HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Discuss Public Involvement Procedures for the Development Community to Participate in Review of Planning and Development Regulations AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/14/2012
Meeting Type:Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Jim Donovan/DPW
Matt Stouder/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3660
541-736-1035
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
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: DISCUSS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCEDURES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN REVIEW OF
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Staff requests Council direction on the formation of a Development Advisory
Committee (DAC) as an efficient method of providing the development community
with a structure to communicate priorities for land use, development initiatives, and
public involvement in the preparation and adoption of policies and regulations.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Staff recently completed a Developer Input Process (DIP) with members of the
development community, where work products were focused on customer service,
efficiency improvements and changes to ministerial code provisions. Some DIP
members expressed a desire to work on other larger development related issues and
staff has prepared a Developer Advisory Committee (DAC) concept for Council’s
consideration.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum
2. Developer Input Process Summary
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The recent DIP was a successful collaboration between the development
community and City staff on continuous process improvement of issues prioritized
by the development community. It was, however, limited in scope and lacked the
broader public involvement process necessary for larger land use initiatives
requested by some DIP members.
In order to provide the flexibility to accomplish those requests, the structure would
best be similar to a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), where Council appoints a
committee with specific goals and the resources necessary to provide broad public
involvement. The Council would then review the committee’s work and provide
direction to staff if some proposals were to be implemented. Attachment 1
describes staff’s proposal in more detail.
The strengths of forming a DAC lie in Council’s participation in goal setting and
committee selection, broader committee involvement and input, and streamlined
review of work products. These features include the strengths of the former DIP
process and allow for a broader range of issues to be reviewed.
If Council is amenable to forming a DAC, staff will move forward with solicitation
of DAC appointments for Council’s consideration prior to summer recess, and
initiate committee work over the summer, before reporting back to Council in the
fall on DAC priorities and issues.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 5/14/2012
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
To: Gino Grimaldi
From: Len Goodwin, Development and Public Works Director
Matt Stouder, Managing Civil Engineer
Jim Donovan, Urban Planning Supervisor
Subject: DISCUSS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCEDURES FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO PARTICIPATE
IN REVIEW OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
ISSUE: Staff recently completed a Developer Input Process (DIP) with members of the development
community, where work products were focused on customer service, efficiency improvements and
changes to ministerial code provisions. Some DIP members expressed a desire to work on other larger
development related issues and staff has prepared a Developer Advisory Concept (DAC) for Council’s
consideration.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Community and Economic Development and Revitalization
The City of Springfield’s Development and Public Works (DPW) Department has 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. Effective communication with
a diverse cross section of the community on development issues is integral to meeting those goals.
BACKGROUND:
The recent Developer Input Process was a successful collaboration between the development community
and City staff on continuous process improvement of issues prioritized by the development community.
(Attachment 2 provides a summary of DIP accomplishments.) However, the success of the DIP process
was limited in scope to customer service, efficiency improvements and changes to ministerial code
provisions because it was a self-selected group and lacked the broad public involvement process
necessary for larger land use initiatives. This limiting factor was not always apparent and lead to
occasional friction and delays during the process. At the conclusion of the DIP, some committee
members expressed an interest in examining additional development regulations, policies and standards.
In the 11/28/11 Work Session with Council on DIP activities, staff committed to scheduling a work
session to discuss ways for the development community to participate in a more diverse public
involvement process suitable for a range of development related issues. In order to provide this level of
flexibility the structure would best be similar to a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), where Council
appoints a committee with specific goals and the necessary resources to provide broad public
involvement, then reviews the committees work prior to adoption procedures. This step is normally
only taken when the scale of the planning effort has the potential for long term and significant impacts to
the City warranting direct involvement by elected officials.
Staff finds that the level of involvement requested by the development community may warrant such a
step and submits the following Developer Advisory Committee (DAC) concept for Council
consideration.
Attachment 1-1
5/3/2012 Page 2
Staff Review and Recommended DAC Concept
A Development Advisory Committee would function as an ad hoc technical advisory team to City
Council, Planning Commission and staff. The process would feature the following elements and flow as
graphically depicted below:
The strengths of this proposal are Council participation in goal setting and committee selection, broader
committee involvement and input, and streamlined review of work products. These features include the
strengths of the former DIP process and the capability to review a wider range of development related
issues. To function effectively and cover a broad range of concerns, staff recommends the DAC be
staffed with 10 to 12 committee members selected from an equally broad range of citizens and groups
with vested interests in the development process. The following table reflects committee member
categories that staff consider core to the DAC process and those that could be considered discretionary.
Council Approves
DAC Stakeholder
Groups, Agenda and
Schedule
Staff Supports DAC
Process and
Prepares Report
DAC Presents
Report to Council
With Staff
Council Considers
DAC Requests and
Directs Staff to
Prepare Changes
Adoption and
Implementation
Attachment 1-2
5/3/2012 Page 3
Core Categories Discretionary Categories
Builder Affordable Housing Interests
Business Owner Business Owner (additional)
Citizen-at-Large x 2 Large Employer
Environmental Protection x 2 Planning Commission Rep
Consultant Services Consultant Services (Additional)
Developer Springfield Chamber of Commerce
Women and Minority Owned Business x 2 Non-Governmental Organization
Conclusion: This proposal incorporates group strengths into a process that is inclusive, efficient and
flexible enough to provide a level of public involvement appropriate to the scale of any project. If the
concept is satisfactory to Council, staff will move forward with the solicitation process for the DAC
positions and schedule time with Council for candidate interviews prior to summer recess. Staff would
then meet with the DAC members during summer recess and work on identifying priorities and issues,
and report back to Council in the fall.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends the DAC approach as the most efficient method of providing the development
community with a structure to communicate their priorities for land use and development initiatives
and public involvement in the preparation and adoption of policies and regulations. If Council agrees,
staff will move forward for solicitation of DAC appointments and initiate committee work as
described above.
Attachment 1-3
DEVELOPER INPUT PROCESS SUMMARY
CASE NUMBER TYP411‐0004.
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‐
• Next Steps: Adoption of JWT Code Amendments, Resume Cost of Services and Fee Analysis Project,
Comprehensive Planning Involvement, DIP 2014
Attachment 2-1
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
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.
Attachment 2-2
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 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.)
Attachment 2-3
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
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.
Attachment 2-4
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
• 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!
***
Attachment 2-5
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
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.
Attachment 2-6