Michael Koivula, Kuri Gill, Matt Salazar, and Andrew Buck Absent: None Roll Call - Lane County Planning Commissioners: Chair Stephen Dignam, Vice-Chair Betsy Shultz, Charlie Kaylor, Bruce Hadley, Christian Wihtol, Eliza Kashinsky, Steven Snider, Kathy Smith Absent: Jonnie Peacock Pledge of Allegiance Staff: Tom Boyatt, Community Development Director; Sandy Belson, Interim Planning Manager; Brenda Jones, Planning Commission Assistant; Kristina Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney; Mark Rust, Interim Planning Supervisor, Katie Carroll Planner Additional Members of the Project: Elizabeth Decker, consultant Jet Planning, Arva Hussain PSU Planning fellow Item 1: Development Code Update Project Mark Rust, Senior Planner Kristina Kraaz, Asst. City Attorney read a brief statement regarding conflicts of interest. Springfield Planning Commission Potential Conflicts of Interest: • McGinley - Does not own any property therefore has no potential conflict of interest. • Landen - Potential conflict of interest because he owns property in Springfield. • Koivula - Potential conflict of interest because he owns property in Springfield. • Gill - Potential conflict of interest because she owns property in Springfield. • Bergen - Potential conflict of interest because she owns property in Springfield and is a practicing Real Estate Agent in Springfield as well. • Salazar - Has two potential conflicts of interest: 1) that he owns residential property in Springfield, and 2) works for a real estate developer that operates in Springfield. Approved 2/23/22 • Buck - Has two potential conflicts of interest: 1) owns property in Springfield and, 2) professionally sells insurance for residential property owners in Springfield. Lane County Planning Commission Potential Conflicts of Interest • Betsy Shultz – Owns an investment property in Springfield, recently started a development company that may operate in Springfield. • No other potential conflicts of interest. Mark Rust Senior Planner presented the Development Code Update project staff report to both the Planning Commissions (PC). The presentation was a high-level overview of the Development Code Update Project to bring the Lane County planning commission up to speed with the project prior to the public hearing process. At this meeting the staff presented project objectives, project schedule and draft code language to both the PC members. The staff report presented to the PC for this meeting had 9 attachments that contained Phase I and Phase II public hearing draft code sections, findings, public outreach summary and other supporting documents for the project. Mark Rust presented with a brief recap of – What the code update is changing v/s what it is not changing, significant changes to the code sections. Elizabeth Decker from Jet Planning presented to the PC members about basics of Middle Housing, HB 2001 legislation and key Middle Housing Code Updates. Senior Planner Mark Rust further presented to the commission brief discussion about lot size, historic district, and Phase II - Employment lands. Public Testimony Instructions for the public testimony – 3 min. for each person who chooses to testify. 8 people testified at this public hearing with their recommendations, concerns and clarifying questions for the project. The following people testified in this public hearing session 1. Matt Mathews 2. Cara Kinsey 3. Isaac Rhodes Day 4. Chris Hainley 5. Ryan Thomas 6. Dylan Lamar 7. Tim Olguin 8. Dr. Stephanie Clark Approved 2/23/22 Staff presented their discussions, responses, and clarifications for the public testimonials at this meeting. At this meeting the joint Planning Commissions closed the public hearing and left the record open until 10 a.m. on 1/18/22. The motion to close the public hearing but keep the public record open was passed unanimously. At the next regular session staff will present information addressing the public testimony received at the public hearing and during the open record period on the proposed code changes. Adjourned 9:00 pm Springfield Development Code Update Project Joint Planning Commission Work Session January 4, 2022 Purpose •The purpose of the Development Code Update project is to change the Springfield Development Code to support efficient, timely, and clear development review. The updated Development Code will support Springfield’s economic development priorities and will honor Springfield’s home town feel now and in the future. 2 Objectives 1.Quick review of development applications 2.Easy to understand, clear, and user-friendly format 3.Straight forward processing path 4.Supports/furthers economic development 5.Beautiful city, encourage investment, and improve image 6.Complies with mandatory regulatory requirements 7.Implement the City’s adopted policies 3 WE ARE HERE 4 UGB vs.CITY LIMITS MDR and HDR zoned properties impacted by single unit dwellings no longer being allowed 5 6 7 What the code is doing vs. what the code is not doing What is changing as part of the project? •Permitted Uses –Most residential housing types (duplex, triplex, fourplex, cottage cluster housing, and townhomes) would be allowed in all residential zones, however development of new single- unit homes would not be allowed in medium or high-density zones (existing MDR and HDR, proposed R-2 and R-3). •Additionally, employment land uses will be revised to focus on broad categories of uses rather than detailed lists of specific uses. Bed & Breakfast, Boarding House Facilities will be replaced with Short Term Rental to include various categories of residential rental facilities. •Development Standards –Height limits, setbacks, lot coverage, parking, etc. •Lot size –Proposed to be reduced to achieve planned density. •Remove Solar Setback Standards. 8 What the code is doing vs. what the code is not doing cont. What’s Not Changing as part of the project •Application/Permit fees •System Development Charges (SDCs) •Building Code requirements •Fire Code requirements •Infrastructure Improvement standards •Storm water requirements; and •Wetland and Floodplain standards. 9 Phase 1 -Housing •Housing Code Audit •Clear and objective standards for all housing •Middle Housing •Expedited Land Divisions for Middle Housing •Standards for certain uses (4.7.300-400) •Short term rentals (replaces bed and breakfasts and boarding houses) •Definitions 10 Phase 2 –Employment Lands •Commercial and Industrial Districts •Use Categories •Process (for all land use districts and processes) •Site Plan Review •Minimum Development Standards •Development Standards (parking, landscaping, utilities, lighting, ) 11 Process Flowcharts 12