Multi-Family Development Task Force Minutes

October 23, 2006

Task Force Members Present: Kevin Bollinger, Steve Bowen, Jeff Childs, Greg Dorshhorst, Jim Dow, Cameron Eoff, Jim Hansen, Bob Haselhorst, Jack Hunter, James Hutcheson, David Hutchinson, Robert Jones, Barbara Kemm, Matt Morrow, Kerry Norman, Jack Pugh, Steve Reith, Kevin Roods, Brent Stevens, Robert Torp, Gene Walker, Linda Walker, David L. Warthen, Tom Whiston, Bob Hunt.

Staff Present: Ralph Rognstad, Jr., Ann Razer, Bob Hosmer, Alana Owen, David Hutchison.

Anyone attending and not listed should notify staff.

The meeting began with a quick overview of the agenda and Task Force's charge given to them by the City Council. Alana Owen gave a short presentation on how the staff develops recommendations. As an example, she showed an application with the Charlotte matrix because it had a wide range of areas, activity centers, and roadways that was applicable to the matrix that would be created for Springfield. Many concerns were voiced about the criteria required by the applicant and assessed by the planners. Staff planners explained that those criteria could be found in the Comprehensive Plan and 20/20 Vision Plan. Still, Task Force members were concerned that the criteria given them were not specific enough.

Staff reminded the Task Force that their task is to focus on the development density of and making the development process objective by use of the matrix. Committee members voiced concerns on the necessity of objectivity since city planning must occasionally take into consideration the needs of the community.

Bob Hosmer explained to the committee how the Charlotte matrix works, and how the Task Force can possibly use this example to create a matrix for the City of Springfield. The main components of a matrix are the general development policies, which are general guidelines or recommendations the City sets down. These guidelines take into consideration a number of community concerns, such as natural resources. He also clarified that this matrix only applied to new development or possible development areas as opposed to the developed portion of the city. Bob Hosmer then went onto elucidate the point system that is used in an analysis matrix.

Committee members voiced concerns about interconnectivity or avoiding isolating multi-family developments. Bob stated that interconnectivity would be a major interest for the Task Force to consider when creating the matrix. Comments were made on the failure of the city to adhere to its own requirements both now and in the future. To this, Bob reminded the Task Force that the matrix would be used as a guideline.

He also recommended that the committee take another look at the Comprehensive Plan to better grasp the requirements and descriptions that are concerned in the matrix. The Task Force has access to the plan on the City's website. In addition, all task force members who requested paper copies of the plan or copies on CD have been given those copies. A committee member pointed out that the Charlotte matrix might not be applicable to the City of Springfield because it is comprised of considerably more open space than Springfield. To this, the staff again commented that the Charlotte matrix is only an example.

Task Force members questioned if the staff will force their views and agendas onto the committee and City Council. Ann Razer and other committee members suggested that the staff does not have an agenda. Staff will write up the task force recommendations to present to City Council. If staff has additional concerns, they will prepare their own report to City Council.

The Task Force agreed to go with an analytical matrix for the City of Springfield. During a brainstorming session, task force members expressed concern for the following topics:

· Access and density
· Defining categories for density (low, mid, high density multi-family units).
· Retail
· Design
· Taxes
· Neighborhoods
· Importance of the Comprehensive Plan

Lastly, the committee members asked the staff if they could create and define the categories for which they are to consider in the matrix. They also requested examples of new developments that would possibly adhere to the matrix.

Top of Page

Back to the Task Force Home Page

Back to Planning & Development Department Page