HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023 08 01 Minutes Joint PC Springfield & Lane County
1
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
Tuesday, August 1st, 2023
In person at the Goodpasture Room, Lane County, &
Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall & via Zoom
6:00 pm Joint Work Session
Springfield Chair Salazar started the Joint Work Session of the Springfield & Lane County Planning
Commissions and each chairperson called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm.
Planning Commissioners present:
City of Springfield: Chair Salazar, Vice Chair Rhoads-Dey, Buck, Thompson, Schmunk, Stout
Absent Commissioners: None
City of Springfield Staff: Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Mark Rust; Current Planning
Manager; Haley Campbell, Senior Planner; Drew Larson, Planner; Clayton McEachern, Engineer; Kristina
Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney; Sarah Weaver, Community Development Administrative Assistant
Lane County: Chair Kashinsky, Vice Chair Choate, Wihtol, Hadley, Snider, Dignam, Peacock, Kaylor, Lay
Absent: None
Lane County Staff: Amber Bell, Planning Director; Rachel Serslev, Senior Planner; Louranah Janeski,
Stormwater Permitting Specialist; Mauria Pappagallo, Environmental Engineering Supervisor; and Zach
Peterson, Stormwater Coordinator
Chair Salazar: called for a statement of actual or potential conflict of interest from the Springfield
Planning Commissioners:
Chair Salazar: stated he had two potential conflicts of interest since he is a homeowner in Springfield and
he works for Homes for Good which is a real estate developer in the area.
Commissioner Buck: stated that he had two potential conflicts of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield and is an insurance agent with business in the area.
Commissioner Schmunk: stated he has a potential conflict of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield.
2
Chair Kashinsky called for a statement of actual or potential conflict of interest from the Lane County
Planning Commissioners:
Kashinsky – None
Choate: has a potential conflict of interest since he works for Jerry’s Home Improvement Store, which has
a store in Springfield.
Wihtol – None
Hadley – None
Snider – None
Dignam – None
Peacock – None
Kaylor – None
Lay – None
WORK SESSION ITEMS
1) Stormwater Post Construction Requirements
Haley Campbell / Springfield Staff: gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Stormwater Post Construction
Requirements, which proposes changes to the Springfield Development Code Sections 4.3.110
Stormwater Management, i.e., various sections that encourage the use of stormwater facilities and
Section 6.1.100 Definitions. Staff is looking for the Commission to recommend to Council that they adopt
the Stormwater Post Construction Requirements during its deliberations at the September 5th Joint
Commission Meeting. This hearing will be continued due to SUB’s requirement for protection of well
heads that triggered the need for a Ballot Measure 56 Notice which must be sent to the property owners
within 100 feet of the well head.
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
Commissioner Thompson: stated he has a potential conflict of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield.
Commissioner Rhoads-Dey: stated he had two potential conflicts of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield and he works as a realtor in the area.
Commissioner Stout: stated he has a potential conflict of interest since he is a homeowner in Springfield.
3
Commissioner Dignam: What is this requirement going to cost those who want to build?
Haley Campbell / Staff: This is a State mandated program and we are obligated to conform to the new
state rules.
With regard to the additional cost to developers, she would investigate the matter and get back to the
Commissioners.
Kristina Kraaz / Staff: Eugene has already adopted the code and by adopting it, we will conform with
regional requirements that will bring costs down.
Clayton McEachern / Staff: Most developers building currently are adopting plans that exceed the
proposed code change that Springfield requires. If the developer’s building meets certain criteria, which
falls in line with the proposed code changes, they receive a reduction in the System Development Charges
and possibly a reduction in their monthly stormwater fees. Most developers are intentionally meeting the
criteria anyway to receive the reduction in long term costs.
Commissioner Stout: Will the changes impact the well heads? If yes, how will they be impacted.
Haley Campbell / Staff: The main reason we extended the public hearing for this item is due to the
Springfield Utility Board (SUB) informing the City about a code change to protect SUB well heads that that
triggers a Ballot Measure 56 to give notice to residents and property owners within 100 feet of the well
heads to prevent infiltration.
Commissioner Rhoads-Dey: Staff mentioned that the code changes might lower the System Development
Charges. How would this be calculated?
Clayton McEachern / Staff: Staff is still in the process of making their calculations. If one could infiltrate
enough water to reduce their percentage impervious to the next lower category that reduces their
stormwater bill.
2) Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities’ Parking Code Amendments
Drew Larson / Staff: gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities’
Parking Code Amendments, which is a State mandate in the Oregon Administrative Rules requiring
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
4
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
parking reforms in metro areas, including Eugene and Springfield. Staff is looking for the Commission to
recommend to Council that they adopt the parking code amendments.
Commissioner Kaylor: Is there any consideration for ADA parking?
Drew Larson / Staff: Currently ADA parking is required when parking is provided and will continue to be
required when a developer provides off-street parking. However, if no parking spaces are provided, then
no ADA parking will be required.
Kristina Kraaz/ Staff: Local governments are not allowed to require more ADA parking than the State’s
mandated table requires and if there are no parking spaces required then local government is not allowed
to require more. It was the Springfield Council that chose the no-parking spaces rule from the three
options that were given to municipalities from the State.
Commissioner Hadley: With regard to the electrical infrastructure for EV charging, where could one find
the technical specifications for those?
Drew Larson / Staff: It is in the Oregon revised Statute and it is also referenced in the code.
Commissioner Lay: How is the $1,500 in lieu amount arrived at, where would money be deposited, and
what would it be used for?
Drew Larson / Staff: The State established this amount in Oregon Administrative Rules. The funds will be
administered by Springfield/ Lane County and are earmarked for future solar and wind energy
development projects.
Kristina Kraaz / Staff: The DLCD staff arrived at that amount and we were not given clear reasons as to
why this amount was chosen.
Sandy Belson / Staff: It is an option for the Commission to recommend to Council that they require one
ADA parking spot per site. We are unable to require more. It is left to the developers to provide parking
spaces or not. If they do provide parking spaces, they would have to abide by the building code as to how
many ADA parking spaces be included.
Commissioner Schmunk: Will the requirement of EV charging stations be a barrier in developing housing?
5
Tuesday, July 18th, 2023
In person at the Goodpasture Room, Lane County, &
Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall & via Zoom
7:00 pm Joint Public Hearing
Springfield Chair Salazar started the Joint Regular Session of the Springfield & Lane County Planning
Commissions and each chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:16 pm.
Planning Commissioners present:
City of Springfield: Chair Salazar, Vice Chair Rhoads-Dey, Buck, Thompson, Schmunk, Stout
Absent Commissioners: None
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
Drew Larson / Staff: It will be an added expense, but not prohibitive. Since the State of Oregon has
mandated no gas vehicles by 2035, the infrastructure will need to be in place for EV charging.
Commissioner Buck: If there are no parking spaces provided, what are the alternative transportation
options for the community?
Kristina Kraaz / Staff: Downtown already has limited parking and there are bike paths and transit that
connects to that area. We raised this issue with the State and they have not given us an answer yet. A
future phase of the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities’ Rules will hopefully address the limited
parking issue. The City is aware of this issue and is working on resolving it.
3) Miscellaneous Code Amendments
Mark Rust / Staff: gave a PowerPoint presentation on Minor Code Amendments. Sixty to seventy percent
of the Springfield Development Code was updated in 2022 and staff were aware that there would be
minor corrections needed. Most of the changes are to correct errors and provide clarification on code
language. Mostly, these changes correct missed internal code citations and references; typographical
errors; and update naming conventions that were previously missed. We would be looking for the
Planning Commission to recommend to Council that they adopt these changes.
Adjourned: by the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Chairs – 7:15 pm.
6
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
City of Springfield Staff: Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Mark Rust; Current Planning
Manager; Haley Campbell, Senior Planner; Drew Larson, Planner; Clayton McEachern, Engineer; Kristina
Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney; Sarah Weaver, Community Development Administrative Assistant
Lane County: Chair Kashinsky, Vice Chair Choate, Wihtol, Hadley, Snider, Dignam, Peacock, Kaylor, Lay
Absent: None
Lane County Staff: Amber Bell, Planning Director; Rachel Serslev, Senior Planner; Louranah Janeski,
Stormwater permitting specialist; Mauria Pappagallo, Environmental Engineering Supervisor; and Zach
Peterson, Stormwater Coordinator
1 – Welcome / Introduction to Topic
Chair Salazar welcomed the Commissioners to the Joint Public Hearing and outlined the role of the
Planning Commission and its Commissioners.
2 – Open the hearing – Item # 1
Chair Salazar: Planning Commissioners’ roll call for potential conflict of interest:
Chair Salazar: stated he had two potential conflicts of interest since he is a homeowner in Springfield and
he works for Homes for Good, which is a real estate developer in the area.
Commissioner Buck: stated that he had two potential conflicts of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield is an insurance agent with business in the area.
Commissioner Schmunk: stated he has a potential conflict of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield.
Commissioner Thompson: stated he has a potential conflict of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield.
Vice Chair Rhoads-Dey: stated he had two potential conflicts of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield and he works as a realtor in the area.
Commissioner Stout: stated he has a potential conflict of interest since he is a homeowner in Springfield.
Chair Kashinsky called for a statement of actual or potential conflict of interest from the Lane County
Planning Commissioners:
7
Springfield Chair Salazar: stated the applicable criteria for the Public Hearing Item are: Springfield
Development Code – Section 5.6.115 and 5.14.135 and the Statewide Planning Goals/ Oregon
Administrative Rules.
Lane County Chair Kashinsky: stated the applicable criteria for the Public Hearing Item are: Lane Code –
Chapters 10.600-15 (Applicable Land Use Regulations), 12.100.050 (Method of Adoption and
Amendment) and the Statewide Planning Goals/ Oregon Administrative Rules.
Haley Campbell / Springfield Staff: gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Stormwater Post Construction
Requirements, which proposes changes to the Springfield Development Code Sections 4.3.110
Stormwater Management, i.e., various sections that encourage the use of stormwater facilities and
Section 6.1.100 Definitions. Staff is looking for the Commission to recommend to Council that they adopt
the Stormwater Post Construction Requirements during its deliberations at the September 5th Joint
Commission Meeting. This hearing will be continued due to SUB’s requirement for protection of well
heads that triggered the need for a Ballot Measure 56 Notice which must be sent to the property owners
within 100 feet of the well head.
3 – Testimony from interested parties - None
4 – Clarifying questions from Commissioner(s) - None
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
Kashinsky – None
Choate: has a potential conflict of interest since he works for Jerry’s Home Improvement, which have a
store in Springfield.
Wihtol – None
Hadley – None
Snider – None
Dignam – None
Peacock – None
Kaylor – None
Lay – None
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
1)Stormwater Post Construction Requirements
8
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
5 – Close the Hearing
Springfield Chair Salazar: stated that due to Ballot Measure 56 notice being required, the Joint Public
Hearing will be continued to September 5th and the record will remain open with the written comments
accepted up until 5 pm on that date. All comment submitted after that time will be forwarded to the Lane
County Board of Commissioners and the Springfield City Council.
Kristina Kraaz / Springfield Staff: corrected the script that Chair Salazar was reading from and confirmed
that written comments could be provided through the continued public hearing on September 5th,
beginning at 7 pm.
Lane County Chair Kashinsky: stated the Lane County Planning Commission hearing is continued as stated
by Chair Salazar and Springfield City Assistant Attorney Kristina Kraaz.
Adjourned: by the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Chairs – 7:33 pm.
2 – Open the hearing – Item #2
2)Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities’ Parking Code Amendments
Chair Salazar: Planning Commissioners’ roll call for potential conflict of interest:
Chair Salazar: stated he had two potential conflicts of interest since he is a homeowner in Springfield and
he works for Homes for Good, which is a real estate developer in the area.
Commissioner Buck: stated that he had two potential conflicts of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield is an insurance agent with business in the area.
Commissioner Schmunk: stated he has a potential conflict of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield.
Commissioner Thompson: stated he has a potential conflict of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield.
Vice Chair Rhoads-Dey: stated he had two potential conflicts of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield and he works as a realtor in the area.
Commissioner Stout: stated he has a potential conflict of interest since he is a homeowner in Springfield.
9
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
Chair Kashinsky called for a statement of actual or potential conflict of interest from the Lane County
Planning Commissioners:
Kashinsky – None
Choate: has a potential conflict of interest since he works for Jerry’s Home Improvement, which has a
store in Springfield.
Wihtol – None
Hadley – None
Snider – None
Dignam – None
Peacock – None
Kaylor – None
Lay – None
Springfield Chair Salazar: stated the applicable criteria for the Public Hearing Item are: Springfield
Development Code – Section 5.6.115 and 5.14.135 and the Statewide Planning Goals/ Oregon
Administrative Rules.
Lane County Chair Kashinsky: stated the applicable criteria for the Public Hearing Item are: Lane Code –
Chapters 10.600-15 (Applicable Land Use Regulations), 12.100.050 (Method of Adoption and
Amendment) and the Statewide Planning Goals/ Oregon Administrative Rules.
Drew Larson / Staff: gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities’
Parking Code Amendments, which is a State mandate in the Oregon Administrative Rules requiring
parking reforms in metro areas, including Eugene and Springfield. Staff is looking for the Commission to
recommend to Council that they adopt the parking code amendments.
3 – Testimony from interested parties - None
4 – Clarifying questions from Commissioner(s)
Commissioner Snider: wanted to know, if the electric vehicle parking spaces would be wired for EV
chargers and be exclusively reserved for electric vehicles, as is the case for carpool designated parking
spaces.
10
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
Drew Larson / Staff: The developers only need to provide the conduit to serve future electric pedestals
and, until the EV charging stations are installed and fully functional, they would not be exclusively
dedicated for electric vehicle parking. There is currently nothing in the code that would make EV parking
spaces exclusively reserved for EV parking.
5 – Close the Hearing
Chairs Salazar and Kashinsky called to close the public hearing and the record. Any written comment
submitted after the hearing has been closed will be forwarded to the Lane County Board of
Commissioners and the Springfield City Council.
Vice Chair Rhoads-Dey moved to approve the Order and Recommendation that is in the agenda packet as
Attachment 1 including the changes in the code and finding 39 in the staff report addressing DLCD’s
comments. Commissioner Thompson seconded the motion.
Commissioner Wihtol moved to approve the Order and Recommendation that is in the agenda packet as
Attachment 1 including the changes in the code and finding 39 in the staff report addressing DLCD’s
comments. Commissioner Hadley seconded the motion.
Chair Salazar called for a Springfield Planning Commission roll call vote on the motion to approve the
Order and Recommendation that is in the agenda packet as Attachment 1 including the changes in the
code and finding 39 in the staff report addressing DLCD’s comments:
Salazar – Aye
Buck – Aye
Rhoads-Dey – Aye
Schmunk – Aye
Stout – Aye
Thompson – Aye
Motion passes: 6 / 0 / 0
Chair Kashinsky called for a Lane County Planning Commission roll call vote on the motion to approve the
Order and Recommendation that is in the agenda packet as Attachment 1 including the changes in the
code and finding 39 in the staff report addressing DLCD’s comments:
Kashinsky – Aye
11
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
Choate – Aye
Dignam – Aye
Hadley – Aye
Snider – Aye
Wihtol – Aye
Kaylor – Aye
Ley – Aye
Peacock – Aye
Motion passes: 9 / 0 / 0
Adjourned by the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Chairs – 7:57 pm.
2 – Open the hearing – Item #3
Chair Salazar: Planning Commissioners’ roll call for potential conflict of interest:
Chair Salazar: stated he had two potential conflicts of interest since he is a homeowner in Springfield and
he works for Homes for Good which is a real estate developer in the area.
Commissioner Buck: stated that he had two potential conflicts of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield is an insurance agent with business in the area.
Commissioner Schmunk: stated he has a potential conflict of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield.
Commissioner Thompson: stated he has a potential conflict of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield.
Vice Chair Rhoads-Dey: stated he had two potential conflicts of interest since he is a homeowner in
Springfield and he works as a realtor in the area.
Commissioner Stout: stated he has a potential conflict of interest since he is a homeowner in Springfield.
Chair Kashinsky called for a statement of actual or potential conflict of interest from the Lane County
Planning Commissioners:
Kashinsky – None
12
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
Choate: has a potential conflict of interest since he works for Jerry’s Home Improvement, which have a
store in Springfield.
Wihtol – None
Hadley – None
Snider – None
Dignam – None
Peacock – None
Kaylor – None
Lay – None
Springfield Chair Salazar: stated the applicable criteria for the Public Hearing Item are: Springfield
Development Code – Section 5.6.115 and 5.14.135 and the Statewide Planning Goals/ Oregon
Administrative Rules.
Lane County Chair Kashinsky: stated the applicable criteria for the Public Hearing Item are: Lane Code –
Chapters 10.600-15 (Applicable Land Use Regulations), 12.100.050 (Method of Adoption and
Amendment) and the Statewide Planning Goals/ Oregon Administrative Rules.
3)Minor Code Amendments
Mark Rust / Staff: gave a PowerPoint presentation on Minor Code Amendments. Sixty to seventy percent
of the Springfield Development Code was updated in 2022 and staff were aware that there would be
minor corrections needed. Most of the changes are to correct errors and provide clarification on code
language. Mostly, these changes correct missed internal code citations and references; typographical
errors; and update naming conventions that were previously missed. We would be looking for the
Planning Commission to recommend to Council that they adopt these changes.
3 – Testimony from interested parties – None
4 – Clarifying questions from Commissioner(s) - None
5 – Close the Hearing
Chairs Salazar and Kashinsky called to close the public hearing and the record. Any written comment
submitted after the hearing has been closed will be forwarded to the Lane County Board of
Commissioners and the Springfield City Council.
13
Minutes
Joint Springfield & Lane County Planning Commission Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission: approved 8/15/23
Attested by S. Weaver
Commissioner Buck moved to adopt the recommendations as presented tonight and as in the packet.
Commissioner Rhoads-Dey seconded the motion.
Commissioner Snider moved to adopt the proposed amendments as presented tonight and as in the
packet. Commissioner Wihtol seconded the motion.
Chair Salazar called for a Springfield Planning Commission roll call vote to adopt the recommendations as
presented tonight and as in the packet.
Salazar – Aye
Buck – Aye
Rhoads-Dey – Aye
Schmunk – Aye
Stout – Aye
Thompson – Aye
Motions passes: 6 / 0 / 0
Chair Kashinsky called for a Lane County Commission roll call vote to adopt the recommendations as
presented tonight and as in the packet.
Kashinsky – Aye
Choate – Aye
Dignam – Aye
Hadley – Aye
Snider – Aye
Wihtol – Aye
Kaylor – Aye
Ley – Aye
Peacock – Aye
Motion passes 9/0/0
Adjourned: by the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Chairs – 8:12 pm.