HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/2012 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street; Springfield, Oregon,, on Monday, October 15; 2012 at 6:02 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and
Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, .Assistant. City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Proposed Updates to the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
City Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item. Springfield and Lane County
approved the Glenwood Refinement Plan to provide for a new vision of the Glenwood Riverfront. To
implement this vision. staff developed several new design standards for public infrastructure to
incorporate into Springfield's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. In addition,
staff proposed numerous other updates that addressed current practice and other needs.
Mr. Vogeney noted that Springfield adopted the first version of the Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual in 2002, with an update approved in 2006. Both staff and consultants working for
the City were required to follow the same design standards and procedures as the development
community.
Mr. Vogeney said he would be referring to the website where the changes were noted. He showed how
to get to the changes through the City webpage.
On June 19, and again on July 13, staff sent an email invitation to 46 members of the
engineering and development community, including the members of the Joint Work Team,
asking for their comments on the proposed updates. In addition, links were added on other
pages of the City's website to direct interested members of the public to the page with the
proposed updates. To date, three responses were received from people who received the email
notices and no requests to modify the proposals.
A public hearing and adoption of the proposed updates was currently scheduled for November 5,
2012. If the Council agreed that the proposed updates were ready for adoption, staff would advertise
the public hearing and send an email announcement to the same list of recipients, as well as any
members of the Development Advisory Committee that were not included in the prior two notices.
Mr. Vogeney reviewed the summary of proposed changes. There were a total of 13 chapters in the
manual and changes were being proposed in seven chapters. It was being recommended that Chapter
13 be completely removed. That chapter included design guidance for doing City or consultant design
projects. A separate manual was being prepared to address that in much more detail, so this chapter
could be removed from the Design Manual.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 2
Mr. Vogeney discussed the proposed changes in Chapter 1 — Streets and Sidewalks. The significant
changes in this chapter included:
• Section 1.02 requires compliance with the minimum fire code design standards for vehicle
access when designing roadways.
• Section 1.02.10 prohibits using parabolic crown street cross - sections unless approved by the
City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer.
• Section 1.02.1 1 requires that all new sidewalks are to be setback sidewalks unless approved by
the City Traffic Engineer and City Engineer.
Appendix I is the biggest addition to Chapter 1. This new Appendix was prepared to
implement the new Glenwood Riverfront Street Cross - Sections Standards presented in
Springfield "s Glenwood Refinement Plan Update.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to section 1.02.1 1 regarding sidewalks and setbacks. He felt the wording
was very subjective and should be worded more like the wording regarding wood poles.
Mr. Vogeney said by having setback sidewalks there was a planter strip that could be used for street
trees, light poles, signs, etc. without encroaching on the sidewalk. It also helped with the American
with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance for accessibility for sidewalks paths and how the curb ramps
were designed and installed. The terminology in the manual was left as "unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer' for areas that already had curb cut sidewalks that may
need repair. They would not require setbacks for those cases where a short distance needed repaired;
but if it was a longer stretch and the City had adequate right -of -way, they would change it to have
setbacks.
Councilor Pishioneri said he understood the reasoning, but felt the wording for wooden pole
replacement was more direct. There was a potential for inconsistency of sidewalks in areas where
there were still undeveloped lots mixed with development. He felt the language was subjective and he
would prefer more ftnn wording.
Mr. Vogeney said he could work with the staff that worked on that section to draft some different
language for the next meeting.
Mr. Vogenev discussed the changes in Chapter 3 - Stormwater Quality. Significant changes and new
standards added to Chapter 3 included:
• Section 3.01 changes the reference to the design standards for stormwater quality facilities
from Portland's Stormwater Manual to Eugene's Stormwater Management Manual. He
explained why that was a better fit for Springfield. These would only be the design standards
and not policy. In addition; Section 3.02 Interim Design Standards was deleted in its entirety.
• New Section 3.02.3 includes the updated and expanded Water Quality Pollutants of concern to
be consistent with the most recent stormwater discharge permit (MS4).
• New Section 3.02.7 is changed to clarify that parking lot maintenance activities include
routine cleaning of stormwater catch basins and area drains.
• New Section 3.03 adds requirements for maintaining all private stormwater treatment
facilities. The requirements include the property owner signing an operations and maintenance
agreement. Notice of this agreement will then be recorded with Lane County to notify all
future property owners of the terms of this agreement. The agreement clearly states owners
responsibilities for maintenance to ensure the stormwater treatment facilities will function
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 3
properly. The agreement also establishes access rights for the City to inspect these facilities on
a regular, recurring basis.
• Three new forms added to Chapter 3:
o Information Packet for Stormwater Quality Facility Operations & Maintenance Plan
o Operations and Maintenance Agreement (template)
o Notice of Operations and Maintenance Agreement (template)
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the requirements under Section 3.03 were for past, present or future
development.
Mr. Voeeney said this would be a future requirement. There were many private stormwater facilities
today and staff tried to work with those property owners as they could. Some property owners were
more cooperative than others. if a current facility had an owner that wanted to enter into an agreement,
the City would do that. but if they weren't willing to, the City would not force them. If a property was
redeveloped, they would be asked to sign the agreement.
Councilor Pishioneri said current development was grandfathered in, but if redevelopment occurred, it
would be required. Yes.
Councilor Moore asked if there was an arrangement with the City, to help property owners with that
maintenance.
Mr. Voeeney said the City didn't provide that level of maintenance on private properties. There were
private contractors that provided that service such as cleaning parking lots and cleaning out swales.
Many commercial sites contracted out for those services as part of their normal operations. The City
had not considered entering into an arrangement to provide that service.
Councilor Moore asked if that was an added expense for the property owners.
Mr. Voeeney said there were property owners that maintained their sites well and others that didn't.
For those that were not currently maintaining their property, it would be an added expense. For those
that already maintained their sites, it would not be an additional cost and would document their
obligation for that maintenance.
Councilor Moore said flooding could occur if stormwater was blocked or plugged.
Mr. Voeeney said the primary motivation was the City's stormwater quality requirements and
removing pollutants from parkins lots before it entered the public system. On -site flooding would also
be affected.
Mayor Lundberg noted that restaurants with grease traps were required to clean them, and whoever
owned the restaurant had to pay, which was fitting. Council had discussed this issue regarding
retention ponds and who was responsible for maintaining them. The reason we had those in place was
to keep our water quality good and make sure the water reached our rivers correctly. There should be
some type of enforcement mechanism in an agreement to ensure they kept these things clean, just like
the grease traps kept grease out of our system. It made sense to have that requirement to keep
contaminants out of our system and she felt this should be a requirement.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 4
Mr. Vogeney said this would include enforcement. In addition, a notice would be filed with Lane
County Deeds and Records that there was an agreement so when property changed hands; the new
owner would be on notice of the agreement.
Mayor Lundberg asked if fines would be assessed.
Mr. Vogeney said there was an enforcement matrix starting with education and working with property
owners. if compliance was still not met, fines would be charged.
Mr. Vogeney discussed Chapter 4 — Stormwater Capacity. Significant changes and new standards
added to Chapter 4 included:
• Section 4.03 clarifies the purpose of the Stormwater Scoping Sheet in site design and the
criteria for preparing the various types of Stormwater Studies for development proposals.
• Section 4.03.5 includes objective criteria concerning when the City Engineer can require a
downstream analysis of the stormwarer system from any development that may be adding flow
to the existing system.
• Section 4.04 adds HDPE pipe as an acceptable material for stormwater systems.
• Section 4.08 clarifies the design criteria for outfall structures.
• New Section 4.17 adds submittal requirements and objective design criteria for managing
stormwater using Low Impact Design Approaches (LIDA) required for development and
redevelopment sites within the Glenwood Riverfront Area of the Glenwood Refinement Plan
and other suitable areas within Springfield or its UGB.
Mr. Vogeney discussed Chapter 5 — Traffic Standards. He noted this section addressed the wood poles
the Mayor had asked about earlier in the meeting. Significant changes and new standards added to
Chapter 5 included:
• Section 5.01 requires compliance with the minimum fire code design standards for vehicle
access when designing roadways.
• Section 5.02.1.13 restricts using wood street light poles only to replace damaged poles or when
installing additional lighting in an area that has wood poles used throughout to maintain
consistency. In addition, City pole tags must be installed on all new poles, all new streetlights
must be constructed with wire theft deterrents, and electrical circuit identification is required
on the conduit of street light systems.
• Section 5.04 adds an intersection control standard such that when a project includes
reconstructing or constructing new intersections, all intersection control types shall be
evaluated using the City's "Intersection Control Checklist". Control types include no
control, stops, signal, and roundabout. Specific Parking Lot design standards were
removed and a requirement that all parking lot design must comply with the latest edition
of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Transportation and Land Development
reference book and applicable Sections of the Springfield Development Code.
• New Section 5.09 adds the requirement to design on street parking design according to the
AASHTO `A Policy On Geometric Design of Highways and Streets`, iTE guidance, the
Springfield Downtown Parking Study, the Institute of Traffic Engineers design guidance,
and any relevant Refinement Plans.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 5
Mayor Lundberg said she had received a letter from someone about arsenic in pressure treated poles
that could affect the ground. Springfield relied heavily on our groundwater. She asked if there were
different preservatives that didn't contain arsenic that could be used when replacing wood poles.
Civil Engineer Clayton McEachem said modern treatment was mostly copper sulfate based and not
arsenic based. There was still some leakage onto the ground.
Mr. Boyatt said all wood was treated when there was ground contact to keep it from rotting.
Mayor Lundberg asked if they were changing out the wood poles with aluminum poles because the
wood poles could deteriorate.
Mr. Vogenev said aluminum poles lasted much longer and required less maintenance. The wood poles
had to be tested regularly to see which ones were rotting. Because many of the treated poles rotted
from the inside out. they needed to be tested by boring them.
Mr. McEachem said contamination from the poles was usually soil contamination as it was not mobile
and didn't get into the groundwater.
Mr. Vogeney said in addition regarding the street lights; they were adding requirements for wire theft
deterrent in the standards. Another item that was new to Chapter 5 was an intersection control
checklist. Fle explained further and said the appendix would list the appropriate types of controls.
Mr. Vogeney discussed Chapter 6 — Landscape Vegetation. This chapter had the biggest rewrite. The
title for Chapter 6 was changed from Street Trees to Landscape Vegetation. Expanding the scope of
this Chapter to include other vegetation resulted in revising most of this Chapter. The more significant
changes and new standards added to Chapter 6 included:
• Section 6.01 was expanded to include other vegetation in addition to street trees, as well as
providing a list of objectives for utilizing vegetation and trees.
• Section 6.02 divides the General Design Consideration into new individual sections to
address:
A. Street Trees
B. Medians and Planter Strips
C. Water Quality Facilities
D. Riparian area along rivers — Greenway and local Water Quality Limited Waterways
E. Natural Resource Areas — Local Wetlands
F. Riparian area along urban waterways
• Section 6.02.1 discusses retaining native vegetation if healthy and sound, that Best
Management Practices (BMPs) such as fencing be applied to protect the vegetation, and root
damage.
• Section 6.02.3 removes the former list of approved Street Trees and adds references to new
Appendix 6A — Approved Street Tree List, and to Appendix 6B — Approved Vegetation List.
This new Vegetation List references plants that are more appropriate to the Springfield area
andlor native to the Willamette Valley (Lane County), and listed in the Eugene Stormwater
Management Manual, thereby providing consistency to landscape designers and planners.
• Section 6.02.7 was added to remind property owners of their obligation to maintain vegetation
for vision clearance, sidewalk clearance, and other vegetation management requirements. It
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 6
also points to the Oregon Department of Agriculture list of noxious and invasive plants for
prohibited plants in Springfield, and requirements in the Springfield Development Code
concerning maintaining an approved use.
• Appendix 6A —Approved Street Tree List was added.
• Appendix 6B — Approved Vegetation List was added.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the City identified properties with noxious weeds and then advised home
owners or if it was complaint driven. He asked if the City had any proactive contact.
Mr. Vogeney said they followed the educational approach. If complaints were received, staff did
respond. They also provided educational materials through kiosks and other events that outlined
Springfield's Top Ten Most Wanted Invasive Plant Species. When staff was out looking at stormwater
quality facilities or doing inspections, they did look for those plant species. On public property, staff
tried to mitigate the situation, and on private property they let the property owner know they had an
invasive species that the City would prefer not to have in the system. Staff had gone through some of
the City -owned ponds and removed vegetation that was not beneficial.
Councilor Pishioneri noted that the waterway that went through town from Weyerhaeuser had a lot of
invasive plants. He asked if that was City property.
Mr. Vogeney said that was the Q Street Channel. The City knew they had blackberries growing
throughout the channel, but didn't have enough staff resources to deal with it annually. Staff
selectively tried to work different areas. He could ask operations staff for more details.
Mayor Lundberg said that could be an assignment for a work crew. She asked what native species the
City was encouraging people to retain. She referred to redevelopment in Glenwood and her desire to
have appropriate landscaping. She asked how they got information out to private property owners
about appropriate native species and what constituted maintaining.
Mr. Vogeney noted that blackberries were actually not native. He referred to Appendix 6B manual
which had a number of pages of plant species and recommended areas for uses. There were species of
plants that were native and well acclimated and didn't require as much watering and also benefitted
water quality. He could get more information from the landscaping staff. As part of the design manual,
that would be part of the education. Staff would also meet with horticulturists and nurseries
Mayor Lundberg said she wanted to make sure it was easy for people who were developing to get
correct information about what they should plant.
Mr. Vogeney said the focus was water quality areas. They were not branching out to single family
home lots.
Councilor Moore asked if the City could supply information on the website about where people could
get additional information on the recommended plants, such as other websites or local nurseries.
Mr. Vogeney said he would talk to landscaping staff about providing photos or websites.
Mr. Vogeney discussed Chapter 8 — Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Design. Significant changes
and new standards added to Chapter 8 included:
City of Springfield
Council Rork Session Minutes
October 15,'2012
Page 7
• Section 8.02 clarifies the responsibility of the Engineer of Record for preparing the Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP).
• Section 8.03 was modified to recommend using the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) Erosion and Sediment Control Manual as a resource for preparing an ESOP.
• Section 8.05.2 deletes reference to Appendix 8A for Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
erosion and sediment control. Rather, references to guidance provided by DEQ was added.
• Exhibit 8 -1, a copy of Springfield's NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit (1200 -CA) issued
in 2001, was deleted in its entirety.
• Appendix 8A is a copy of the 1200 -C and 1200 -CN Stormwater Discharge Permits in effect in
Oregon until November 30, 2015.
Mr. Vogeney discussed Chapter 12— Public Improvement Permit Projects. Although there were no
changes at this time, City staff was working to streamline and clarify the procedures for Public
Improvement Permit (PIP) Projects and anticipated releasing these revisions later in 2012. They hadn't
had anyone come in for a PIP for about a year and a half, but there were a couple that could be coming
in the next year.
Mr. Vogeney said if Council was comfortable with the Design Manual with the language changes
regarding setback sidewalks, he could bring it back for a public hearing on November 5. 2012. He
would send an email to all that had received the email in .Tune, as well as update the website.
Council felt that was an appropriate process
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m
Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa
Christine L. Lund erg
Mayor
Attest:
aAl"'A
Amy SowJJ
City Reco der