HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 06 Amendments to the Springfield Development Code Modifying Site Plan Review and Minimum Development Standards and Procedures AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/17/2012
Meeting Type:Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Jim Donovan/DSD
Matt Stouder/PW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3660
541-736-1035
Estimated Time: Consent Calendar
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Community and
Economic Development
and Revitalization
ITEM TITLE: AMENDMENTS TO THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS
5.5-100-125, 5.17-105, 5.17-120, and 4.2, MODIFYING SITE PLAN REVIEW
AND MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES.
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a second reading and adopt/not adopt the following ordinance: AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE,
SECTIONS: 5.5-100-125, 5.17-105, 5.17-120, and 4.2-105A.4, MODIFYING
SITE PLAN REVIEW, MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT STUDY SUBMITTAL STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The Springfield City Council makes final decisions on proposed amendments to the
Springfield Development Code in accordance with SDC 5.6-115. City Council
reviewed the proposed changes and conducted a public hearing of the ordinance on
December 5, 2011. The attached ordinance is submitted for second reading and
final adoption by motion of the Council.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Recommendation and Staff Report
3. Council Briefing Memorandum
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The attached Ordinance authorizes full implementation of process improvements
resulting from the Developer Input Process as directed by City Council.
The Springfield Development Code Amendment Staff Report, Findings and Order
of Recommendation demonstrating compliance with criteria of approval for
amendments of the SDC is included as Attachment 2.
A Council Briefing Memorandum addressing public testimony and Council
direction for future developer input is included as Attachment 3. Staff will proceed
based on Council direction to develop a proposal for a longer term opportunity for
interested parties to participate in continuous process improvement of development
practices. That discussion is tentatively set for April 2, 2012.
1
ORDINANCE NO. ______________ (General)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTIONS: 5.5‐100‐125, 5.17‐105,
5.17‐120, and 4.2‐105A.4, MODIFYING SITE PLAN REVIEW, MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT AND
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY SUBMITTAL STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FINDS THAT:
WHEREAS, the Springfield Development Code (SDC) was adopted by the Springfield City Council
on May 5, 1986, and amendments thereto were subsequently adopted by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City of Springfield’s Development Services and Public Works Departments have
reviewed development application requirements and procedures with the development community and
identified process improvements to increase efficiency, reduce costs and improve communication.
WHEREAS, certain administrative process improvements proposed under this application
require Springfield Development Code amendments prior to implementation; and
WHEREAS, the SDC amendments comply with the City Council goal regarding Community and
Economic Development and Revitalization; and
WHEREAS, Section 5.6‐100 of the SDC sets forth procedures for the amendment of this
document; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2011, the Springfield Planning Commission held a work session and
conducted a public hearing on this SDC amendment application (TYP2011‐00004) voting 5 to 0 to
recommend approval of the proposed changes to the City Council based upon findings in support of
adoption of these amendments to the SDC as set forth in the Staff Report and the Recommendation to
the Council incorporated herein.
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2011, the Springfield Common Council conducted a public hearing
and is now ready to take action on this application based upon findings in support of adoption of these
SDC amendments as set forth in the aforementioned Staff Report incorporated herein by reference and
the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at
this public hearing held in the matter of adopting this Ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, based on the forgoing recitals, the City Council of the City of Springfield does
ordain as follows:
Section 1: SDC Section 5.5‐100‐125 is amended to read:
“5.15‐105 Purpose
Minimum Development Standards (MDS) are intended to support economic development by minimizing
City review for minor additions or expansions, changes in approved use categories, or where land use
conflicts have been mitigated or eliminated as a result of prior development approvals, zoning or
regulation. The purpose of MDS procedures is to provide the minimum level of ministerial review that
2
guarantees compliance with applicable development standards. MDS approvals shall ensure compliance
with specific appearance; transportation safety and efficiency, and storm water management standards
of this Code or other applicable regulations as necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Minimum Development Standards include the following range of review procedures which shall be
applied subject to applicability and locational standards contained herein. The Director shall determine
the appropriate MDS approach from the following list of MDS review procedures:
1. Building Permit Only (BPO): If no additional site review or MDS procedures are required by this
code, building permit procedures and timelines shall be used to determine compliance with
applicable standards of this code. Applicable zoning overlay applications may be processed
concurrently with building permit applications.
2. Land Use Compatibility Inspection Application (LUCI): This ministerial planning review and/or
site inspection process may be used to demonstrate that: a) the subject site is in substantial
compliance with previous approvals, and b) existing improvements satisfy required standards.
LUCI process shall not be used when other provisions of MDS or Site Plan review apply.
3. MDS Minor Application: This process shall be used for expansions or additions on an existing
development site that do not exceed five thousand square feet.
4. MDS Major Application: This process shall be used for expansions or additions to certain
existing development sites where the expansion or addition does not exceed twenty five
thousand square feet of new impervious area.
All MDS applications may be submitted concurrently with a complete Building Permit application; the
applicant assumes all liability and responsibility if concurrent reviews necessitate the revision of either
permit in response to ministerial review.
5.15‐110 Applicability
A. MDS regulations shall apply as described below:
1. Land Use Compatibility Inspection procedures shall apply where the property is
currently in compliance with all of the standards specified in Section 5.15‐120, and the
Director has verified compliance with the above standards through a ministerial land use
compatibility inspection and/or review of prior land use approvals.
2. MDS Minor provisions shall apply within all commercial, industrial and public land
zoning districts, where there is a) new construction, an addition or expansion on a
development site of up to five thousand square feet, or b) a change in land use category or
building occupancy of a structure or property. MDS Minor submittals shall comply with the
standards of Section 5.15‐120 Subsections A.‐H.
3. MDS Major provisions shall apply only within Community Commercial, Light or Heavy
Industrial and Public Land and Open Space zoning districts where:
a. The proposed development does not abut a zoning district other than
Community Commercial, Light or Heavy Industrial and Public Land and Open
Space, or,
3
b. The proposed development area is not located within 50 feet of
residentially zoned or designated property (as measured from the property line
of the subject site and excluding public rights of way), and,
c. The proposed construction, addition or expansion will not exceed
25,000 square feet of combined gross floor area and/or substantially
reconstructed impervious area (excluding asphalt overlays), and
d. Where the proposal will comply with the standards of Section 5.15‐120
Subsections A.‐I.
4. MDS provisions shall only apply to developed properties located within Springfield’s land use
jurisdiction. Development proposals that exceed the size provisions of MDS standards shall
require Site Plan Review as specified in Section 5.17 of this code.
B. Where there is an MDS application for addition, expansion or change of use category for a
building or property containing multiple uses, the property owner may bring the entire property
into compliance with the standards specified in Section 5.15‐120 or the property owner may
request that required improvements be reviewed, approved and installed in proportion to the
relative impacts of the businesses on the property.
For example, if there are 3 businesses on the property with equal impacts and there is only one
change of use, then approximately 1/3 of the improvements necessary for the entire
development area shall be required to be completed to serve the proposed use. Improvements
mitigating identified safety concerns shall be given priority.
Alternatively, if a multi‐tenant space is being upgraded an owner may submit an MDS Major
Application where applicable proposing full improvements to the entire development site with a
proposed phasing plan stipulating a proportional percentage of the property shall comply with
specified MDS requirements for each change of use category or expansion with the intent that
the total property will meet MDS requirements over time. Upon approval of an MDS phasing
plan, improvements consistent with the approval shall be reviewed under building permit
procedures. This agreement shall not exceed the MDS timelines specified in Section 5.15‐125
unless otherwise approved by the Director.
5.15‐115 Review
A. LUCI and MDS applications are reviewed under the Type I review process, unless the applicant
requests or the Director finds that the proposed use should provide public notice. The target
date for MDS approvals shall be 30 days from the date of submittal.
B. Required public improvements and any additional required land use permits or approvals shall
be reviewed in accordance with this code.
5.15‐120 SDC Standards Applicable to MDS Approval
In order to grant MDS approval, the Director shall determine compliance with all applicable standards
specified below. Subject to review and approval by the Director, the applicant may request deferral of
plan details demonstrating compliance with standards of SDC 5.15‐120 until Final MDS Plan Submittal,
4
building permit submittal or building permit occupancy as noted herein. Final approvals and/or
occupancy is contingent upon the completion of all required site improvements. Application materials
shall be submitted as required on application submittal checklists and in sufficient detail to demonstrate
compliance with the following standards:
A. A 5‐foot wide landscaped planter strip, including street trees, with approved irrigation or
approved drought resistant plants as specified in Sections 4.4‐100 and 4.2‐140 shall be installed
between the sidewalk and parking areas or buildings.*
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Where there is an unimproved street, a 4‐foot wide landscaped planter strip shall be
required to be set back 1 foot from the property line.
2. Where there is insufficient space for the landscaped strip required in Subsection A.,
above due to existing buildings, street width, paved parking, changes of elevation or
location of utilities including catch basins, the Director may approve:
a. Decorative fencing located immediately behind the property line. The fencing
may be wrought iron or masonry and shall be subject to the fence height
standards of the applicable zoning district and the vision clearance setbacks of
Section 4.2‐130; and/or
b. Landscaping equivalent to the amount required in Subsection A., above may be
placed at the property corners or other areas of the property that are visible
from the street.
*Property lines, setbacks and dimensioned landscape areas shall be shown on all applications;
however street trees, fencing and planting information may be noted and details deferred to
Final MDS Plan Approval or Building Permit Submittal.
B. Trash receptacles shall be screened, covered and connected to the sanitary system in
accordance with the Engineering Design Standards Manual as applicable. All outdoor storage
areas shall be screened by a structure or enclosure permanently affixed to the ground as
specified in Section 4.4‐110.*
*Property lines, setbacks, and the location of covers and screens shall be shown on all
applications; however materials and construction types may be noted and details deferred to
Final MDS Plan Approval or Building Permit Submittal.
C. Bicycle parking spaces shall be added to meet the numerical standards for the appropriate use
or upgraded to meet the standards specified in Sections 4.6‐140, 4.6‐145 and 4.6‐155.*
*Long term and short term bicycle parking areas may be noted on all applications; however,
details may be deferred to Final MDS Plan Approval or Building Permit Submittal.
5
EXCEPTION: In cases where the number of bicycle parking spaces cannot be met due to lot/parcel size or
physical constraint, the Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director, may reduce the
standard without a Variance if a finding is made that the reduction will not have an adverse impact on
public safety.
D. Parking and circulation areas shall be provided. Paving, striping and wheel stops shall be
installed as specified in Sections 4.6‐100 and 4.6‐120. Required paving and other impervious
surfaces on the site shall comply with on‐site storm water management standards as specified in
Section 4.3‐110.
EXCEPTION: In cases where the number of vehicular parking spaces cannot be met due to
lot/parcel size or physical constraint, the Director, in consultation with the Public Works
Director, may reduce the standard without a Minor Variance if a finding is made that the
reduction will not have an adverse impact on public safety.
E. Access from the proposed development area to the public right‐of‐way shall comply with
Section 4.2‐120.
1. Where the proposed development area abuts an improved street, any non‐conforming
or unsafe driveways, as determined by the Public Works Director, shall be removed and
replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
2. Where the proposed development area abuts an unimproved street, any non‐
conforming or unsafe access points, as determined by the Public Works Director, shall
be:
a. Removed by the use of fencing, extruded curbs or other method of approved
barricade; and
b. The property owner shall sign an Improvement Agreement guaranteeing future
participation in a Local Improvement District.
3. If an existing driveway or access point is closed, the Director may approve a joint use
access agreement with a neighboring property as specified in Section 4.2‐120.
F. Concrete sidewalks shall be installed where the proposed development area abuts a curb and
gutter street as specified in Section 4.2‐135.
G. Streetlights required to serve the development area shall be installed as specified in Section 4.2‐
145.
H. The development area shall connect to public utilities as specified in Sections 4.3‐105, 4.3‐110,
4.3‐120, 4.3‐125 and 4.3‐130 and comply with the Springfield Building Safety Codes, where
applicable. Easements may be required as specified in Subsection 4.3‐140. (6238)
6
I. MDS Approval pursuant to Section 5.15‐110, Subsection 4 shall also meet the following submittal
standards in addition to A‐H:
a. The applicant shall prepare an MDS Site Assessment of Existing Conditions meeting the
following standards:
o The plan shall be drawn by a licensed engineer, architect, landscape architect, or
land surveyor.
o The plan shall provide the name, location and dimensions of all existing site
features including, but not limited to significant stands of trees, watercourses
shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their riparian areas,
wetlands, flood designations and slopes.
b. The applicant shall provide an MDS Site Plan meeting the following standards:
o Prepared by a licensed engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor.
o Proposed building envelopes
o Location and dimension of proposed landscape areas including percentage of
landscaped coverage
o Required screening*
o Required street tree location and types
o Planting List*
o Dimensions of the Development Area
o Where applicable, location of existing planned or proposed transit facilities*
o Area of all property to be reserved conveyed of dedicated.
c. The applicant shall submit an Improvement and Public Utilities Plan meeting the following
standards:
o Prepared by a licensed engineer where utility systems are proposed.
o Location and width of proposed easements
o Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed rights of way
o Location of existing of proposed utilities and infrastructure on or adjacent to the
subject site including the following as applicable: storm water management
systems, sanitary sewer mains, power, water mains, gas, telephone and cable
connections. .
o Drainage patterns and connection points with supporting documentation to
demonstrate the proposed system will function consistent with the City of
Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
* The applicant may request deferral of plan details demonstrating compliance with standards
of SDC 5.15‐120 until Final MDS Plan Submittal, building permit submittal or building permit
occupancy as noted herein.
5.15‐125 Timelines and Conditions
The property owner and/or applicant shall comply with the standards specified in Subsection 5.15‐120
within 3 years of the Director’s approval as follows:
7
A. Submittal of a Final MDS Plan within 90 days of the Director’s approval, including the following
additional material, where applicable:
1. The original recorded copy of any required Improvement Agreement.
2. Where applicable, any required ODOT Right‐of‐way Approach Permit shall be submitted
prior to construction of improvements with ODOT right of way.
3. Where approved, a copy of a recorded joint use access/parking agreement.
4. A copy of a recorded private easement or the original public utility easement.
B. The signing of a Development Agreement by the property owner within 90 days of the Director’s
Final MDS Plan approval and issuance of the Development Agreement. A Building Permit may be
issued by the Building Official only after the Development Agreement has been signed by the
applicant. No structure or site shall be occupied until all improvements are made as specified in
this Section, unless otherwise permitted below.
C. The construction of the required improvements shall begin within 2 years of the signing of the
Development Agreement. If this time line cannot be met, the applicant may submit a written
request for a single one year extension of the 2 year start of construction time line specified
above.
D. If the time line established for the start of construction in Subsection C. above is not met and
the applicant has not requested an extension, then the Director shall declare the application null
and void.
E. Upon satisfactory completion of site development, as determined by a Final Site Inspection (prior
to the final building inspection), the City shall authorize the provision of public facilities and
services and issue a Certificate of Occupancy or otherwise authorize use of the site.
F. All required improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or
Final Building Inspection for the development, unless improvements have been deferred for
good cause by the Director as noted below:
1) A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued prior to complete installation and
approval of improvements, if security is filed with the City.
2) Required security shall equal 110 percent of the cost of the design, materials and labor,
as determined by the Director. Required security may consist of cash, certified check,
time certificate or deposit, or lending agency certification to the City that funds are
being held until completion.
3) If the installation of improvements is not completed within the period stipulated by the
Director, or if the improvements have been improperly installed, the security may be
used by the City to complete the installation, or the security may be held by the City and
other enforcement powers employed to prevent final occupancy until the
8
improvements are completed. Upon completion of the improvements as certified by the
Director, any portion of the remaining security deposited with the City, including any
accrued interest, shall be returned.”
Section 2: SDC Section 5.17‐105B.2. is amended to read:
“B. Site Plan Review is required for:
2. Multifamily residential, commercial, public and semi‐public, and industrial
development or uses, including construction of impervious surfaces for parking lots and
storage areas, including:
a. New development on vacant sites and redevelopment as a result of
demolition and removal of existing buildings and impervious surfaces on a
formerly occupied site, except where a proposed development qualifies as an
MDS Application in accordance with SDC Section 5.15.
b. Additions or expansions that exceed either 50 percent of the existing
building gross floor area or 5,000 square feet or more of new building gross
floor area and/or impervious surface area, except where a proposed
development qualifies as an MDS Application in accordance with SDC Section
5.15.”
Section 3: SDC Section 5.17‐120 is amended to read:
5.17-120 Submittal Requirements
“All Site Plan applications shall be prepared by an Oregon licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, Civil
Engineer or Surveyor as determined by the Director. A Site Plan shall contain all the elements deemed
necessary by the Director to demonstrate that provisions of this Code are being fulfilled and may include,
but not be limited to, the following:”
Section 4: SDC Section 4.2‐105A.4 is amended to read:
“4. An applicant may be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to identify potential
traffic impacts from proposed development and needed mitigation measures. A TIS is
required if any of the following criteria are met:
a. Peak Hour Threshold
If a change in land use or intensification of an existing use generates 100 or
more trips during any peak hour as determined by procedures contained in the
most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation
Manual, a TIS shall be performed by a registered professional engineer.
b. Average Daily Traffic Threshold
If a change in land use or intensification of an existing use generates 1,000 or
more trips per day as determined by procedures contained in the most recent
9
edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, a
TIS shall be performed by a registered professional engineer.
c. Variance and Known Issues Threshold
The Public Works Director may determine that a TIS is necessary to support a
request for a Variance from the transportation provisions of this code or where
traffic safety, street capacity, future planned facility, or multimodal concerns
may be associated with the proposed development.
d. The nature and extent of the TIS scope shall be determined by the Public Works
Director based upon a trip distribution and assignment prepared by the
Applicant. At a minimum, locations impacted by more than 20 trips during the
identified peak hour shall be included in the trip distribution and assignment.
e. The Director, with the approval of the Public Works Director, may modify TIS
requirements consistent with applicable local and regional transportation
system plans and the intent of this Code when existing conditions make their
strict application impractical or inconsistent with accepted site planning or
transportation planning principles.”
Section 5: SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and individual
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ______ day of December, 2011,
by a vote of ______ for and ______ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ______ day of December, 2011.
_______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Recorder
MEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF WORK SESSION/PUBLIC HEARING: November 1, 2011
PLANNING
COMMISSION
TRANSMITTAL
TO: Springfield Planning Commissioners MEMORANDUM
FROM: Jim Donovan, DSD Urban Planning Supervisor
Matt Stouder, P.E., Public Works Land Development Supervisor
SUBJECT: Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments to revise Site Plan Review
and Minimum Development Standards (MDS) submittal requirements and review procedures-
Case Number TYP42011-00004.
___________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE
Amendments of the Springfield Development Code are a Type IV review procedure pursuant to
SDC 5.6-115. The Planning Commission reviews all Code Amendment proposals, considers
public testimony and advises the City Council to approve, modify or deny the proposed SDC
amendments by Order and Recommendation.
DISCUSSION
The City of Springfield’s Development Services and Public Works Departments have a tradition
of periodically reviewing development requirements and procedures with the development
community to increase efficiency, reduce costs and meet Council’s goals of providing sound
community and economic development, maintaining public infrastructure and improving
livability.
In June of 2010, the City Manager, City Attorney and Directors of the Public Works and
Development Services Departments met with representatives of the local development
community to solicit feedback on the City’s development review process. The Developer Input
Process (DIP) was subsequently conducted by Development Services and Public Works’ staff
with representatives of the development community, meeting 15 times over the last year. The
set of proposed code changes before the Planning Commission tonight reflects that portion of
the Joint Work Team’s work recommending modifications to Site Plan and MDS submittal and
review procedures. Additional information regarding the full suite of efficiency recommendations
from the JWT is contained in Attachment 3.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Advise the City Council, by motion and signature of the attached Order and Recommendation
by the Planning Commission Chairperson, to approve the proposed SDC amendments by
Ordinance at their public hearing on December 5, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: SDC Amendment Staff Report, Findings and Order
Attachment 2: Proposed SDC Amendments
Attachment 3: Developer Input Process Summary
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 32
ATTACHMENT 1
SDC AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT, FINDINGS AND ORDER
APPLICANT
City of Springfield ‐ TYP411‐00004
REQUEST
Amendment of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) Sections 5.15‐100‐125, 5.17‐105, 5.17‐120, and
4.2‐105 – Modifying Site Plan and MDS submittal and review procedures.
BACKGROUND
The Developer Input Process (DIP) is an element of the Development Fee Study and Cost Recovery
Project, which was initiated by Council in early 2010. Members of the development community
submitted input during the fee project suggesting that efficiency and other measures should be
considered prior to reviewing processing costs and fees. After an open house listening session with City
executives, a nine member self‐selected Joint Work Team representing local developers and
professionals from the consultant community was formed to work with City staff. The JWT determined
that Site Plan Review, City departmental roles in development review procedures and overall customer
service were the top areas of concern. A large portion of the JWT’s time was dedicated to reviewing and
streamlining the City’s Site Plan Application and Minimum Development Standards application
requirements and processing procedures. The final step for the JWT’s process improvements is to have
proposed changes codified and enacted where necessary. The following staff report addresses the
criteria of approval for the proposed amendments to Springfield Development Code noted above and
more specifically detailed in Attachment 2. Attachment 3 provides a summary of developer input,
additional process improvements and future code recommendations from the 2010 Developer Input
Process.
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA FOR SDC AMENDMENTS
SDC 5.6‐115 establishes criteria that must be met in order to approve this request. “In reaching a
decision on these actions, the Planning Commission and the City Council shall adopt findings which
demonstrate conformance to the following: (1) The Metro Plan; (2) Applicable State statutes; and (3)
Applicable State‐wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.”
(1) The Metro Plan;”
“The Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan [Metro Plan] is the official long‐range
general plan (public policy document) of metropolitan Lane County and the cities of Eugene and
Springfield. Its policies and land use designations apply only within the area under the jurisdiction of
the Plan. The Plan sets forth general planning policies and land use allocations and serves as the basis
for the coordinated development of programs concerning the use and conservation of physical
resources, furtherance of assets, and development or redevelopment of the metropolitan area.” P. I‐1
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 32
Staff Response and Finding:
The Metro Plan is a “general” policy document that must be implemented by more detailed zoning and
land use regulations found in the SDC. Policy statements in the Metro Plan recognize the need to
encourage new development by mitigating conflicts between land uses, protect existing land inventories
through efficient land use, consider the costs of regulations on housing, utilize development and re‐
development opportunities to improve access to all modes of transportation and preserve natural
resources (Metro Plan Policies A.3, A.33, B.2, B.15, C.8 and F.4).
The Springfield Development Code is the City’s DLCD‐ acknowledged implementing ordinance. While
not specifically mentioned in the Metro Plan, Site Plan Review procedures (including MDS) are an
important implementation tool designed to accomplish the various policy goals of the Metro Plan during
development review at the local level. The proposed changes to the SDC are designed to increase
understanding, reduce processing time and control costs, they are limited and procedural in nature and
do not change the role or function of the Site Plan Review process within the basic framework of the
SDC or Metro Plan.
Finding: The proposed Site Plan and MDS modifications are procedural amendments of an acknowledged
implementing ordinance and are therefore generally consistent with Metro Plan policy. No specific
Metro Plan policies apply to the proposed code amendments.
“(2) Applicable State statutes,”
Staff Response and Findings:
The proposed code changes are technically post acknowledgement amendments of an implementing
land use regulation adopted in accordance with ORS 197.175 therefore ORS 197.610 relating to
amendment procedures must be addressed. Additionally, because the proposed changes involve Site
Plan Review submittal requirements ORS 227.178 is also addressed below.
POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PROCEDURES‐ ORS 197.610
“197.610 Local government notice of proposed amendment or new regulation; exceptions; report to
commission.
(1) A proposal to amend a local government acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation
or to adopt a new land use regulation shall be forwarded to the Director of the Department of Land
Conservation and Development at least 45 days before the first evidentiary hearing on adoption. The
proposal forwarded shall contain the text and any supplemental information that the local
government believes is necessary to inform the director as to the effect of the proposal. The notice
shall include the date set for the first evidentiary hearing. The director shall notify persons who have
requested notice that the proposal is pending.
(2) When a local government determines that the goals do not apply to a particular proposed
amendment or new regulation, notice under subsection (1) of this section is not required. In addition,
a local government may submit an amendment or new regulation with less than 45 days’ notice if the
local government determines that there are emergency circumstances requiring expedited review.
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 32
Finding: The proposed code changes are amendments to an acknowledged land use regulation therefore
the 45 day notice required by ORS 197.610(1) has been provided to the State, a copy of which has been
made a part of the file record for this proposal. No comments have been received from DLCD. If
adopted, follow up notice of the changes shall be forwarded to DLCD in accordance with the above
statute.
LIMITED LAND USE PROCEDURES‐ ORS 227.178
“Final action on certain applications required within 120 days; procedure; exceptions; refund of fees.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (5) and (11) of this section, the governing body of a city or its
designee shall take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone
change, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 227.180, within 120 days after the application is
deemed complete.
Staff Response and Finding:
Site Plan Review is a limited land use decision pursuant to ORS 227.178. The proposed amendments to
Site Plan Review submittal requirements allow the applicant and Director to reduce or defer initial
information requirements and do not significantly affect public notice, discretionary decision making,
the 120 day limit or appeal procedures performed by the City of Springfield during Site Plan Review.
MDS is a ministerial permitting process subject to clear and objective standards. The proposed
Minimum Development Standards amendments are designed to further clarify the process and
standards for review and approval of permits through administrative procedures.
Finding: The proposed amendments are efficiency measures that will have no negative impact on the
existing public notice, discretionary decision making, 120 day limit or appeal procedures of Site Plan
Review and are therefore consistent with SDC 227.178.
“(3) Applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.”
GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ‐ OAR 660‐015‐0000(1)
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING OAR 660‐015‐0000(2)
GOAL 3: AGRICULTURAL LAND OAR 660‐015‐0000(3)
GOAL 4: FOREST LANDS OAR 660‐015‐0000(4)
GOAL 5: NATURAL RESOURCES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES OAR 660‐015‐
0000(5)
GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY OAR 660‐015‐0000(6)
GOAL 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS OAR 660‐015‐0000(7)
GOAL 8: RECREATIONAL NEEDS OAR 660‐015‐0000(8)
GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OAR 660‐015‐0000(9)
GOAL 10: HOUSING OAR 660‐015‐0000(10)
GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OAR 660‐015‐0000(11)
GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION OAR 660‐015‐0000(12)
GOAL 13: ENERGY CONSERVATION OAR 660‐015‐0000(13)
GOAL 14: URBANIZATION OAR 660‐015‐0000(14)
GOAL 15: WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY OAR 660‐015‐000(15)
GOAL 16: ESTUARINE RESOURCES OAR 660‐015‐000(16)
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 32
GOAL 17: COASTAL SHORELANDS OAR 660‐015‐000(17)
GOAL 18: BEACHES AND DUNES OAR 660‐015‐000(18)
GOAL 19: OCEAN RESOURCES OAR 660‐015‐000(19)
Staff Response and Finding:
The proposed amendments respond to local input from the development community and are designed
to make existing submittal requirements and review procedures more flexible and efficient. With the
exception of general conformance to Goals 1 and 10, the proposed efficiency measures do not
significantly impact implementation of any Statewide Planning Goals or Administrative Rules.
GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMNT‐
A) Nature of the Amendments: The existing notification procedures of the SDC for Site Plan Review
are unchanged by the proposal; MDS procedures are ministerial in nature and do not require
notification.
B) Amendment Process: Public notice of Planning Commission and City Council public hearings for
the proposed code changes were printed in the Register Guard on October 21, 2011 in
accordance with SDC 5.2‐115B; 45 day notice of the proposed amendments was provided to
DLCD in accordance with ORS 197.610.
GOAL 10: HOUSING‐ The proposed amendments are intended to clarify, reduce and defer certain Site
Plan Review submittal standards. The results are clearer, more objective submittal standards, decreased plan
preparation costs and reduced processing times where site plan review is required for multi‐unit residential
development.
Finding: The proposed amendments of the SDC are efficiency measures that conform to State‐wide
Planning Goals 1 and 10; the remainder of the Goals do not apply.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION
Staff has demonstrated that the proposed amendments modifying Site Plan Review and Minimum
Development Standards application submittal standards and review procedures are consistent with the
applicable portions of SDC amendment criteria of approval listed in SDC 5.6‐115: (1) The Metro Plan; (2)
Applicable State statutes; and (3) Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the attached Order and forward the proposed
amendments to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption.
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 32
ATTACHMENT 2
PROPOSED SDC AMENDMENTS
CASE NUMBER TYP411‐0004.
The following are proposed amendments of the Springfield Development Code (SDC), Sections 5.15‐
100‐125, 5.17‐105, 5.17‐120, and 4.2‐105 – Modifying Site Plan and MDS submittal and review
procedures.
The proposed code amendments are formatted in the following manner:
Section 5.15‐100‐125: Minimum Development Standards‐ existing and proposed versions,
shown in their entirety due to significant changes to the MDS submittal and processing
standards. (See Developer Input Process Summary for more background information on
deferral of information and processing times).
Section 5.17‐105B.2: Site Plan Review Purpose and Applicability‐ proposed enabling language for
consistency with the proposed MDS standards, identified in Track Changes.
Section 5.17‐120: Proposed language for Director discretion to determine minimum submittal
standards on Site Plan Review Applications; an example of new Site Plan Review Submittal
Application Requirements is included. (See Developer Input Process Summary for more
background information on expansion of qualified consultants, deferral of information and
Director discretion).
Section 4.2‐105A.4: Infrastructure Standards‐Transportation‐Public Streets: Existing and
Proposed language to clarify and streamline the requirements for submittal of a Traffic Impact
Study. (See Developer Input Process Summary for more background information.)
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 32
SECTION 5.15-100-125: MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(EXISTING):
5.15-105 Purpose
Minimum Development Standards (MDS) are intended to support economic development by minimizing
City review for minor additions or expansions or changes in use as specified in this Section. MDS shall
ensure compliance with specific appearance; transportation safety and efficiency; and stormwater
management standards specified in this Code and otherwise protect the public health, safety and welfare.
5.15-110 Applicability
A. MDS apply:
1. To developed properties that do not require either Site Plan Review as specified
in Section 5.17-105 or a Site Plan Modification as specified in Section 5.17-145; and
2. Within Springfield’s city limits only; and
3. Within commercial, industrial and public land zoning districts only, where there is
an addition or expansion of:
a. Fifty percent or less than the existing building gross floor area and/or
impervious surface area; or
b. Five thousand square feet or less of additional building gross floor area
and/or impervious surface area, whichever is less.
c. Serial expansions shall be limited so that the standards specified in
Subsections a. and b., above are not exceeded in a 3-year period.
EXCEPTION: The installation of items, including but not limited to, internal
sidewalks or bases for benches that are less than 50 square feet in area, or
covering existing storage areas with a permanent structure that is not enclosed,
or a fully enclosed temporary structure shall not initiate MDS review; and
d. A change in use of a building or property.
B. Where there is an addition, expansion or change in use of a building or property
containing multiple uses, the property owner shall bring the entire property into compliance with
the standards specified in Section 5.15-120. However, required improvements shall be installed
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 32
under the rule of proportionality, based upon the number of businesses on the property. For
example, if there are 3 businesses on the property and there is only 1 change of use, then only
1/3 of the improvements necessary for the entire property area shall be required to be completed
for that use. If the property contains more than 3 uses, the Director and property owner may
enter into an agreement so that as a use changes or expands, a percentage of the property shall
comply with MDS requirements with the intent that the total property will meet MDS
requirements over time. This agreement shall not affect the MDS timelines specified in Section
5.15-125.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. In cases where the proposed addition, expansion or change in use is an espresso
stand, the Director may waive the MDS requirement on properties containing existing
multiple uses.
2. Where the property is currently in compliance with all of the standards specified
in Section 5.15-120, MDS shall not apply.
5.15-115 Review
A. MDS is reviewed under the Type I review process, unless the Director finds that the
proposed use should be reviewed under the Type II review process.
B. A copy of any required ODOT Right-of-way Approach Permit application shall be
submitted concurrently with the MDS application, where applicable.
5.15-120 SDC Standards Applicable to MDS Approval
In order to grant MDS approval, the Director shall determine compliance with all applicable standards
specified below. Final occupancy is contingent upon the completion of required site improvements.
A. A 5-foot wide landscaped planter strip, including street trees, with approved irrigation or
approved drought resistant plants as specified in Sections 4.4-100 and 4.2-140 shall be installed
between the sidewalk and parking areas or buildings.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Where there is an unimproved street, a 4-foot wide landscaped planter strip shall
be required to be set back 1 foot from the property line.
Attachment 2
Page 8 of 32
2. Where there is insufficient space for the landscaped strip required in Subsection
A., above due to existing buildings, street width, paved parking, changes of elevation or
location of utilities including catch basins, the Director may approve:
a. Decorative fencing located immediately behind the property line. The
fencing may be wrought iron or masonry and shall be subject to the fence height
standards of the applicable zoning district and the vision clearance setbacks of
Section 4.2-130; and/or
b. Landscaping equivalent to the amount required in Subsection A., above
may be placed at the property corners or other areas of the property that are
visible from the street.
B. Trash receptacles and outdoor storage areas shall be screened by a structure or
enclosure permanently affixed to the ground as specified in Section 4.4-110.
C. Bicycle parking spaces shall be added to meet the numerical standards for the
appropriate use or upgraded to meet the standards specified in Sections 4.6-140, 4.6-145 and
4.6-155.
EXCEPTION: In cases where the number of bicycle parking spaces cannot be met due to
lot/parcel size or physical constraint, the Director, in consultation with the Transportation
Planning Engineer, may reduce the standard without a Variance if a finding is made that the
reduction will not have an adverse impact on public safety.
D. Parking and circulation areas shall be paved and striped and wheel stops installed as
specified in Sections 4.6-100 and 4.6-120. Required paving and other impervious surfaces on the
site shall comply with on-site stormwater management standards as specified in Section 4.3-110
for required parking, circulation area and storage area impervious surfaces only.
EXCEPTION: In cases where the number of vehicular parking spaces cannot be met due to
lot/parcel size or physical constraint, the Director, in consultation with the Transportation
Planning Engineer, may reduce the standard without a Minor Variance if a finding is made that
the reduction will not have an adverse impact on public safety.
E. Access to the public right-of-way shall comply with Section 4.2-120.
1. Where the property abuts an improved street, any non-conforming or unsafe
driveways, as determined by the Transportation Manager, shall be removed and replaced
with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
2. Where the property abuts an unimproved street, any non-conforming or unsafe
access points, as determined by the Transportation Manager, shall be:
a. Removed by the use of fencing, extruded curbs or other method of
approved barricade; and
Attachment 2
Page 9 of 32
b. The property owner shall sign an Improvement Agreement guaranteeing
future participation in a Local Improvement District.
3. If an existing driveway or access point is closed, the Director may require a joint
use access agreement with a neighboring property as specified in Section 4.2-120.
F. Concrete sidewalks shall be installed where the site abuts a curb and gutter street as
specified in Section 4.2-135.
G. Streetlights shall be installed as specified in Section 4.2-145.
H. The development shall connect to public utilities as specified in Sections 4.3-105, 4.3-
110, 4.3-120, 4.3-125 and 4.3-130 and comply with the Springfield Building Safety Codes, where
applicable. Easements may be required as specified in Subsection 4.3-140. (6238)
5.15-125 Timelines and Conditions
The property owner and/or applicant shall comply with the standards specified in Subsection 5.15-120
within 90 days of the Director’s approval as follows:
A. Submittal of a Final Plot Plan within 30 days of the Director’s approval that states the
starting date of all required improvements demonstrating compliance with all approval conditions
required to meet the standards specified in Subsection 5.15-120. Submittal of a Final Plot Plan
shall include the following additional material, where applicable:
1. The original recorded Improvement Agreement.
2. Any required ODOT Right-of-way Approach Permit.
EXCEPTION: If the ODOT Right-of-Way Approach Permit cannot be obtained by the
time line specified in Subsection A., above, the Director may defer the submittal of this
document until the start of construction date specified in Subsection C., below.
3. A copy of a recorded joint use access/parking agreement.
4. A copy of a recorded private easement or the original public utility easement.
B. The signing of a Development Agreement by the property owner within 45 days of the
Director’s approval of the Final Plot Plan.
C. The construction of the required improvements shall begin within 90 days of the MDS
decision. If this time line cannot be met, the applicant may submit a written request for a time
line extension as specified in Subsection D., below.
Attachment 2
Page 10 of 32
D. The Director may allow a one-time extension of the 90-day start of construction time line
specified in Subsection C., above due to situations including but not limited to, required permits
from the City or other agencies, weather conditions, and the unavailability of asphalt or street
trees. If the time extension is allowed, security shall be provided as specified in Section 5.17-150.
The time line extension shall not exceed 90 days.
E. If the time line established in Subsection C., above is not met and the applicant has not
requested an extension as specified in Subsection D., above, then the Director shall declare the
application null and void if the property is occupied and the property owner shall be considered in
violation of this Code.
F. If the time line established in Subsection C., above is not met and the applicant has
requested an extension as specified in Subsection D., above and that time line as not been met,
then the Director may require that the improvements be installed as specified in Section 5.17-
150. (6238)
SECTION 5.15‐100‐125 MDS STANDARDS (PROPOSED) :
5.15‐105 Purpose
Minimum Development Standards (MDS) are intended to support economic development by minimizing
City review for minor additions or expansions, changes in approved use categories, or where land use
conflicts have been mitigated or eliminated as a result of prior development approvals, zoning or
regulation. The purpose of MDS procedures is to provide the minimum level of ministerial review that
guarantees compliance with applicable development standards. MDS approvals shall ensure compliance
with specific appearance; transportation safety and efficiency, and storm water management standards
of this Code or other applicable regulations as necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Minimum Development Standards include the following range of review procedures which shall be
applied subject to applicability and locational standards contained herein. The Director shall determine
the appropriate MDS approach from the following list of MDS review procedures:
1. Building Permit Only (BPO): If no additional site review or MDS procedures are required by this
code, building permit procedures and timelines shall be used to determine compliance with
applicable standards of this code. Applicable zoning overlay applications may be processed
concurrently with building permit applications.
2. Land Use Compatibility Inspection Application (LUCI): This ministerial planning review and/or
site inspection process may be used to demonstrate that: a) the subject site is in substantial
compliance with previous approvals, and b) existing improvements satisfy required standards.
LUCI process shall not be used when other provisions of MDS or Site Plan review apply.
3. MDS Minor Application: This process shall be used for expansions or additions on an existing
development site that do not exceed five thousand square feet.
Attachment 2
Page 11 of 32
4. MDS Major Application: This process shall be used for expansions or additions to certain
existing development sites where the expansion or addition does not exceed twenty five
thousand square feet of new impervious area.
All MDS applications may be submitted concurrently with a complete Building Permit application; the
applicant assumes all liability and responsibility if concurrent reviews necessitate the revision of either
permit in response to ministerial review.
5.15‐110 Applicability
A. MDS regulations shall apply as described below:
1. Land Use Compatibility Inspection procedures shall apply where the property is curre
compliance with all of the standards specified in Section 5.15‐120, and the Director has
verified compliance with the above standards through a ministerial land use compatibility
inspection and/or review of prior land use approvals.
ntly in
ment
r building
ally
uare
2. MDS Minor provisions shall apply within all commercial, industrial and public land zoning
districts, where there is a) new construction, an addition or expansion on a develop
site of up to five thousand square feet, or b) a change in land use classification o
occupancy of a structure or property. MDS Minor submittals shall comply with the
standards of Section 5.15‐120 Subsections A.‐H.
3. MDS Major provisions shall apply only within Community Commercial, Light or Heavy
Industrial and Public Land and Open Space zoning districts where:
a. The proposed development does not abut a zoning district other than
Community Commercial, Light or Heavy Industrial and Public Land and Open
Space, or,
b. The proposed development area is not located within 50 feet of residenti
zoned or designated property (as measured from the property line of the
subject site and excluding public rights of way), and,
c. The proposed construction, addition or expansion will not exceed 25,000 sq
feet of combined gross floor area and/or substantially reconstructed impervious
area (excluding asphalt overlays), and
d. Where the proposal will comply with the standards of Section 5.15‐120
Subsections A.‐I.
4. MDS provisions shall only apply to developed properties located within Springfield’s land use
jurisdiction. Development proposals that exceed the size provisions of MDS standards shall
require Site Plan Review as specified in Section 5.17 of this code.
B. Where there is an MDS application for addition, expansion or change of use category for a
building or property containing multiple uses, the property owner may bring the entire property
Attachment 2
Page 12 of 32
into compliance with the standards specified in Section 5.15-120 or the property owner may
request that required improvements be reviewed, approved and installed in proportion to the
relative impacts of the businesses on the property.
For example, if there are 3 businesses on the property with equal impacts and there is only one
change of use, then approximately 1/3 of the improvements necessary for the entire development
area shall be required to be completed to serve the proposed use. Improvements mitigating
identified safety concerns shall be given priority.
Alternatively, if a multi-tenant space is being upgraded an owner may submit an MDS Major
Application where applicable proposing full improvements to the entire development site with a
proposed phasing plan stipulating a proportional percentage of the property shall comply with
specified MDS requirements for each change of use category or expansion with the intent that the
total property will meet MDS requirements over time. Upon approval of an MDS phasing plan,
improvements consistent with the approval shall be reviewed under building permit procedures.
This agreement shall not exceed the MDS timelines specified in Section 5.15-125 unless
otherwise approved by the Director.
5.15‐115 Review
A. LUCI and MDS applications are reviewed under the Type I review process, unless the applicant
requests or the Director finds that the proposed use should provide public notice. The target date
for MDS approvals shall be 30 days from the date of submittal.
B. Required public improvements and any additional required land use permits or approvals shall be
reviewed in accordance with this code.
5.15‐120 SDC Standards Applicable to MDS Approval
In order to grant MDS approval, the Director shall determine compliance with all applicable standards
specified below. Subject to review and approval by the Director, the applicant may request deferral of
plan details demonstrating compliance with standards of SDC 5.15‐120 until Final MDS Plan Submittal,
building permit submittal or building permit occupancy as noted herein. Final approvals and/or
occupancy is contingent upon the completion of all required site improvements. Application materials
shall be submitted as required on application submittal checklists and in sufficient detail to demonstrate
compliance with the following standards:
A. A 5-foot wide landscaped planter strip, including street trees, with approved irrigation or approved
drought resistant plants as specified in Sections 4.4-100 and 4.2-140 shall be installed between
the sidewalk and parking areas or buildings.*
EXCEPTIONS:
Attachment 2
Page 13 of 32
1. Where there is an unimproved street, a 4‐foot wide landscaped planter strip shall be
required to be set back 1 foot from the property line.
2. Where there is insufficient space for the landscaped strip required in Subsection A.,
above due to existing buildings, street width, paved parking, changes of elevation or
location of utilities including catch basins, the Director may approve:
a. Decorative fencing located immediately behind the property line. The fencing
may be wrought iron or masonry and shall be subject to the fence height
standards of the applicable zoning district and the vision clearance setbacks of
Section 4.2‐130; and/or
b. Landscaping equivalent to the amount required in Subsection A., above may be
placed at the property corners or other areas of the property that are visible
from the street.
*Property lines, setbacks and dimensioned landscape areas shall be shown on all applications;
however street trees, fencing and planting information may be noted and details deferred to Final
MDS Plan Approval or Building Permit Submittal.
B. Trash receptacles shall be screened, covered and connected to the sanitary system in
accordance with the Engineering Design Standards Manual as applicable. All outdoor storage
areas shall be screened by a structure or enclosure permanently affixed to the ground as
specified in Section 4.4-110.*
*Property lines, setbacks, and the location of covers and screens shall be shown on all
applications; however materials and construction types may be noted and details deferred to
Final MDS Plan Approval or Building Permit Submittal.
C. Bicycle parking spaces shall be added to meet the numerical standards for the appropriate use or
upgraded to meet the standards specified in Sections 4.6-140, 4.6-145 and 4.6-155.*
*Long term and short term bicycle parking areas may be noted on all applications; however,
details may be deferred to Final MDS Plan Approval or Building Permit Submittal.
EXCEPTION: In cases where the number of bicycle parking spaces cannot be met due to lot/parcel size
or physical constraint, the Director, in consultation with the Transportation Planning Engineer, may reduce
the standard without a Variance if a finding is made that the reduction will not have an adverse impact on
public safety.
D. Parking and circulation areas shall be provided. Paving, striping and wheel stops shall be
installed as specified in Sections 4.6-100 and 4.6-120. Required paving and other impervious
surfaces on the site shall comply with on-site storm water management standards as specified in
Section 4.3-110. .
Attachment 2
Page 14 of 32
EXCEPTION: In cases where the number of vehicular parking spaces cannot be met due to
lot/parcel size or physical constraint, the Director, in consultation with the Transportation Planning
Engineer, may reduce the standard without a Minor Variance if a finding is made that the
reduction will not have an adverse impact on public safety.
E. Access from the proposed development area to the public right-of-way shall comply with Section
4.2-120.
1. Where the proposed development area abuts an improved street, any non‐conforming
or unsafe driveways, as determined by the Transportation Planning Engineer, shall be
removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
2. Where the proposed development area abuts an unimproved street, any non‐
conforming or unsafe access points, as determined by the Transportation Planning
Engineer, shall be:
a. Removed by the use of fencing, extruded curbs or other method of approved
barricade; and
b. The property owner shall sign an Improvement Agreement guaranteeing future
participation in a Local Improvement District.
3. If an existing driveway or access point is closed, the Director may approve a joint use
access agreement with a neighboring property as specified in Section 4.2‐120.
F. Concrete sidewalks shall be installed where the proposed development area abuts a curb and
gutter street as specified in Section 4.2-135.
G. Streetlights required to serve the development area shall be installed as specified in Section 4.2-
145.
H. The development area shall connect to public utilities as specified in Sections 4.3-105, 4.3-110,
4.3-120, 4.3-125 and 4.3-130 and comply with the Springfield Building Safety Codes, where
applicable. Easements may be required as specified in Subsection 4.3-140. (6238)
I. MDS Approval pursuant to Section 5.15‐110, Subsection 4 shall also meet the following submittal
standards in addition to A‐H:
a. The applicant shall prepare an MDS Site Assessment of Existing Conditions meeting the
following standards:
o The plan shall be drawn by a licensed engineer, architect, landscape architect, or
land surveyor.
o The plan shall provide the name, location and dimensions of all existing site
features including, but not limited to significant stands of trees, watercourses
Attachment 2
Page 15 of 32
shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their riparian areas,
wetlands, flood designations and slopes.
b. The applicant shall provide an MDS Site Plan meeting the following standards:
o Prepared by a licensed engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor.
o Proposed building envelopes
o Location and dimension of proposed landscape areas including percentage of
landscaped coverage
o Required screening*
o Required street tree location and types
o Planting List*
o Dimensions of the Development Area
o Where applicable, location of existing planned or proposed transit facilities*
o Area of all property to be reserved conveyed of dedicated.
c. The applicant shall submit an Improvement and Public Utilities Plan meeting the following
standards:
o Prepared by a licensed engineer where utility systems are proposed.
o Location and width of proposed easements
o Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed rights of way
o Location of existing of proposed utilities and infrastructure on or adjacent to the
subject site including the following as applicable: storm water management
systems, sanitary sewer mains, power, water mains, gas, telephone and cable
connections. .
o Drainage patterns and connection points with supporting documentation to
demonstrate the proposed system will function consistent with the City of
Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
* The applicant may request deferral of plan details demonstrating compliance with standards
of SDC 5.15‐120 until Final MDS Plan Submittal, building permit submittal or building permit
occupancy as noted herein.
5.15‐125
Timelines and Conditions
The property owner and/or applicant shall comply with the standards specified in Subsection 5.15‐120
within 3 years of the Director’s approval as follows:
A. Submittal of a Final MDS Plan within 90 days of the Director’s approval, including the following
additional material, where applicable:
1. The original recorded copy of any required Improvement Agreement.
2. Where applicable, any required ODOT Right‐of‐way Approach Permit shall be submitted
prior to construction of improvements with ODOT right of way.
Attachment 2
Page 16 of 32
3. Where approved, a copy of a recorded joint use access/parking agreement.
4. A copy of a recorded private easement or the original public utility easement.
B. The signing of a Development Agreement by the property owner within 90 days of the Director’s
Final MDS Plan approval and issuance of the Development Agreement. A Building Permit may be
issued by the Building Official only after the Development Agreement has been signed by the
applicant. No structure or site shall be occupied until all improvements are made as specified in
this Section, unless otherwise permitted below.
C. The construction of the required improvements shall begin within 2 years of the signing of the
Development Agreement. If this time line cannot be met, the applicant may submit a written
request for a single one year extension of the 2 year start of construction time line specified
above.
D. If the time line established for the start of construction in Subsection C. above is not met and the
applicant has not requested an extension, then the Director shall declare the application null and
void.
E. Upon satisfactory completion of site development, as determined by a Final Site Inspection (prior
to the final building inspection), the City shall authorize the provision of public facilities and
services and issue a Certificate of Occupancy or otherwise authorize use of the site.
F. All required improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or
Final Building Inspection for the development, unless improvements have been deferred for
good cause by the Director as noted below:
1) A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued prior to complete installation and
approval of improvements, if security is filed with the City.
2) Required security shall equal 110 percent of the cost of the design, materials and labor,
as determined by the Director. Required security may consist of cash, certified check,
time certificate or deposit, or lending agency certification to the City that funds are
being held until completion.
3) If the installation of improvements is not completed within the period stipulated by the
Director, or if the improvements have been improperly installed, the security may be
used by the City to complete the installation, or the security may be held by the City and
other enforcement powers employed to prevent final occupancy until the
improvements are completed. Upon completion of the improvements as certified by the
Director, any portion of the remaining security deposited with the City, including any
accrued interest, shall be returned.
***
Attachment 2
Page 17 of 32
5.17‐105 SITE PLAN‐ Purpose and Applicability
A. The purpose of Site Plan Review is to: Facilitate and enhance the value of development;
Regulate the manner in which land is used and developed; Ensure the provision of public facilities
and services; Maintain the integrity of the City’s watercourses by promoting bank stability,
assisting in flood protection and flow control, protecting riparian functions, minimizing erosion,
and preserving water quality and significant fish and wildlife areas; Provide for connectivity
between different uses; Utilize alternative transportation modes including and walking, bicycling
and mass transit facilities; Implement the Metro Plan, applicable refinement plans and specific
area plans and development plans; Minimize adverse effects on surrounding property owners and
the general public through specific approval conditions; and Otherwise protect the public health
and safety.
B. Site Plan Review is required for:
2. Multifamily residential, commercial, public and semi-public, and industrial
development or uses, including construction of impervious surfaces for parking lots and
storage areas, including:
a. New development on vacant sites and redevelopment as a result of
demolition and removal of existing buildings and impervious surfaces on a
formerly occupied site, except where a proposed development qualifies as an
MDS Application in accordance with SDC Section 5.15.
b. Additions or expansions that exceed either 50 percent of the existing
building gross floor area or 5,000 square feet or more of new building gross floor
area and/or impervious surface area, except where a proposed development
qualifies as an MDS Application in accordance with SDC Section 5.15.
***
5.17‐120 DIRECTOR DISCRETION TO DETERMINE SUBMITTAL
REQUIREMENTS
5.17-120 Submittal Requirements
All Site Plan applications shall be prepared by an Oregon licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, Civil
Engineer or Surveyor as determined by the Director. - A Site Plan shall contain all the elements deemed
necessary by the Director to demonstrate that provisions of this Code are being fulfilled and may include,
but not be limited to, the following:
(THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE ABOVE ENABLES THE FOLLOWING DIP REVISED SITE PLAN APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL INFORMATION)
Attachment 2
Page 18 of 32
Three (3) Copies of the Following Plan Sets for Pre-Submittal –OR-
Three (3) Copies of the Following Plan Sets for Submittal.
All of the following plans must include the scale appropriate to the area involved and
sufficient to show detail of the plan and related data, north arrow, and date of preparation.
All plan sets must be folded to 8½” by 11” and bound by rubber bands.
Please Note:
These plans must provide enough information to enable the City to determine that
the proposed development is feasible, but are not necessarily required to be
detailed construction level documents.
The City’s Engineering Design Standards Manual, while not land use criteria, may
be used, in whole or in part, by the City Engineer to determine the feasibility of a
proposed plan.
Nothing herein should be interpreted as implying any requirement in contradiction
of Oregon Statute or Oregon Administrative Regulation.
a. Site Assessment of Existing Conditions
Prepared by an Oregon licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer or
Surveyor
Vicinity Map
The name, location and dimensions of all existing site features including buildings, curb
cuts, trees and impervious surface areas, depicting what is remaining and what is being
removed. For remaining structures, also indicate present use and size. Setbacks from
property lines and distance between buildings.
The name, location, dimensions, direction of flow and top of bank of all watercourses
and required riparian setback that are shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse
Map on file in the Development Services Department
The 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries on the site, as specified in the latest
adopted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map
Amendment or Letter of Map Revision
The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in SDC 3.3-200 and delineated on the Wellhead
Protection Areas Map on file in the Development Services Department
Physical features including, but not limited to trees 5” in diameter or greater when
measured 4 ½ feet above the ground (stands of more than five (5) trees may be shown
as a cluster with mix of trees species noted), riparian areas, wetlands and rock
outcroppings
Attachment 2
Page 19 of 32
b. Site Plan
Prepared by an Oregon licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer or
Surveyor
Proposed buildings: location, dimensions, size (gross floor area applicable to the parking
requirement for the proposed use(s)), setbacks from property lines, and distance
between buildings; measured setbacks shall be prepared by an Oregon licensed
Surveyor when minimum setbacks are shown.
Location and height of existing or proposed fences, walls, outdoor equipment, storage,
trash receptacles, and signs
Location, dimensions, and number of typical, compact and ADA parking spaces including
aisles, wheel bumpers, directional signs, and striping. ADA access routes from public
rights-of-way shall be designated including at grade connections
Dimensions of the development area, as well as area and percentage of the site
proposed for buildings, structures, parking and vehicular areas, sidewalks, patios, and
other impervious surfaces
Observance of solar access requirements as specified in the applicable zoning district
On-site loading areas and vehicular and pedestrian circulation
Access to streets, alleys, and properties to be served, including the location and
dimensions of existing and proposed curb cuts and curb cuts proposed to be closed
Location and number of bicycle parking spaces
Note location of existing and planned Lane Transit District facilities (within ½ mile)
Area and dimensions of all property to be conveyed, dedicated, or reserved for common
open spaces, recreational areas, and other similar public and semi-public uses
Phased Development Plan – where applicable, the Site Plan application must include a
phasing plan indicating any proposed phases for development, including the boundaries
and sequencing of each phase. Phasing must progress in a defined sequence
addressing street connectivity between the various phases and accommodating the
logical extension of other required public improvements, including but not limited to,
sanitary sewer, stormwater management, water, and electricity. The applicant must
clearly indicate which phases are proposed for approval under the current Site Plan
application and which are deferred to future review procedures.
c. Existing Improvement and Public Utilities Plan
Prepared by an Oregon licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer or
Surveyor
Attachment 2
Page 20 of 32
Location and width of all existing easements
Location, widths (of paving and right-of-way), and names of all existing streets, alleys,
dedications or other right-of-ways within or adjacent to the proposed development,
including jurisdictional status other than City. Indicate connection points for roof
drainage
Location and type of existing street lighting
Location of existing and required traffic control devices, fire hydrants, power poles,
transformers, neighborhood mailbox units, and similar public facilities
Location, width, and construction material of all existing and proposed sidewalks,
sidewalk ramps, pedestrian access ways, and trails
Location and size of existing utilities on and adjacent to the site including sanitary sewer
mains, stormwater management systems, water mains, power, gas, telephone, and
cable TV. Indicate the proposed connection points. Detail must be proportionate to the
complexity of the proposed project.
Show existing and proposed spot elevations or contours, and direction of drainage
patterns.
d. Proposed Grading, Paving, & Utilities Plan
Prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer, except where noted below.
The approximate size and location of stormwater management systems components.
Location, widths (of paving and right-of-way), and names of proposed streets, alleys,
dedications or other right-of-ways within or adjacent to the proposed development.
Location and width of all proposed easements
Location and type of proposed street lighting
Information on existing slopes over 5% shall be prepared by an Oregon licensed
surveyor and be drawn with 1 foot contour intervals lines; land with a slope over 10
percent shall be shown with 5 foot contour interval lines.
e. Landscape Plan
Prepared by an Architect, Landscape Architect, or other Landscape Professional
approved by the Director.
Attachment 2
Page 21 of 32
Location and dimensions of landscaping and open space areas to include calculation of
landscape coverage.
Where applicable, screening in accordance with SDC 4.4-110.
Location of existing and proposed street trees.
f. Architectural Plans
Where abutting residentially zoned properties, exterior elevations of all proposed
structures over 140 square feet for the development site, including height, shall be
shown.
g. On-Site Lighting Plan
Location, orientation, and maximum height of exterior light fixtures, both free standing
and attached.
Type and extent of shielding, including cut-off angles, and type of illumination, wattage,
and luminous area.
Additional Materials That May be Deferred at the discretion of the applicant until Final
Site Plan or Building Permit Submittal:
List in chart form the proposed types of landscape materials (trees, shrubs, ground
cover). Include in the chart genus, species, common name, quantity, size, and spacing.
Where plants are proposed as part of the stormwater management system, a planting
plan shall be provided.
Irrigation Plan showing location of backflow preventers and above ground utilities.
Photometric test report for each light source.
An applicant may submit conceptual floor plans in order to have staff address resolution
of potential nuisance conflicts.
Additional Materials That May be Required by the Director:
IT IS THE APPLICANT’S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE IF ADDITIONAL
STANDARDS/APPLICATIONS APPLY TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE
APPLICANT SHOULD CONSIDER UTILIZING PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS AS
DISCUSSED IN SDC 5.1-120.
Attachment 2
Page 22 of 32
A developer may be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to identify potential
traffic impacts from proposed development and needed mitigation measures.
Where a multi-family development is proposed, any additional materials to demonstrate
compliance with SDC 3.2-240.
Riparian Area Protection Report for properties located within 150 feet of the top of bank
of any Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) or within 100 feet of the top of bank
of any direct tributaries of WQLW.
A Geotechnical Report prepared by an Engineer must be submitted concurrently if the
Soils Survey indicates the proposed development area has unstable soils and/or a high
water table, or if required by the City Engineer.
Where the development area is within an overlay district, address the additional
standards of the overlay district on plans and narratives.
Where physical aspects of a proposed development, including but not limited to scale,
odor, noise, glare or vibration, will impact less intensive surrounding uses, the Director
may request submittal of conceptual floor plans or other information necessary to
determine compliance with applicable standards.
If five or more trees are proposed to be removed, a Tree Felling Permit as specified in
SDC 5.19-100.
A wetland delineation approved by the Oregon Division of State Lands must be
submitted concurrently where there is a wetland on the property.
The applicant must demonstrate that an application has been submitted for any required
federal or state permit and provide a copy of the application upon request.
Where any grading, filling or excavating is proposed with the development, a Land and
Drainage Alteration permit must be obtained prior to commencement of development.
Where applicable, any Discretionary Use or Variance as specified in SDC 5.9-100 and
5.21-100
An Annexation shall be submitted prior to submission of application, as specified in SDC
5.7-100, where a development is proposed outside of the city limits but within the City’s
urban service area and can be served by sanitary sewer
***
4.2‐105A.4: Thresholds for Traffic Impact Studies (Existing)
A. General Provisions.
Attachment 2
Page 23 of 32
4. A developer may be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to identify
potential traffic impacts from proposed development and needed mitigation measures.
The study shall be included with a development application, in any of the following
instances:
a. Where the Public Works Director determines that a TIS is necessary to support a
request for a Variance from the transportation provisions of this Code.
b. When a land use would be estimated to generate 500 or more vehicle trips per
day as specified in the current version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation Informational Report. The basic requirements for a TIS are specified
in the Department of Public Works Standard Operating Procedures which may be
amended by the Public Works Director as necessary to address potential impacts of
specific land development proposals.
c. Where the Public Works Director determines that a TIS is necessary to address
known traffic safety or street capacity concerns associated with the proposed
development, the Public Works Director will determine the nature and extent of the
TIS.
d. The Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director, may modify TIS
requirements consistent with TransPlan and the intent of this Code when existing
conditions make their strict application impractical or inconsistent with accepted site
planning or transportation planning principles.
4.2‐105A.4: Thresholds for Traffic Impact Studies (Proposed)
4. An applicant may be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to identify
potential traffic impacts from proposed development and needed mitigation
measures. A TIS is required if any of the following criteria are met:
a. Peak Hour Threshold
If a change in land use or intensification of an existing use generates 100
or more trips during any peak hour as determined by procedures
contained in the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation Manual, a TIS shall be performed by a
registered professional engineer.
b. Average Daily Traffic Threshold
If a change in land use or intensification of an existing use generates
1,000 or more trips per day as determined by procedures contained in the
most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual, a TIS shall be performed by a registered professional
engineer.
c. Variance and Known Issues Threshold
Attachment 2
Page 24 of 32
The Public Works Director may determine that a TIS is necessary to
support a request for a Variance from the transportation provisions of this
code or where traffic safety, street capacity, future planned facility, or
multimodal concerns may be associated with the proposed development.
d. The nature and extent of the TIS scope shall be determined by the
Transportation Planning Engineer based upon a trip distribution and
assignment prepared by the Applicant. At a minimum, locations impacted
by more than 20 trips during the identified peak hour shall be included in
the trip distribution and assignment.
e. The Director, with the approval of the Public Works Director, may modify
TIS requirements consistent with applicable local and regional
transportation system plans and the intent of this Code when existing
conditions make their strict application impractical or inconsistent with
accepted site planning or transportation planning principles.
***
ATTACHMENT 3
DEVELOPER INPUT PROCESS SUMMARY
CASE NUMBER TYP411‐0004.
Attachment 2
Page 25 of 32
Introduction:
This document is intended to summarize the work performed by the Joint Work Team during the
Developer Input Process of 2011 and inform the Staff Report and Proposed Amendments of Case
Number TYP411‐0004. Further information is included in the referenced appendices contained in
the file record.
Background:
The City of Springfield’s Development Services and Public Works Departments have a tradition of
periodically reviewing development requirements and procedures with the development
community for efficiency and continued compliance with applicable rules and regulations. In June
of 2010, the City Manager, City Attorney and Directors of the Public Works and Development Services
Departments met with representatives of the local development community to solicit feedback on the
City’s development review process. The City Manager and Directors of Public Works and Development
Services Departments took immediate actions to address specific concerns identified in that early
meeting and directed staff to work with the same representatives to refine and address additional
concerns. Staff created a framework for the Developer Input Process, organized a Joint Work Team
consisting of 9 members from the local development community, refined general comments to specific
focus areas and commenced work in October of 2010.
Time line for the process:
June/July
2010
•Initial Open
House &
Executive
Action
Sept 2010
•Formation of
Developers
Input Process
& JWT
Sept.'10 ‐
May '11
•Course of
Committee
Meetings
June 2011
•Draft Products
and Open
House
Nov 2011
•Planning
Commission
Work Session
and Public
Hearing
Dec 2011
•City Council
Work Sessions,
Public Hearing
and Adoption
Dec 2011
•Implement DIP
Code Changes
and Work
Flows
Jan 2012
•Resume Fee
Study Project
Spring 2012
•Conclusion of
Fee Study and
Efficiency
Changes
2011/2012
Quick Facts:
• Origins of DIP Process‐ DSD/PW/CMO Listening Meeting on June 23, 2010
• Executive Action Response Letter‐July 2, 2010
• JWT Initial Meeting‐ September 30, 2010
• JWT Priorities‐ Site Plan Review Issues, PW Role in Development and Customer Service.
• JWT Meetings‐ 14 Work Meetings, 3 Open Houses, 1 Meeting with Eugene Staff
• Accomplishments‐ Site Plan Review Submittal and Process Improvements, Expanded MDS
Procedures, Revised Traffic Impact Study Requirements, Paper and Process Reductions,
Customer Service Training, Increased Communication Between Departments and Development
Community.
• Additional Recommendations: Review of Development Review Structure, Fee Reductions,
Review of Regulations for Non‐Profit Housing Providers,
• Council Goals Met‐
Attachment 2
Page 26 of 32
• Next Steps: Adoption of JWT Code Amendments, Resume Cost of Services and Fee Analysis
Project, Comprehensive Planning Involvement, DIP 2014
JWT Members:
Jim Donovan, City of Springfield/DSD
Matt Stouder, City of Springfield/PW
Brian Barnett, City of Springfield/PW
Dave Puent, City of Springfield/DSD (Retired prior to end of process)
Michael Liebler, City of Springfield/PW
Joe Leahy, Emerald Law/CAO
Monica Anderson, Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers
Craig Horrell, Hayden Enterprises
Shaun Hyland, John Hyland Construction Inc.
Mike Evans, Land Planning Consultants
Eric Hall, Eric Hall Architects
Carole Knapel, KPFF Consulting Engineers
Rick Satre, SchirmerSatre Group
Kristen Karle, St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County, Inc.
Renee Clough, Branch Engineering
Ed McMahon, Lane County Home Builders Association
The JWT voted on and selected three main areas of focus at the Sept. 30, 2010 Open House: Site Plan
Review Process Improvements, Public Works’ Role In Development Review and Customer Service in
Development Review.
Site Plan Review Process Improvements
The JWT’s general direction for site plan improvements was premised on two common themes arising
from developer feedback:
1) The amount of site plan application materials and the level of detail that must be provided early
in the review process is a burden for smaller or less complicated projects and needs to be
revised or deferred, and
2) The one size fits all approach to requiring Site Plan Review is overkill for smaller or less
complicated reviews and warrants a discussion of where it should be required, reduced or
removed.
Preliminary Work: Initial work meetings included review or discussions of the following background
materials:
• Site Plan Review SDC Article, Standard Process and Statutory Framework
• Site Plan Application Submittal Requirements, Practical and Legal Necessities
• Site Plan Review In Context with Other City of Springfield Review Procedures
• Site Plan Review in Other Jurisdictions
• Comparative Analysis of Eugene’s Development Review Procedures
Attachment 2
Page 27 of 32
Submittal Requirements: The JWT reviewed all submittal requirements shown on current application
materials and identified specific information that could be reduced, eliminated or deferred to final
submittals, including building permits. A modified Site Plan Application Checklist prepared by the JWT is
ready for implementation upon adoption of enabling language in the code. The enabling language gives
discretion to the Director to identify the minimum information necessary for review procedures from
the list of codified submittal standards. The approach is an acknowledgement of the fact that “one size
does not always fit all” for site plan reviews. The proposed code language provides the Director the
flexibility to analyze submittal requirements on a case by case basis and allows the application list of
submittals to be changed without need for an ordinance.
Expanded MDS/Reduced Site Plan Review: The Minimum Development Standards (MDS) of Springfield
Development Code, Section 5.15, are a Site Plan Review “light” approach that was originally adopted by
Council to streamline and encourage re‐development and improvement of properties located along
Main Street. The existing MDS process provides flexible timelines and a proportionality clause that
allows required public and private improvements to be installed using simple proportionality. During
the January 13, 2011 meeting of the JWT, the group considered a staff proposal to expand MDS
provisions to include small to mid‐range development in the City of Springfield. With input from the
JWT, the proposal has evolved to the current code change proposal and includes significant expansions
of the existing MDS procedures:
• Increasing the size cap on MDS review for Community Commercial, Industrial and Public Land
and Open Space zoning districts from 5,000 to 25,000 square feet for new structures and paving
would allow more mid‐sized development proposals on property in established areas to be
eligible for ministerial review ;
• Inclusion of code provisions that allows flexibility for submittal of detailed information.
Deferring some submittals from initial application to final reviews, building permit or occupancy
inspection will delay certain design costs until after initial land use approvals are issued and in
hand; and
• Inclusion of a code provision extending timelines for construction of required improvements for
mid‐sized developments and allowing some significant improvements to be made under the rule
of simple proportionality as described in the MDS standards. This would provide more flexibility
for the financing and construction of required improvements.
• MDS Applications can be submitted concurrently with Building Permit Applications, similar to
standards review procedures used in other jurisdictions.
• Target timelines for MDS Major Applications is approximately 30 days.
• Maps have been created showing the distribution of sites eligible for expanded MDS
procedures.
Net Affects: Expanding MDS provisions as described above is an incremental yet significant change that
will immediately reduce the number of sites required to go through full Site Plan Review procedures.
Fees will remain unchanged until the off sets of reduction and deferral are reviewed and the pending fee
analysis is completed.
Additional Site Plan Review Considerations: Two other legitimate questions of Site Plan Review were
also raised for consideration in the course of JWT meetings: 1) Can Site Plan Review provide an
exemption or pre‐approval for non‐profit housing and allow compliance with multi‐unit design
Attachment 2
Page 28 of 32
standards at the building permit level? And, 2) Can Site Plan Review be further reduced or eliminated in
lieu of overlay districts similar to the Eugene method?
The ability to reduce or eliminate site plan review procedures on a City wide basis under the Developer
Input Process was limited by:
• Required review for consistency with Metro Plan policies and legislative decision making
procedures including significant public, Planning Commission and City Council involvement.
• The need for comprehensive review for compliance with other major planning project currently
under way in the City such as the 2030 Metro Plan Update and the Downtown and Glenwood
Refinement Plans.
• Inconsistency with Funding limitations, Fee Analysis Timelines and JWT priorities.
In short, elimination of Site Plan Review and implementation of individual overlay districts or the
provision of City‐ wide exemptions for individual groups warrants an examination of the structure and
ability of the Springfield Development Code to implement numerous Metro Plan policies. Consensus
was that the discussion was beyond the scope of this committee and was better had in the context of
larger policy initiatives. (See Eugene Process Memo, attached; Conclusion and Recommendations.)
Additional Efficiency Improvements: The following efficiency and cost saving measures were also
identified and implemented administratively during JWT meetings:
• Reducing Title Reports – The revised site plan submittal checklist includes more flexible
guidelines for site deed and title submittal requirements where ownership has not recently
changed. Proposed changes will reduce the number and/or frequency of title reports required,
thereby reducing costs to applicants and consultants.
• Reducing Paper Plan Production – Current site plan pre‐submittal and review procedures require
an applicant to submit approximately 25 paper copies of site plans and documents for the
creation of legal records and review procedures. The number of plans currently required is a
significant cost to produce. Staff has implemented a proposal that reduces the number of paper
copies by approximately 80%, utilizing electronic submittal technologies. Applicant submittals
are reduced to 3‐5 paper copies and circulated to site plan review partners using email and
Laserfiche technology. The implementation of this of this JWT idea is reducing preparation costs
for the applicant and saving handling time and storage costs for the City while preserving
communication and review opportunities for internal and external development review
partners.
• Increasing Preparer’s List ‐ The list of qualified professionals that are allowed to stamp and/or
submit site plans for review has been increased to reflect current levels of expertise across the
development community. The proposed changes would allow principal consultants more
discretion to determine the number of design professionals necessary to prepare less
complicated development proposals.
Public Works Role In Development Review
Attachment 2
Page 29 of 32
Public Works Department staff co‐authored and designed the Developer Input Process and PW
management team has embraced the results of the JWT. The findings and conclusions of this self
examination and participative process review include:
• demonstrated willingness to review past procedures and regulations
• professional adherence to statutory requirements and City Council Goals
• new vision from restructured leadership in the Engineering and Transportation Division
• flexibility to defer storm water, transportation and grading submittal requirements
• flexibility to re‐structure TIS submittal requirements
• increased availability of staff and supervisors involved in development review
• empowerment of engineers to make decisions and implement change
TIS: One specific example of current staff’s responsiveness is the revised Traffic Impact Study triggers
outlined in proposed revisions to SDC Section 4.2‐105. The JWT raised concerns about the triggers and
content of required traffic studies during review of submittal information; Transportation staff
responded with a proposal that clarifies PM Peak and Average Daily Trip (ADT) triggers, provides a two
step process of scoping and review for analysis of specific variance requests, and allows the Director(s)
the flexibility to limit and focus TIS analysis to known issues in the transportation system.
As the JWT’s work has progressed, the reciprocal education process has also improved communication
and understanding of shared roles, responsibilities and expectations for efficiencies, effectiveness and
customer service. Some long‐held misconceptions and misunderstandings have been dispelled on both
sides of the process and replaced with a greater appreciation of both the development and review
processes.
Customer Service in Development Review
Development Services and Public Works Department staff have used the JWT experience to improve the
following recent advancements in customer service:
• The PW Department’s recent re‐structuring and advancement of new leadership brings a new
customer service ethic to development review procedures.
• The Public Works and Development Services Departments have physically re‐structured to
create a development review office environment that fosters better communication and quicker
processing times.
• A revised Customer Service Training has been created by the Public Works and Development
Services Departments that addresses general principles and focuses on the development review
process. The training is being prepared for City‐wide use.
• New city wide and development review customer service principles are in general circulation
and being used by supervisory staff to improve all aspects of the development experience.
• Customer Service is a primary tenet of the current DSD/PW re‐organization discussion.
The following customer service principles are visible throughout the development review offices:
City of Springfield Development Services Principles
Attachment 2
Page 30 of 32
• Encourage growth and development that improves community livability in a sensible, well
planned manner.
• We work to get to “yes” within our regulatory framework.
• Risk is permitted and encouraged. The preference is to take risks in an effort to get to “yes” rather
than saying “No”.
• It is necessary to say “no” at times since everything will not fit into our regulatory framework.
How we say “no” is a critical customer service skill.
• Employees are empowered to make decisions and be creative problem solvers at the lowest levels
of the organization.
• We work as a team and speak with one voice. Internal differences are respected and considered
healthy as long as they are addressed directly and resolved in a timely manner.
• Decisions are made in a timely and confident manner.
***
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
SERVICE PRINCIPLES
1. We’re glad you are here!
2. We appreciate your needs.
3. We ask that you respect our responsibilities.
4. We are your partners not your opponents.
5. We will work together to accomplish our common goals!
***
Conclusion and Recommendations
At the final Developer Input Process Open House Meeting, the Joint Work Team acknowledged that they
had accomplished the task that was put before them by the City and Stakeholders. The group also noted
other opportunities identified during the process that they or similar stakeholder groups need to be
involved to create process efficiencies, not just more processes. Examples of existing or suggested
projects cited by the group included:
• 2030 Plan Adoption, Phase II Implementation Actions
• Legislative Review and Update of the Springfield Development Code
• Review of Residential Multi‐Unit Design Standards and Exemptions
• Code Changes For Executive or Expedited Approvals and Rapid Development
• Periodic Review of SDC Fees
Attachment 2
Page 31 of 32
Attachment 2
Page 32 of 32
The JWT recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council adopt the recommended code
changes and further consider the role of the Developer Input Process and JWT in making future
decisions regarding the development review process in the City of Springfield.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 4
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 11/21/2011
To: Gino Grimaldi, City Manager COUNCIL
From: Jim Donovan, Urban Planning Supervisor
Matt Stouder, Supervising Civil Engineer
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Developer Input Process Public Testimony
ISSUE:
In forwarding an Order and Recommendation of Approval to the City Council on proposed code
amendments to the Site Plan and MDS review procedures the Planning Commission also included four
areas of public testimony for City Council review and consideration. This memorandum provides staff
review of those comments and recommendations for potential Council direction.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Community and Economic Development and Revitalization
The City of Springfield’s Development Services and Public Works Departments have a tradition of
periodically reviewing development requirements and procedures with the development community to
increase efficiency, reduce costs and meet Council’s goals of providing sound community and
economic development, maintaining public infrastructure and improving livability.
BACKGROUND:
During the Planning Commission public hearing on November 1, 2011 the Commission heard public
testimony in support of the code amendments proposed by the Joint Work Team. In addition, the testimony
included requests for clarification or post-process revisions, a desire for broader application of the proposed
amendments, and feedback from the JWT that there was more work to be done beyond the current process.
The Planning Commission adopted a recommendation of approval for the current package of proposed
changes with the request that the Council also consider and review the following topics of discussion and
testimony:
1. MDS standards should be triggered by a change of use category.
2. The list(s) of persons permitted to prepare and submit applications should be clarified and
expanded.
3. The MDS Major standards should be expanded to apply in non-residential zoning districts.
4. The Developer Input Process and the work of the JWT should be continued in future process
review and code update projects.
The topics of testimony are summarized and addressed in the context of the Developer Input Process Joint
Work Team’s decisions and recommendations below. In short, the first two concerns were considered and
are addressed in the JWT recommendations; the remaining two concerns require additional City Council
consideration, prioritization and assignment of adopted public involvement procedures.
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 4
Clarification or Revision
Items 1 and 2 arise from written testimony received after the conclusion of the DIP process and are issues
of clarification or revision.
Item 1: MDS Standards should be triggered by a change of use category.
The JWT’s proposed MDS code amendments address this concern at new SDC Section 5.15-110A.2, and is
included in the staff report package. The JWT’s proposed language provides that Minor MDS will be
triggered where there is a) new construction, an addition or expansion on a development site of up to 5,000
square feet, or b) a change in land use category or building occupancy of a structure or property.
During the DIP listening sessions the development community feedback did not identify MDS provisions
as problematic; during the JWT process the existing MDS standards were considered and deemed part of
the solution rather than part of the problem. Staff and the JWT identified Major MDS as a way of meeting
the primary goal of streamlining site plan review by applying MDS Major procedures to certain mid-sized
developments. The “category” issue was identified during these discussions as a minor but logical house
keeping issue that would correct existing code language that is currently triggering MDS provisions for
changes of use within the same use category. The JWT reached the conclusion that a change from a tax
service to a law office within the “Business and Professional Offices” use category should not trigger land
use review; however, a change in land use category warranted a modest level of review. As proposed by
the JWT, a “Business and Professional Offices” accountant’s office use that changes to an “Eating and
Drinking Establishment” restaurant use would trigger MDS provisions addressing the need for site
upgrades to parking and/or access controls, changes in landscaping or utility connections to comply with
current codes. Minor and Major MDS applications will continue to be processed concurrently with
building permit applications and the target date for completion will be 30 days.
The JWT’s decision and recommended revisions to MDS address the suggested revision.
Item 2: The list(s) of persons permitted to prepare and submit applications should be clarified and
expanded.
This item arises from the JWT revisions to Site Plan application submittal standards at 5.17-120-
DIRECTOR DISCRETION TO DETERMINE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, contained in the staff
report package. The JWT’s decision and recommendation was to expand the existing list of preparers from
whom the Director would accept technical information contained in Site Plan Review applications to
include all relevant licensed professionals. The intent of the JWT’s proposal is to allow, and require as
necessary, all professionals qualified in the state of Oregon to prepare information within their licensing
standards. The language was added to Site Plan Review and Major MDS standards only where preparation
of plans for 25,000 square feet of development would likely trigger the need for technical analysis and
design.
The JWT discussed the same concern for exclusivity cited above. The JWT’s intent was not to disallow
anyone from preparing general information or submitting properly stamped plans as an owner, planner or
project manager. The JWT purposefully added the phrase “as determined by the Director” to proposed
implementing language to give the City discretion to accept general plan submittals where appropriate and
require professional preparation of more technical submittals where required by code or state law.
The JWT’s proposed language addresses the stated concern.
Attachment 3
Page 3 of 4
Expansion of Proposal
Item 3: The MDS Major standards should be expanded to apply in non-residential zoning districts.
This item arises from public testimony in support of the JWT’s MDS Major proposal for properties meeting
the provisions of SDC 5.15-110A.3.a-d, as contained in the staff report package. The proposed application
of MDS standards instead of Site Plan Review is consciously limited to general commercial, industrial and
public zoning districts in homogenous zoning settings for two primary reasons: 1) to reduce impacts on
surrounding less intensive zoning districts, and 2) avoid zoning districts with special site, performance or
design standards. Mitigation of impacts and/or the application of performance standards would trigger the
need for staff to use discretion in their review of an application; the exercise of discretion makes a review
process a limited land use decision by Oregon Revised Statute definitions. Limited land use review cannot
be done without the need for public notice and a full accounting of the discretion exercised.
The JWT’s decision and recommendation is consistent with the original scope of the Developer Input
Process goal to improve the efficiency of site review procedures and is within the ORS limitations on
ministerial review procedures. The proposal was not extended in scope for the above reasons.
Role of DIP and JWT in Future Review
Item 4: The Developer Input Process and the work of the JWT should be continued in future process review
and code update projects.
The Developer Input Process was an informal self selected advisory panel of staff and representatives from
development community with the goal of streamlining the efficiency of specific existing process and
procedures, improving customer service and facilitating better communication with review staff. The
JWT’s decisions and recommendations represent the group’s consensus that the goals have been met in
those regards.
Staff appreciates the JWT’s efforts and interest in examination of existing policies and standards and agrees
that the City’s work with the community to update these policies and standards is never done. However,
this desire must also be balanced with the understanding that established citizen involvement committees
customarily represent multiple community interests, not specific special interest groups, and that there are
Planning Commission and City Council protocols for setting priorities and determining the role of
established citizen involvement and technical advisory committees.
To facilitate ongoing communication with the community (including development interests) and open a
dialogue with Council to consider future priorities, staff offers the following recommendations for Council
consideration:
a) Staff be directed to maintain communication with the current Joint Work Team and City Council
with progress reports and to develop a process to establish a Council authorized committee to
continue the work begun by the Developer Input Process and Joint Work Team once sufficient data
is gathered on the impact of implemented efficiency improvements.
b) Schedule a Work Session with City Council in the spring to review the staff recommendation and
finalize the process to create such a Council authorized committee and solicit membership interest
from the community.
Attachment 3
Page 4 of 4
c) Support the continued involvement of all members of the JWT in their desire to serve the City and
the public by including them on all public notices and requests for citizen involvement on formal
committees.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide feedback and direction to staff in Work Session on preparation
of the final staff report and ordinance in advance of public hearings currently scheduled for December
5, 2011.