HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 11/20/2007
City of Springfield
Work Meeting
Minutes approved by the Springfield
Planning'Eommission: 12/1112007
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The City' of Springfield Planning Commission met in Work Session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, SpringfieJd, Oregon on Tuesday, November 20,2007 at 6:00 p.m., with Frank Cross as
Springfield Planning Commission Chair. .
ATTENDANCE
Present were Chair F:rank Cross, Vice Chair Bill Carpenter and Planning Commissioners Lee Beyer, Johnny
Kirschenmann, Sheri Moore, Eric Smith and Terri Leezer. Also present were Planning'Manager Greg Mott,
.' , .. .
Senior Planner Gary Karp, Senior Planner David Reesor, Planning Secretary Brenda Jones, and City
Attorney Joe Leahy.
,.
ABSENT
. None
r
APPLICATIONS
'I. MARCOLA MEADOWS MASTER PLAN. SATRE ASSOCIATES - LRP2007-00028
The applicant proposed a phased, mixed-use development on 100.3 acres formerly known as the
"Pierce" property, now called the "Villages at Marcola Meadows". The site is located north of
Marcola Road and west of 28th Street. The proposed development consists of a total of 518 homes
on 54.7 gross acres, and a total of 449,600 ,square feet of retail/office use on'45.6 gross acres. There
are 11.4 acres of proposed common open space including a constructed water feature, a park and
open space required by multiple-family development. The submittal of this, Master Plan, application
was required by Condition #1 of Ordinance No. 6196.
'f.
Chair Commis~iont;r Cross called the meeting of the Springfield Planning Commission to order and
recognized Planner Gary; Karp. Mr. Karp called attention to the cover memorandum accompanying
the packet materials, which outlined the ,public process to be followed. He said there'was no staff
report addressing the criteria of approval and no commission decision was expected at the Public
Hearing. He hoped to see'a productive exchange of information.
J ",:
Mr. Karp asked the cOInmission to extendthe, time line for the staff report to December 11. Oral
testimony would be concluded tonight and the written record would be held open for seven days
(November 27,2007), followed by a period oftime to allow for a response from the applicant and
staff (December 4). Tl).e commission would meet on Decernber II to consider the application.
. . Date Received ,
Co~j~S!!:tt:1~r!1.~y~r ,fJ~1~~ the details of the proposed input process Witli[llabning Manager Greg
Mott, and asked if citizens would get a chance to respond to the sOOi/ r~itllOOfr. Mott said citizens
(;"........, I,/'r. ,:"',;
,.uu' . , , ,'r,
-, .:. \..... r"
Planner: BJ
'" '_ tl.e-1
-' \~_jj "'1:-).,..~~~(''-'l(.''''-,.:il:_''
November 20, 2007.!jSi;i"ingfield-PlaIining Commission Works Session
_. - ...... . '. "'H' .
1
would receive an opportunity to comment on the record. Mr. Karp indicated the public's comment
would be reflected in !he staff report. Mr. Mott emphasized that citizens would not be denied the
opportunity to comment.
Mr. Karp called attention to the underlying basic assumptions listed on page 4 of the staff report and
suggested the commission might receive te.stimony that caused it to add to the list. He indicated he
. would ask the commission to make a rec<?mmendation related to the issue as part of a master plan
approval; the only time they were mentioned in the code was in regard to the process to modify the
master plan. Staff wanted to be on record stating ~hat the underlying ass~ptions were.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Beyer about the nature of the master plan and the
degree to which the applicant could make changes to the plan in the future, Mr. Karp characterized
the master plan as being more detailed than a conceptual plan. He said it informed the public as to
how the phases of development could occur.
Commissioner Beyer noted that the plan included the number of lots and units, street designs,
commercial,building designs, and conceptual drawjngs, and suggested that citizens unfamiliar with
the process might perceive the master plan as inconsistent with the development on the ground. H,
believed there was a considerable degree of flexibijity for the developer to achieve the plan. Mr.
Karp agreed there was some degree of flexibility. For example, there could be more or less
commercial or residential development, but the street and utility designs were fairly fixed. He said
that was the reason he recommended the commission address the underlying assumptions. If, for
example, the applicant wished to add more residential units than provided for in the traffic impact
, .
analysis (TIA), a master plan amendment would be required, and the level of plan amendment
review (type 1, II, or III) would help staff determine the impact on the underlying assumptions. .
;
Commissioner Beyer thought the proposed process' a positive one and emphasized his interest in
ensuring that citizens had time after the staff report was completed to make comments. Mr. Karp
said that citizens would have a chance to comment on December 11.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Carpenter; Mr. Karp said that a TIA was submitted a s
part of the application. Staffwas in the process of,reviewing that document, and that review woulc
be incu.pu...ted into the December 11 staff report. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the staff report
would address the relationship between mass transit and the development. Mr. Karp indicated a
separate section of the staff report would address bus serVice to the site.
Responding to a request for commeilt by Chair Cross, Mr.' Mott said that underlying what staff did
was the perspective that the goal was to get to "yes" for applications for development, particularly J
the application included permitted uses. It was not whether, but how, the process happened. He said
the commission was not facing a development approval; that would occur in the subdivision proce~s,
which the master planning process was a prelude to. More review steps for the developer lay aheaCl..
He said that staff would carefully note the public comments that were made, the applicant's
responses, and would connect those comments and responses to the specific criteria of approval
approved by the City Council when it adopted the plan amendment and those associated with the
master planning process, . '
Responding to Ii question from Commissioner Moore about the length of time the master plan wou d
. appIY"M;.JS!!-\"p'~.ajg that!p,e,j.nitial time frame was for seven years; additional extensions would
requfrJ'c'onMis~ioii!aIfI>iOvaI! . . R .' '. d
,.", ':~:':".:i'(,' ,:;,,'" Date ecelve
,jhu~ (, '" Vi',,'
~iO'I:t~
!' If" '}<-''I;
~ -"1' ""e:..\r;w~,<'!"~' '
. ....~..~ .... !C-, '1,~ hU ,I.~~",. Ii
November 20, 2907'/ Springfield Pl~ing commission Works Session
Planner: BJ
2
Chair Cross closed discussion on the item and briefly overviewed the p.ublil; hearing process that
woiIld occur later. .
2. AMENDMENT TO THE SDCRE: ANNEXATION PROCESS CHANGE. CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD - LRP2007-0002t!
By enactment ofthe.2007 Legislature, the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission
ceases to exist on July 1, 2008; annexation to cities becomes the jurisdiction of the affected city
while annexation to districts, district creation, and district dissolution or district consolidation is the
. jurisdiction of Lane County. In acknowledge of the, abruptness of this legislation and the limited
opportunities to get on a BoUlldary Commission agenda, applications to annex to cities submitted
after January 1,2008 shall,be processed solely by the cities.'
,.
Mr. Mott provided background on the item, reminding the commission of a bill passed in 2007 by
the Oregon State Legislature abolishing the Lane, County Local Government Boundary Comniission
as of JanuarY 1, 2008. As a consequence, Springfield and other Lane County cities would need to
have an ordinance in place by January 1, 2008, wliich laid out the City's policies imd procedures for
future annexations. Mr. Moit said the ordinance was largely based on Oregon Revised Statute
(ORS) 222, which regulated municipal annexations in Oregon. He said the process was on a fast
track, aild staff would ask the commission to make a recommendation folloWing the public hearing
as the City Council was scheduled to hold a public hearing on December 3, followed by adoption. If
the City failed to have anordinance in place by January 1, annexation applications would have to be
processed under the State statute, which would be an awkward process.
Mr. Mott noted that he had found some omissions in the staff report after publication, which he
. ' attributed to the fast track the process was on. He said he would call attention to those omissions
, during the public hearing. Mr. Mott briefly reviewed the omissions.
_. ;
Mr. Mott said the City Council had some latitude to include provisions in the ordinance that were
drawn specifically from ORS 222 but could be based on the construction of that statute. For
example, the State statUte included provisions addressing how health hazards were addressed in
regard to the extraterritorial extension qf s~wer ~d water services, but there was nothing in the
statute to prevent the City from non-health hazard extraterritorial extensions of those services. He
recommended that the option be forwarded to the City Council, which could eliminate it if it chose.
Mr. Mott recommend~d that all annexatiops be subject to a public hearing, With the exception of a
developed single-faniily lot with no further development potential. The Development'Services
Director would make the decision in those cases.
~ "
Mr. Mott smd another local option proposed for the ordinanc.e but not included in ORS 222 was,
annexation agreements between the property owner"a'nd the City, related to fiscal responsibility for
se~ices-and service extensions and the tUning of extensions. He recommended that be a
. . . \
reqUirement of all annexations, although he acknowledged it would serve no purpose for single-
family lots. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Smith, Mr. Mott said thatthe
agreement would answer questions such as who would pay to extend services to the annexing
property and how engineering costs were ,shared. .
, '.
Mr'.N~~~gt~1tf\!;~ ~lfl~~~unty and the City ofE.ugene w~~~ SPf,li'lllWi,~~ Sprin~field in
havrng'to pr,epare'ordiiiances that were to be effective Januafy'plJIJe IiilM\jl,!iUrtlt~the polIcies in
+:Y;S',, . . \-'-~
aoos \1:":: "'.1./ , . ,NU',j :t Or2CO-=f['
November 20~ 2067l~1ingfield Plai1hingConuriir;i~n Works Session
. ~~t>":'l ". ~~3 1l~.II"'.;)jj "
Planner: BJ
J
the EugenecSpringfield Metropolitan General Area,Plan relative to the boundary commission woulil
be deleted or,amended at a later time.
Responding toa question from Commissioner Moore, Mr. Mott confirmed that the City could amel ld
the ordinance at a later time if it was found to be unworkable.
3. DISCUSSION OF NEEDED RESIDENTIAL LANDS INVENTORY AND GOAL 14
This past September the'Planning Commission received a letter,from Commissioner Carpenter
requesting that work session discussion items not be limited to "pre-hearing" staff presentations
serving primarily as a prelude to that evening's public hearings.' Commissioner Carpenter suggestl d
a series format of topics during each work session that would allow the Commission to become mo :e
engaged in the substance of the various land use and planning issues confronting the City of
Springfield.
Mr. Mort reminded the commission that Commissioner Carpenter had identified several topics for
cornrillssion discussion during a series of refocused work session where preparation for public
hearings was minimized and more time was spent on planning issues. Those items were listed in tl e
briefing materials provided to the commission. Mr. Mott called attention to a list of current divisio 1
projects included in the briefing materials, and suggested there was overlap between the projects ar d
the issues listed by Commissioner Carpenter.
Mr.Mott said that each of the items listed was a legitimate discussion item and some would requin
. very long work sessions to process. From the division's perspective, all that it was currently
engaged in hinged on the implementation ofHous~ Bill (HB) 3337, which had created a significan1
impact on the division's workload. He suggested that staff review Commissioner Carpenter's topi(
list and prepare briefing memorandums, wi~ the caveat that they could not aU be prepared at one
time. The commission could review the briefing memorandums 'and then decide if a further work
session was warranted.
Mr. Mott noted the relationship between the Residential Lands Study andHB 3337 and suggested
that might be an opportunity for staff~o brief the c9mmission on the amount and type of work
required and could lead to further ,commission discussion focused on more planning rather than
process.
Commissioner Leezet noted that the commission had three very new commissiol).ers and welcome(,
any additional information. She expressed "1-'1-',,,,,iation to Commissioner Carpenter for his letter.
Commissioner Beyer thought Mr. Mott's recommendation was a step in the right direction. He
suggested that the commission could first focus on Commissioner Carpenter's first topic,
"Metropolitan General Plan: HoW we got here and current issues." He also thought it would benefit
the commission to receive more background on the ResidentialLands Study. He suggested that
Commissioner Carpenter's transportation-related issues be grouped for more effective discussion.
Mr. Mott endorsed Commissioner Beyer's approach but said he would need to seek assistance frOIlt
Transportation staff and would have to discuss its ability to respond with Transpof!ation Manager
Tom Boyatt before he could commit the divisiontb the time it would take to brin'g these items to tl e
. PIllJ!1ling <;ornmi~sion..,
, ,~." ",.." " '''7;;<or...
.rj!....:!\~~i.:-~ ".~~~M~ .!.L~~.~~t ~
<' <_:- ~...:.' 'J . ~ ,. ~ {~.i ~ . . .~,'
Date Received
..---
,
800S' -u ~\o . \.; 1.'
NLii ~ ut?-Q~
"' November 20, 2007 I;Spnngfield Plaliiimg-~~1;;ilD Works Session
'1../>1__-- ~ '~....;::::;r~ .'.r..~~\ , .
Planner: BJ
4
Mr. Mott provided the commission ~th copies of State Goal 14, Urbanization, and handouts from
the Metro Plan showing the urban growth .boundary around Eugene and Springfield. He said one of
the cornerstones of Oregon's land use planning program was the protection offarni and forest lands
and other non-urban resources of value to the State.
Commissioner Carpenter inteIjected at this point, suggesting that staff review the commission
calendar and if there were items that lent themselves to commission education, to bring those
forward to the. commission. He referred to HB 2237 (??) and averred that there were different legal
positions about whether the City could move its industrial and commercial urban growth boundaries
because they were not addressed in the statute. He asserted it could be many years before HB 2237
was resolved through the court system. He questioned whether the City could begin to focus on land
outside the UGB as he thought it premature based on what he believed were the legal issues related
to the "other two urban growth boUndaries" that had not been addressed. '
Chair Cross suggested that was not Mr. Mott's intent. He said he and Mr. Mott were "attempting to
use the list developed by Commissioner Carpenter to help new commissioners understand what
already existed in terms of urban planning. He and Mr. Mott had felt the discussion was a good
place to start. He said the question was how to accomplish what was desired as 15 minutes was not
a lot oftime to cover a large topic and it did not do much good to have the discussion if the
commission was unable to return to it for several months. He believed the commission needed to
decide how it wished to receive the infomlation. He was working with Mr. Grile and Mr. Matt to
create a structure that worked for the commission.
Commissioner Moore suggested that the commission might wish to consider holding additional work
sessions. She acknowledged the additional staff work load involved, but asserted that a Medford
Planning Commissioner told her the Medford Planning Commission met weekly. Chair Cross said
that the commission's meeting schedule was largely based on the hearings that occurred, but it could
decide what it wished to do as a commission.
Chair Cross said it was possible that the commission could arrange to meet a third evening each
month. He pointed out that staff needed to have time to put meeting information together and staff
time could be limited at the end of the year with the press of business. However, the commission
. could consider adding taking advantage of meeting dates that did not include a public hearing.
Commissioner Carpenter endorsed that idea. He maintained the commission should always plan on
meeting two times a month and if there was nothing to decide, it should have at leasttwo hour work
sessions on the identified topics. . ..
Chair Cross recommended the commission continue the discussion at the public hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
. The meeting was adjourned at 7 p.m.
Date ReCAhted
NI.J\f II u!~{){B-\
c__
Planner: BJ
Minutes recorded by Brenda JoneslKimberly Young
November 20, 2007 I Springfield Planning commission Works Session
5