Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/2012 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 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 22, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore 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. Councilor Ralston was absent (excused). 1. Cell Tower Siting Standards and Review Process. Senior Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. At its March 26, 2012 work session, Council discussed various concerns about cell tower placement, design standards, and the review process for approving them. Council directed staff to prepare amendments to existing policies in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) to address those concerns. The memorandum, Attachment 1 of the agenda packet reviewed the concerns expressed by Council at its March 26b work session and presented responding amendments. The amendments, as presented, were a re -write of SDC Section 4.3- 145— Wireless Telecommunication System (WTS) Facilities. Staff would present the key elements of the amendments for discussion with the goal of gaining sufficient direction to move forward with the changes. Staff anticipated initiation of the code amendment process in December. Mr. Metzger said he was looking for Council approval for the proposals set forth. If Council approved, he could bring the Code amendments back to the Council for formal approval. Mr. Metzger reviewed the concerns of Council during the March work session. • Current policies allowed WTS facilities to be located in "Preferred Sites" with just a building permit and minimal staff review. Preferred Sites included the Public Lands and Open Space (PLO) zoning district. The listing of PLO as a "Preferred Site" allowed the placement of three monopole towers near single - family residential neighborhoods at Thurston High School and at Silke Field. • Existing design standards had allowed towers to be placed in front of buildings, in some cases just behind the sidewalk adjacent to fronting streets. Monopole towers on Centennial Blvd. near Mohawk Blvd. and on Olympic Street across from WalMart were examples of such placements. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 2 • "Stealth" designs were required when towers were located in or near residential zones, but not always for commercial or industrial districts. Design standards should protect sensitive commercial areas like Downtown and the Mohawk district from visual impacts. • At the work session, some expressed a preference for Council to review and approve the placement of cell towers regardless of the zoning. Mr. Metzger said following that work session, he worked to try to address those concerns. The following were key elements of the proposed amendments. If approved: • The Planning Commission would review all new cell tower facilities with provisions for Council to elevate any application for their direct review. The Charter was set up to allow the Planning Commission to review quasi-judicial land use actions. If a discretionary application was received, it would go to the Planning Commission. If their decision was appealed, it would go to the Council. If they went to a Council direct review, they would be bypassing the Planning Commission. Also, when Council acted directly on an issue; the next appeal course was Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). When the Planning Commission acted on something, that action of appeal would come to the Council allowing Council to hear those cases that were more controversial. Council would be notified of all of the applications. If this process was put into place, Council could provide policy sideboards for the Planning Commission to use when reviewing these applications. Also, if this change was made, it would remove the categories for cell towers as all applications would go to the Planning Commission. Councilor Pishioneri asked about the cell tower that was placed on Olympic across from WalMart and how it had been reviewed. Mr. Metzger said it was in an industrial district, so was likely a building permit review process. Councilor Pishioneri said that was a good example of why he wanted to change the process. He agreed it should go through the Planning Commission first. Sideboards would be very important and he asked how Council would know if certain applications were of special interest. Mr. Metzger said his preference would be to notify Council of applications through the weekly Communication Packet. Once a formal application was received, staff had more details on parameters. Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted to see the sideboards. "Stealth" measures would be required when placing towers in or within 500 feet of any residential district. Mr. Metzger used the Olympic Street tower as an example of a cell tower that did not have setbacks. Another tower on 42 "d Street was not nearly as noticeable and had been required to have a setback. Councilor Woodrow asked about the area needed to place a cell tower. Mr. Metzger said typically about a 20 or 30 foot square. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 3 Councilor Pishioneri asked if the set back was to the fence edge. Yes. • Stealth would be required for towers in all commercial districts. Mr. Metzger said in some cases stealth would also be required for industrial zones if within 500 feet of residential. • All new towers would observe a 30 foot minimum setback from fronting streets. Mr. Metzger referred to the table on page 4 which outlined when stealth would be required. These provided the sideboards mentioned earlier. The next recommendation came from a personal experience processing a cell tower application off of Yolanda Street. The cell tower was being proposed for placement behind the square dance hall. The site was outside City limits and in the County, but impacted a nearby residential neighborhood. The company was proposing a stealth tower. Currently in the Code, the applicant was required to provide technical information that proved they couldn't put the tower anywhere else except in that residential district in order to provide service. It was difficult to evaluate that data because of its technical nature which City staff did not the technical expertise to interpret. Other communities had written provisions for the following: • The City could, at its discretion, require cell tower applicants to fund an independent professional review of the technical elements of the application. This would provide a way to look for other options or to confirm the technical analysis Councilor Pishioneri asked how much that additional review cost the applicant. He was concerned that could be a very onerous cost that could stop a project for someone. He asked when it would be reasonable to ask for that type of study and if there would be triggers. Mr. Metzger said he would like a second opinion for cases where a tower was going to be placed in a location that would impact a residential neighborhood to determine whether or not the tower could be placed somewhere else. The technical review would be reviewing the data that was already gathered and providing a second opinion about locating the tower. Councilor Moore said with changing technology, there could be cell towers that were abandoned. She asked if we had provisions for abandoned towers. Mr. Metzger said our current code had a requirement. Councilor Moore asked how the City made sure the tower was safe and maintained. Mr. Metzger said there were engineering standards that would be outside the City's code that would address that issue. It was a building structural code. He also noted that in some cases, smaller equipment could be put in a residential area rather than a full tower. Councilor Moore said she liked the process of going through the Planning Commission City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 4 Councilor Wylie said review by the Planning Commission was fine and she liked the idea of stealth measures for industrial also. She would like to see the structures placed in a way that they were not obvious or unsightly. Councilor VanGordon said he was comfortable with the Planning Commission review. He shared Councilor Pishioneri's concerns and would like to see how the technical review section would be written out in the Code. It needed to be defined when that would be required. Mr. Metzger said there were a number of communities that had that type of provision. He would check with them, but would also run it through the City Attorney. Mayor Lundberg asked if Mr. Metzger had the direction he needed. Yes. He said it sounded like the proposed amendments were adequate with the follow -up as noted. 2. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan: Commercial and Industrial Land (Metro Plan Amendment File No. LRP 2009 - 00014). Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. Since adoption of the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the Springfield Refinement Plan (SRP) Residential Land Use and Housing Element in August, 2011, staff had focused efforts on completing the commercial and industrial lands component of the SRP. Staff would be seeking Council's input — in a series of work sessions over the next several months — to review the draft 2030 Economic Element and Urbanization Element policies, Development Code language, and the proposed locations for UGB expansion to be included in the adoption ordinance. Council last reviewed this topic in January 2009 when the Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) analysis was adopted by resolution as a preliminary step in the planning process. Staff were developing 2030 Plan commercial and industrial development policies to respond to: 1) the economic opportunities and land needs identified in the CIBL analysis; 2) testimony and input received during and since the February-May 2010 public hearings process conducted by the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions; and, 3) a more detailed suitability analysis of lands outside the UGB. At the next work session, scheduled for November 13, staff would present some concepts for potential policies related to the economic element and the urbanization element based on a synthesis of the prior input. Springfield's 2030 Plan was being conceived, prepared and adopted as a refinement plan of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan). Springfield would continue to rely upon existing Metro Plan policies and plan designations, until such a time when Eugene and Springfield had resolved if or how they wished to restructure the Metro Plan. The 2030 Plan policies augmented the more general Metro Plan policies and plan designations by providing a higher degree of specificity and clarity to guide land use decision - making in the Metro area east of Interstate 5. Ms. Pauly said a Communication Packet was sent out to the Council in July that provided an overview of the 2030 planning process and how it related to some of the other decisions before Council such as the Lane County proposal to change the Metro Plan Boundary. Staff would be coming to Council in a series of work sessions over the next few months, the first of which would be November 13, 2012. Much of this would not be new to the Council because they had discussed it often during sessions in City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 5 2009. The objectives and strategies were the things Council agreed should be part of the analysis. Those things would now be put into policies for Council to adopt as their new Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Pauly said the Economic and Urbanization Element were about community development for jobs and commerce. The CIBL analysis identified the need for 13,000 new job opportunities over the next 20 years. That was more than three times the number of employees at RiverBend and equivalent to the number of jobs provided by our region's top four employers. There was also a goal, set with the regional economic development plan the joint elected officials worked on over the last several years, to create 20,000 new jobs in the region in the next ten years. The Economic Element was part of Springfield's plan to address how, why and where land for commercial and industrial would be located over the next 20 years. The Urbanization Element was where the areas that would be added to the UGB would be mapped, showing how those areas would be planned and zoned for future development. These parts of the plan addressed Statewide planning goals for Goal 9, Economic Development, and Goal 14, Urbanization. Ms. Pauly noted that in 2010 the joint Planning Commissions of Lane County and Springfield conducted public hearings on preliminary plans for proposed UGB expansion concepts. Public testimony had been received during that time and recommendations made. Staff was confident that the areas identified for expansion would stand up well under any challenges. Ms. Pauly said staff had also conducted a detailed parcel level suitability analysis of the UGB study areas. Through this analysis, they had looked at constraints, floodways, flood plains and other things that could affect or impede future development and infrastructure. They had also compared high level cost comparison analysis of the different areas and developed interim zoning concepts. The land brought in under an expansion had to be planned and zoned at the same time, so existing zoning and permitted uses were also considered. Staff had completed all of that and were in the policy and code development phase and would be preparing those concepts for adoption. Staff had looked at every option for possible sites and had done a very thorough analysis of those areas. Staff would be providing a recommendation on the UGB expansion during the January 7 work session. In addition to staffs work on the UGB expansion, they had also reviewed the categories of commercial and industrial land needs that were identified in the Economic Opportunities analysis. Staff would be making a few policy recommendations to the Council. One was a recommendation that Council consider designating partitional lands for commercial mixed -use retail in some central areas of the City instead of putting that use out along the fringe. Staff identified the need to zone land for development of a full service grocery store in mid - Springfield and also the need to expand the downtown mixed -use area to allow the kind of development envisioned in the 2010 Downtown Urban Design Plan. Staff had worked on that with the downtown committees. Ms. Pauly said staff had heard from the Council, public and development community a desire for more mixing of complimentary land uses. That would be addressed in the 2030 Plan. An example of that would be creating more opportunities for limited secondary commercial uses within industrial zoned land and properties. Another example was to look for more opportunities for neighborhood commercial mixed -use centers to serve new or under -served neighborhoods. Staff was also looking at a few areas in the City with existing commercial plan designations that hadn't been developed for commercial. They were studying those areas and would propose some changes. Ms. Pauly said in the Urbanization Element, they would be addressing how the lands in the UGB expansion areas would be planned and, zoned and how infrastructure capacity and urban service needs City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 6 would be addressed. The plan would include discussion about the City's annexation master plan, development and approval process, and how those processes addressed partnerships needed to extend infrastructure to those areas. The Plan needed to identify short-term versus long -term sites for annexation. She noted thaf since the Jasper Natron trunk sewer had been built, much of that area was now in the short-range land supply. She provided a brief summary of the process since 2008. The Plan was important because it stated the kind of economic development the community wanted to achieve, and articulated land use designation and policies that were needed to get there. Councilor Moore asked if staff had responded to the letter in the packet from 1000 Friends that stated an error had been made. Ms. Pauly said staff felt there was sufficient documentation in the record already to address Ms. Nelson's concerns so they had not responded to her letter. Staff wanted to provide Ms. Nelson's letter, and any other correspondence, to the Council. Councilor Moore asked if there was a viable question from Ms. Nelson. She was trying to understand what the letter was saying and what Ms. Nelson was referring to. Ms. Pauly said staff would address all comments in the staff report when they moved forward with adoption. Some of the response may be to reference a memo from a previous packet. ECONorthwest had responded to the land need issue identified by Ms. Nelson. Mr. Grimaldi asked if Council would like a broad response before they moved to the next phase of work on this subject. Mayor Lundberg said that would be helpful because on face value it appeared there was a discrepancy. There was a reference to legal action so Council needed to be aware. Mayor Lundberg said it had been a long road and this had been a lot of work. She noted on the map the sites staff had defined better. She asked if the map was representative of the new sites. Ms. Pauly said that was correct. There were different combinations of sites that could be considered. Staff would be providing a matrix of those areas allowing Council to compare them. Councilor Pishioneri asked about a situation on Mahogany Lane with a lot of contention regarding rainwater runoff and flow and a year -round creek. He asked if that area had been studied. Ms. Pauly said they had identified drainage issues in their comparative analysis for each area. Mr: Grimaldi said that situation was specific to a drainage system. This was not at that level of detail when establishing the UGB. Council thanked Ms. Pauly and staff for all of their work. 3. Council Goal Setting Discussion. Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery presented the staff report on this item. Each year the Council held an Annual Goal Setting Session to review and update their Council Goals. This year's Goal Setting Session was tentatively scheduled for December 10. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 7 Mr. Towery said Goal Setting was taking a different path than the last few years in terms of timing and structure. The information in the memo in the agenda packet came out of a conversation that MT. Grimaldi had with the Mayor and Councilor Woodrow centered around how TEAM Springfield was working. That meeting was followed up with a series of staff and leadership discussions with Stan Biles, the facilitator for the last few Council Goal Setting sessions, about the approach this year. Staff had also contacted Council -elect Bob Brew to let him know about the proposed date. He asked if Council had any questions or comments about the approach this year. Councilor Woodrow said she liked this direction. During the last two sessions, they were collaborating and finding out where they were as a Council. Having something more specific was beneficial to both the community and the Council. Mayor Lundberg said the newer councilors had now been on Council long enough to know many of the issues so it was a good time to take advantage of that expertise. She felt having a good working goal setting session was good. Mr. Towery said Stan Biles would contact councilors prior to their one -on -one interviews, to be scheduled by Ms. Sowa, with a request for what he would like. He did note that Mr. Biles felt this was an ambitious undertaking and he would encourage Council to be flexible. They may fmd that the aggressive time schedule may not allow them to do all the work they would like to accomplish in one meeting. 4. McKenzie Oxbow. Development and Public Works Department Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. In 1993, the Weyerhaeuser Company donated a parcel of land immediately north of the Eugene Springfield Highway and east of 42 °d Street, to the City, with the intent that it be preserved as an open and natural area. In 2001, the City conducted a master planning process for this site, and, on June 18, 2001, directed that the plan be recognized as the management plan for the site, and that City staff comply with the policies set forth therein when making management decisions concerning the property. The plan, in summary, concluded that in addition to the existing uses for production of potable water for City residents and as a utility corridor, many of the functions were educational or recreational in nature. In furtherance of the plan objectives, a portion of the property was transferred to the McKenzie River Trust. Conceptually, many of the remaining functions were believed to fall within the customary activities of the Willamalane Park and Recreation District. The principal alternative City use for the property was to support stormwater management functions. City staff had examined the needs in that area in depth and now concluded that those needs could be met by reserving an appropriate easement with respect to the existing stormwater facilities. As a result, staff recommended that the entire balance of the property be conveyed to Willamalane, reserving to the City sufficient rights with respect to existing stormwater facilities and the existing 42 "d Street Multi -use Path. Mr. Goodwin referred to Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, which summarized the proposed intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Willamalane. City staff, City attorney's office and Willamalane had been, and would continue, working on the draft IGA. He reviewed the key elements of the IGA. The map, Attachment 3 of the agenda packet, showed the area to be transferred to Willamalane in green outline. The area outlined in orange indicated the area previously transferred to City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 8 McKenzie River Trust. When the State surrendered 42nd Street to the County, they surrendered the right -of -way. There was a strip about 80 feet wide east of the right -of -way which was not surrendered, but was transferred as a tax lot. When the County surrendered 42 °d Street to the City, they surrendered the right -of -way but not the tax lot. That was discovered when the 42 °d Street path was designed because it was built on that tax lot. The City would be working with Willamalane to give them appropriate rights with respect to the part of the tax lot that was above Highway 126 on the map. A portion south of Highway 126 would remain in City control and the City would work out the details over whether or not it was better to keep the entire parcel in City control and grant Willamalane an easement, or do a property line adjustment and transfer part of it to Willamalane. If it was transferred, an easement would need to be reserved to maintain and operate the bike path. That would be negotiated with Willamalane. Mr. Goodwin noted a triangular shaped tax lot on the very eastern end of the subject property. On that lot, there were a number of Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and Rainbow Water District wells. No easements were granted to SUB or Rainbow for those wells. The city surveyor had worked with Willamalane, SUB and Rainbow and come up with an easement that was agreeable to all parties, which would confirm their rights to those wells when the property was transferred. He referred to a slough just above Highway 126 on the map, and a little bridge that went across the slough. That was an existing slough and the City would maintain an easement on behalf of the City to maintain that slough, have access to it, clean it and reshape it as needed to maintain appropriate flow. Mr. Goodwin said there were a number of conditions in the Oxbow Master Plan and Willamalane would agree to fulfill all of those conditions. One of the conditions of the master plan was a long standing plan to have a bike or multi -use path extending east from the 42 °d Street path to Highbanks. There remained a great deal of uncertainty where that path would be located. It could be very challenging to get it on the north side of Highway 126, although that was the original intent. One of the provisions of the IGA would be for Willamalane to work with the City to locate that path when funds were available to design and build the path. That would preserve the City's ability to get the path through. Mr. Goodwin said staff would bring back the IGA for the transfer. Work in this area was one of the projects Willamalane had highlighted in their Plan for use of bond funds if the bond was approved. Councilor Pishioneri asked if Willamalane would still be interested in this property if their bond didn't pass. Mr. Goodwin said Willamalane had been interested in this property for about 5 or 6 years, prior to contemplating the bond. If the bond was not successful, Willamalane would be prioritizing where to spend their current resources. There was no connection between moving this at this time and the bond issue. The City Attorney did ask that staff try to get this transaction completed prior to the bond. He noted that the City had never officially acknowledged the gift from Weyerhaeuser because we were still sorting out what to do with the property. Councilor Pishioneri said part of the agreement for the transfer of the portion to McKenzie River Trust - was that public access would not be impeded as long as people were not damaging the property. He wanted to make sure that same clause was in the IGA with Willamalane allowing river access without a fee. The property was given to the City for use by the public and should not have a fee attached. He was concerned about the bridge. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 9 Mr. Goodwin said it had basically been rebuilt Councilor Pishioneri asked if the City would be responsible for maintaining the bridge if we retained the bridge and slough. He was concerned if Willamalane used the bridge for equipment. Mr. Goodwin said the City would only retain the easement. The bridge maintenance would be the responsibility of Willamalane. Councilor Moore said there was mention of an intake for Eugene's water source. She asked where that was located in relation to his property. Councilor Pishioneri said it was at the far eastern end of the triangular piece and was downstream from Rainbow Water. Councilor Moore said the materials mentioned use of this property for educational opportunities with Eugene and Springfield School Districts. Looking at the property, she felt it was a wonderful regional resource. She asked if Willamalane would be encouraging others in our region to participate in the development of this property. She understood Eugene would have concerns about what happened in that area because of their water and she asked if they would be involved. Mr. Goodwin said he expected that any development of recreational opportunities or other uses consistent with the Master Plan would require a public process, which would involve the Council as well as Eugene Water and Electric Board and Lane County as interested and affected property owners. Mr. Grimaldi said Willamalane Superintendent Bob Keefer often asked others to partner in projects. Mayor Lundberg said Willamalane would be in the mix for projects such as paths and asking for funding. Eugene would have to agree to spend a communal pot of money on those types of projects. Mr. Goodwin said Willamalane already had a number of applications for paths in the Willamette River area. Councilor Moore said it was not just the shared funding, but sharing the educational opportunities regionally for everyone to participate. She felt it was a wonderful resource and she was very impressed. She felt they should start by acknowledging Weyerhaeuser for the original donation. Mr. Grimaldi said both parties agreed to wait to do the acknowledgment until something occurred on the property. Councilor Pishioneri said he would prefer to include tax lot 2500 in the land given to Willamalane, making them responsible for the maintenance of the path. It was part of the property and was recreational property. Mr. Goodwin said they had held conversations with Willamalane about that possibility. Mayor Lundberg agreed and said it was a path that was highly used for recreation. She said she was also interested in wetlands mitigation which was noted on Page 5 of the Executive Summary of the Master Plan (Attachment 2). She had read somewhere that Springfield didn't have any wetland mitigation sites to replace others that might be covered over. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 10 Mr. Goodwin said there were two mitigation sites in the Mill Pond area of the Mill Race. The City had not extensively created sites for wetland banking in the past. Mayor Lundberg said if they did development and covered over wetlands, they needed to have another wetlands to replace that. The Executive Summary referred to "wetland mitigation, enhancement and banking ". She asked if there was room on the subject site to do wetland banking. The City was looking at the commercial and industrial urban growth boundary (UGB) growth and assumed that some of that would require some mitigation in order to develop some of those sites. Mr. Goodwin said it might be possible to consider using this property to enhance the existing wetlands. They would need to include that in the IGA. Mr. Keefer said he would need to know if that was a dually funded or City funded project and how that would work as an obligation. That could be worked out through the process. Willamalane envisioned utilizing low -end grant dollars with McKenzie River Trust to do some of that restoration work, and then utilizing park and perhaps City funds to assist. The IGA would need to include a statement that the City and Willamalane would work together toward mitigation banking with other partners. It would need to be a partnership from the wetland banking standpoint. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m Minutes Recorder — Amy Soma Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: et. Amy So City Rec &der