HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 2/5/2009
"
i
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
.
~tes Approved by Springfield Planning
_mission: February 3, 2009
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in regular session in the Council Meeting
Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, 'Oregon on Tuesday, November 2, 2008 6:00 p.m.., with
Frank Cross as Springfield Planning Commission Chair.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Chair Frank Cross, Vice Chair Johnny Kirschenmann and Planning Commissioners
Lee Beyer, Sheri Moore, Eric Smith, Sean Van Gordon, and Steve Moe (via speakerphone). Also
present were Development Service Director Bill Grile, Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly, Gary
Karp Planner III, Planning Secretary Brenda Jones, and City Attorney Joe Leap.y.
ABSENT
'.f.
-,\
-;:~c.
, '-'ate Receivec,,, OJ-or 0"/
Pla/Jner; GK --"~---"~-'-
. None-
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Frank Cross.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
. Commissioner Beyer, seconded by Commissioner Kirschenmann, moved to approve the
minutes of the commission's May 20, 2008, CCI meeting; May 20, 2008, Regular
Session; June 17,2008, Regular Session; September 3,2008, Work and Regular sessions;
and October 7, 2008, Regular Session. The motion passed, 6:0:0.
LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
., Sprinl!field Development Code Amendment - City of Sprinl!field - LRP2008-0001I-
Continuance of the public hearing held on October 7, 23008 to consider the
proposed Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments, which address the
following topics: Streamlining the Master Plan review process (Section 5.13-100);
updating Fire regulations in the Dinking Water-Protection (DWP) Overlay District
(Section 3.3-200); and addressing additional Scrivener's errors found in various
sections after adoption ofthe reformatted SDC.
In August, 2008, staff distributed a copy of the proposed Master Plan amendments,
Attachment 4, to private sector planners who submitted Master Plan applications in the
past. Two of these planners; Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington, submitted comments to staff.
regarding the proposed Master Plan amendments. The proposed master Plan
amendments presented to the planning commission on October 7, 2008, contained staff's
responses to the vast majority of the issues/questions raised by Mr. Satre and Mr.
Farrington. This is why copies of their written comments; while in the record, were not
attached to the Octo.7th staff report. Mr. Satre and Mr. FAgton provided testimony
at the public hearing. The Planning Commission directed staffto conduct a meeting with
Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington to solicit additional comment on the proposed amendments.
The Planning Commission continued the public hearing until December 2, 2008.
.
Combined, Mr. Satre and Mr.Farrington's comments include over 40 pages of text. For
ease of review, their written comments have been combined into a format which responds
to each issue/question. Attachment.l allows the reader to briefly see each issue/question
and go to the applicable section/subsection in Attachment 4 to review the revised text,
which is highlighted along with a "commentary" explaining why the revision is proposed
and/or how it has been addressed.
While both Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington had concerns regarding the entire proposed
master Plan amendment, there are two Sections that elicited the most comments: I) SDC
5.13-120, Submittal Requirements (they thought some of these requirements were more
specific than they needed to be and/or that some of these requirements should be
"conceptual"; and 2) SDC 5.13-135. Final Master Plan Modifications (where Mr.
Farrington suggested that staff's proposed 10 percent threshold should be eliminated and
the current text retained), Staff met with Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington on November 12 to
discuss these and other iSs~~~'_ Attachment 4~e~ses,~Jssues all issues previously
raised and those issues discussed at the meetpl8nnl:lf: <31\ O:2o~:-:..q 1
There was no testimony regarding Attachments 5 or 6. No revisions have been made to
Attachment 5. One revision has been made to Attachment 6 to add hotels as permitted
use in the Mixed Use Commercial zoning district.
Planner Linda Pauly reviewed the criteria of approval regarding amendments to the
Springfield Development Code, found in Section 5.6-100 of that code. She noted that
anyone could request that the record remain open to respond to new evidence.
Gary Karp, Planner Ill, introduced the item, first calling attention to the attachments to
the meeting packet. He recalled the hearing on October 7, at which the commission
directed staff to meet with Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington, and called the commission's
attention to Attachment 1, Responses to Written and Oral Testimony Regarding the
Master Plan Process. He indicated that staffhad made some additional "tweaks" to the
code language, and referred the commission to Attachment 4, SDC Section 6.13~OlOO
Master Plans~Revised. He reviewed the changes incorporated into that document,
which were highlighted in blue to reflect the suggestions made by Mr. Satre and Mr.
Farrington that were incorporated into the October 10 staff report, in yellow to reflect the
. suggestions made by Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington after the November 12 meeting, and in'
green to reflect the addition changes made by staff.
Mr. Karp recommended that the Planning Commission forward the amendments to the
council with a recommendation of approval.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Kirschenmann about Section 513-140(1),
Mr. Karp clarified that any master plan extending beyond ten years would have to meet
. the code requirement~ in place at that time. Responding to a follow-up question from
Commissioner Beyer, Mr. Karp acknowledged that the code went beyond the State
statutes and gave the applicant more protection than was provided by the statute.
(""
Commissioner. thanked Mr. Satre and Mr. Farringto.r the time they spent on the
code language in question. He concurred with the direction they suggested as he
preferred the City to be more goal-oriented in its code as opposed to detail-oriented.
Referring to page 4-26 in the meeting packet, Commissioner Kirschemnann noted the
reference to Subsection 5.13-135.CIO, and asked if that should actually be to RIO. Mr.
Karp indicated he would follow-up.
Chair Cross called for testimony from the audience. pD/ate ReceivGd:..._ 02.. oS- 0,
. anner: GK
Rick Satre, Satre and Associates, 101 East Broadway; Suite 480, Eugene, expressed
support for the revised amendments before the commission. He said that the format
employed by Mr. Karp made it easy to track the changes were made, and he wished to
thank both him and the commission for their good work.
Commissioner Beyer joined in Commissioner Moe's thanks to Mr. Satre.
There being no further requests to speak, Chair Cross closed the public hearing.
Chair Cross solicited questions frqm the commission.
"
Responding to a question from Coinrnissioner Smith about the proposed requirement that
a certified planner be included in a project design team, Mr. Satre said that those
participating in the discussions felt it was important tOJecognize that there was a national
certification program for planners that required a certain level of education and
proficiency. He believed that the ordinance required that level of professional expertise.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Beyer about what it took to become a
certified planner, Mr. Satre indicated that one must pass a national examination.
Commissioner Moe asked how many certified planners existed in the metropolitan area.
He was concerned about that requirement as perhaps being too restrictive. Mr. Satre
thought Mr. Moe's point was well-taken but noted that nearly all the planners he had on
staff were certified planners. He believed there were a "fair number" of such individuals.
Mr. Karp noted that while he and Mr. Mott were the most senior planners working for
Springfield, neither was a certified planner. Commissioner Moe indicated that Mr.
Karp's comments caused him some concern.
Ms. Pauly observed that it was increasingly common for planners to have an American
Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) certification. She believed that most planners in
private practice were likely to have that certification or were working toward it. Planners
working for public agencies that did not have the requirement for an AlCP certification
might be less likely to seek it.
'.
Commissioner Beyer aIso questioned the requirement for a certified planner. He also
questioned why an architect was needed on the design team given that no buildings were
designed in the master plan phase. Mr. Karp indicated that architects provided
illustrative designs at that stage.
Director Grile noted some discomfgrt with the requirement, saying he had been a
certified planner since the certification program was established 30 years ago, and he was
not qualified to submit a master plan. He said the criteria established what must be
submitted to achieveflster plan approval, and he was conce. about narrowing the
requirement to the degree it gave market preference for one consulting fIrm over another. ,
Director Grile further observed that he had met with Planning Director Lisa Gardner and
they discussed the potential that she might let her certifIcation lapse because of some
problems with manner the certifIcation program was maintained.
Commissioner Beyer's concern was that a master plan application met the criteria in the
code, not the requir~ments of what type of professionals were doing the project.
- '.
Commissioner CrossaslCed the minimum size acreage for a master plan. Mr. Karp
replied that the original size was a minimum of fIve acres, and the City was proposing a
size less than that. In exchange, the developer would be able to comply with current code
standards for seven to ten years, and the City wanted some guarantee those standards
would be met. Commissioners Beyer said that guarantee was not provided by who did
the master plan; that guarantee was provided through the staff review. He agreed with
Commissioner Moe that the City should focus on the criteria, not the design team.
Ms. Pauly maintained that a requirement for a certifIed planner would add to the
protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the people who occupied the site.
Commissioner Cross suggested the commission was asking why the City had to restrict
the design team to a set profession, or defIne the design team at all.
Mr. Karp suggested that the commission use the phrase "professional design team" as had
been used previously in the code, and avoid being specifIc as to the membership.
Commissioner Beyer supported that approach, pointing out, for example, that [mal
engineering drawings would still have to be stamped by a licensed professional. There
was general commission concurrence.
Chair Cross and Commissioner Beyer-commended staff for the work it had done to revise
the amendments.
Commissioner Beyer, seconded by Commissioner Moe, moved that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the revised ordinance as
prepared by staff and as amended by the commission. The motion passed unanimously,
,6:0:0.
Chair Cross noted staff's question to the commission regarding the Type II process as the
initial review process as opposed to retention of existing Type III review process, and Mr.
Karp recalled the commission's discussion and indicated staff had sufficient direction to
move forward with work on the Type II fees.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
02- O~- OC/
JIved: 1
GK
~.. -..L "'-
"_......1.
. None.
BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
Director Grile reported the following:
. Work on the Commercial Industrial Buildable Land Study was in progress.
'.
. The Joint Electe.fficials (JEO) was planning a series o.scussions about the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan). The first meeting would occur
on January 13. The Board of County Gommissioners was interested in additional
discussion of the urban transition agreements between the County and two cities. He
anticipated that the JEO would discuss the definition of "key urban services" and who
was the provider of those services. Commissioner Beyer recalled how planning in the
rural areas on the fringes of the cities happened before, the urban transition area was
established, and expressed the hope the County did not return to those practices. Director
Grile noted the board's interest in establishing rural reserves, which locked up land and
the change in use of that land for 50 years. He said that it would be interesting to see
how that discussion proceeded. He anticipated a second JEO meeting would occur in the
spring for more discussion of the urban transition agreements.
'\
REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION
. Commissioner Kirschenmann attended the November 3, 2008, meeting, during which the
council heard a report on from the Library Advisory Board and were introduced to the
new library director.
. The council acknowledged the contributions of Springfield citizens and City employees.
. The council heard an update on the Gateway Beltline project. '
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
. Commissioners Beyer and Kirschenmann have been participating on the CIBL team. The
;1
meetings have been well-attended, with good discussions.
. The Planning Commission Christmas get-together was scheduled for Commissioner
Beyer's house on a date to be announced.
Chair Cross introduced new commissioner Sean VanGordon.
ADJOURNMENT
. Chair Cross adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
,)t;;te Received: 02. <=>f' c7Cj
Planner: GK
....---..:.~..
Minutes recorded by Brenda Jones, Transcribed by Kim Young