Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/2014 Regular MeetingCity of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY DECEMBER 1, 2014 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday December 1, 2014 at 7:06 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Ralston was absent (excused). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Be a Santa to a Senior Proclamation. Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation and encouraged all Springfield residents to observe December as "Be a Santa to a Senior" month. Nancy NesSmith, Executive Director of Home Instead Senior Care came forward to accept the proclamation. 2. Month of Giving Proclamation. Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation and encouraged all Springfield residents to support the return of giving as the reason for the winter holidays, showing their support through giving time, needed items or money to non -profits of their choice. Kate from West Coast Dog and Cat Rescue came forward to accept the proclamation. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. October 27, 2014 — Joint Elected Officials Work Session b. November 10, 2014 — Joint Elected Officials Work Session 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 1, 2014 Page 2 a. Approve the Subject Change Order to the FY 2015 Slurry Seal Contract with Blackline, Inc. in the Amount of $45,105.25, Increasing the Total Approved Contract to $128,367.75, and Changing the Contract Completion Date to June 30, 2015. b. Authorize City Manager to Enter into a Contract with Willamette Community Health Solutions DBA Cascade Health Solutions in the Amount not to exceed $160,000 to Provide Primary and Preventative Medical Services for the City's Wel mess Clinic. c. Authorize the City Manager to enter an agreement with Willamette Community Health Solutions DBA Cascade Health Solutions to Provide Inmate Medical and Dental Services to the Springfield Municipal Jail. d. Authorize and direct the City Manager to execute the Local Agency Agreement Multimodal Transportation Enhance Program (MTEP) OR 126B and McVay Highway: Mississippi Avenue-UPRR Tracks Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on behalf of the City. e. Allow Pavement Coring Activities Outside of the Hours of lam and 6pm for Work in Preparation of Pavement Analysis for the Gateway Overlay Project. £ Approval of Liquor License Application for Pranee's Pump Cafe, Located at 710 Main Street, Springfield, OR. g. Approve the November 4, 2014 General Election Report of Board of Canvassers and Proclamation for the election for Springfield City Council position for Ward 6, and Springfield Utility Board Members for Positions #1, #2, #3, and #4, and Measure 20-223, Charter Amendment Allowing for a Mayor and Council Stipend. Mayor Lundberg asked about item 5e regarding lane closures. Mr. Grimaldi said there would be lane closures as they did the coring work which is why they are asking to do the work at night to minimize the disruption. Mr. Paschall said they would work with the businesses to reduce the impact on the stores during the holiday hours. Mayor Lundberg said there are also a lot of apartments along Gateway Street. Mr. Paschall said the noise of the core drill is similar to that of a bus driving by. They can try to schedule the coring near the apartments during a time that would be less disruptive. The timing of the work is due to just getting the contract from the State. They are trying to move forward so construction can begin this summer. He agrees it is not the best timing or the best weather. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT — RALSTON). ITEMS REMOVED PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 1, 2014 Page 3 1. Adoption of Transportation System Development Charge Methodology, Project List, and Charges. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL MODIFYING A METHODOLOGY FOR THE CALCULATION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-39 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL ADOPTING A LIST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE FUNDED BY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-40 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL ADOPTING A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Anette Spickard, Deputy DPW Director, presented the staff report on this item. Staff has completed a proposed modification to the Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) Methodology, and a Project List of activities eligible for funding from SDC's, and a proposed Charge resulting from the application of the Methodology to the Project List. The Methodology and Project List have been available for public review and comment since .August 20, 2014. All of these items are now ready for Council review and formal action. Staff has completed the process, which commenced in October 2013, of reviewing and updating the Transportation System SDC methodology. A council -appointed Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) met six times between October 2013 and April 2014 with city staff and SDC consultant Deb Galardi from the Galardi Rothstein Group to review and make recommendations to Council on updates to the methodology. Council received the CAC's recommendations on June 9, 2014 and gave direction to staff on final changes to incorporate into the methodology on June 16, 2014 along with direction to schedule a Public Hearing. The Public Hearing was opened on October 20, 2014 and continued to December 1, 2014. The proposed Methodology was published and made available for public review and comment on August 20, 2014. Interested parties were notified as required under ORS 223-304(7)(a). The proposed fee resolution reflects direction received from Council at the November 24, 2014 work session. Councilor Pishioneri clarified that the committee recommended not going over 15%. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. Ed McMahon, Springfield, OR. Mr. McMahon is the Executive Director of the HomeBuilders' Association of Lane County. He was pleased to be invited to be part of the CAC for the transportation SDC methodology. Their recommendation was 10-15%. After attending last week's work session, he felt fortunate that the majority of the Council is looking at 15% rather than a higher level. Through this process, he learned that the City looks at the CII', and then at the SDCs as a result of the list. It appears they need to be done in conjunction as they need to know the effect of the SDCs on the list. It is important when looking at how the infrastructure costs for the industrial expansion under consideration by the City will be paid for and the effect on the SDCs. Once that effect is implemented, they need to compare Springfield to other cities in Oregon. He thanked the Council for their service. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 1, 2014 Page 4 Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38. THE :MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT — RALSTON). IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND :BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-39. THE :MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT — RALSTON). IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 3. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF _ FOR AND _ AGAINST (1 ABSENT — RALSTON). BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE - Limited to 20 minutes. Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to Speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. 1. Community Members Regarding Carport Code. Mayor Lundberg said she had received a request for additional time for the residents to speak on this topic. Jerry Hudson, Springfield, OR. Mr. Hudson thanked the Council fbr the opportunity to present their side concerning the alleged violation of the 5 -foot setback rule for carports. Packets were provided to the Mayor and Council from Mr. Hudson, with information and documentation to support their request to allow the carports to remain intact in their present locations. He asked those in attendance supporting this presentation to stand. These Springfield residents represented a small part of the larger number affected by one anonymous complaint filed with malicious intent. Those standing in the audience are residents who are paying taxes and are good citizens of our community; yet one person maliciously disrupts their lives. Helen Hudson, Springfield, OR. Ms. Hudson said those here tonight are angry, but are looking for solutions to an unfortunate situation the City and 67 families have been put into by one anonymous person when they filled out a carport violation form. The citizens question why one individual who can't be directly affected by the 67 carports, has been given more rights than the 67 residents. They believe the reporting process should be modified so a person can only file complaints like this against their direct neighbor. The arguments for why this complaint must be enforced include: fire safety; access; insurance won't cover them; people have complied; and it's the Code. The residents checked with the fire marshal and were told there are no fire regulations for carports. Tarps are very dangerous. Code enforcement said there are not regulations for tarps, yet without their carports, they may have to use them. Access is another concern, but if the carports weren't there, what they park under them will be so access is still restricted. She asked if the City would change things so they can't park next to their City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 1, 2014 Page 5 houses. They purchased their houses with recreational vehicle (RV) parking which the City Code allows. They have been told people have complied, but that doesn't mean those individuals agree with the enforcement. There are five homes on Oksanna with carports, all installed by the same licensed contractor. No neighbors object, their insurance companies cover them, they are made of fire resistant aluminum, have no sides and have been up for years. The purpose of the Code per the City is as follows: "To help maintain the public health and safety and livability of our community. The City Council has adopted laws and regulations over the years to promote a healthy, safe, and pleasant environment. The City Code enforcement staff investigates potential code violations and enforces the Springfield Municipal Code. Our goal is to work with residents and property owners to resolve compliance situations before they reach the need for enforcement action". If enforcement is making citizens less safe and hurting them economically and emotionally, the Code should be altered. Codes ;and laws have changed to reflect our society. In our community, there is no mention of temporary structures within the Code. A temporary structure is defined as "no foundation, no grading required, no repairs to the ground surface after removal, can be removed or moved in a day, panels can be resized to make other units, and the structure can be removed in part and whole and moved to another location". Their carports reflect the definition of a temporary structure and in other communities, temporary structures are not subject to setback laws. They are concerned that if an anonymous person is successful in upsetting the lives of 67 families, will they turn in another 67 or will some of the 67 turn in 67. To not deal with this reporting issue is setting up a snowball, for you can drive down any street in town and see many of these `code violations'. She provided some photos of other carports. She suggests that it is a more productive approach to contact the person who did this and address their concern, meanwhile altering the reporting process so an immediate neighbor can issue a complaint as appropriate. They have shown the City Council how they have tried to make sense as to why Code Enforcement wants to enforce this and have come up with no reasonable answers, yet more reasons why they should remain. She feels this should be stopped when there is no sense to this and the citizens of Springfield are being negatively impacted to the tune of around $250,000. She provided photos showing the steps residents have taken. There is a problem and she asked if the City wants to make it better or worse. They are looking for a logical, equitable solution and ask the City if they want the same. One of the neighbors is a retired City employee who says this does not reflect the spirit of Springfield or of the Code. They are available to meet anytime this week. They do not want their City, which they have lived in for many years, to turn negative and non -supportive. They have been reminded that their time is running out. Their objective is to create a win-win for everyone and mend bitter feelings. COUNCIL RESPONSE Mayor Lundberg said her understanding was that not all of the 67 properties have been contacted. Mr. Grimaldi said that is correct. The City was contacting property owners in phases and that process is not yet complete. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 1, 2014 Page 6 Mayor Lundberg said some of those 67 residents may not be in violation. She asked if the City was working with everyone else. Mr. Grimaldi said staff has been providing additional time to remove or fix the problem. The City wants to get compliance with the Code and is not interested in fining people and taking them to court. Mayor Lundberg said the Code was written many years ago so the question is how structures were built that didn't comply with Code. Mr. Grimaldi said it is likely the builder did not get a building permit when they built the structure. Anyone who would have come in to get a building permit would have been told they could not build a structure in the setback. Mayor Lundberg said she understood the frustration. The issue is that someone did go around, but that is how Code Enforcement typically works because we don't have staff that can drive around to check on code violations throughout the City. She is not inclined to change the process and she believes the Code was set up for a good reason. Springfield has a reputation for working with people. She would like to look at what needs to happen, give people time and figure out what can be done that will be a win/win for everyone. Councilor Moore asked if the code violations apply to those living in tl-ie urban growth boundary (UGB). Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said these are building code violations which are enforced when people apply for permits in the UGB. Councilor Moore said about buildings constructed before properties became part of the City. Mr. Goodwin said they would be nonconforming. None of the properties affected in this case are outside the city limits. Staff is working with the neighbors to try to come up with creative solutions. There are some structures that comply and the complaint is unfounded.. There are others that have chosen to make some adjustments in order to comply, but others present more complex solutions. Mr. Goodwin is meeting with Mr. Hudson at 3:OOpm on Wednesday to discuss the more complicated situations. One of the reasons they are processing them in smaller groups, is to allow staff time to look at each individual situation to see if they can find a way to come to compliance without a major change to the structure. They will only consider enforcement if there is no way to get the resident to comply. He didn't feel there would be any of those cases. Councilor Pishioneri said this was similar to an issue with fencing along the flood plain due to a contractor building a project that was not authorized in that location. He knows the neighbors did not do this on purpose. The contractor should have gotten a permit when they built the carport. There are reasons for the Code. The neighbors may have to contact the contractor to make it right. City codes are city wide and have to apply city wide. Councilor Wylie asked if any thought had been given to providing additional time for compliance. Mr. Goodwin said yes they were providing additional time. They are doing these in groups so they can work with the individuals. They will not take enforcement action against anyone until every method of trying to find an alternative that works is completely exhausted. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 1, 2014 Page 7 Councilor Wylie said she would like to be kept informed of the progress on this situation. Councilor Woodrow said she understood the situation the neighbors were caught in and it was truly unfortunate they are in this situation. She fully supports what Mr. Goodwin said in regards to working with them individually to find the best solution with the bare minimum of violations to bring people into compliance. Councilor VanGordon said this situation is unfortunate and he would encourage City staff and the neighbors to keep the lines of communication open. He is encouraged to hear the City is working with people and providing additional time to address violations. He asked for clarification on the Fire Code related to this issue. Mr. Grimaldi said staff will provide that to the Council. Mayor Lundberg said she would prefer that the neighbors continue to communicate with staff and the Council through email and the phone. She will ask to be kept informed by City staff to see what can be done. Council is supportive of the codes that are in place, but want to take into consideration the situations. 2. Roy Huener arg dt, Springfield, OR. Mr. Huenergardt said a few of the residents have canopies and also received letters. He had been told when he put up the canopies that permits were not needed to erect a canopy and that they could go up to the property line. He is not sure why he received a letter. Mayor Lundberg said Mr. Goodwin would speak with him tonight. Jerry Ritter, Springfield, OR. Mr. Ritter said he is a legislative affairs representative for Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexation (OCVA). He is representing OCVA and specifically the Springfield UGB Chapter. He is here to express their thanks and appreciation to the Council and staff for the manner in which the recent annexation survey was designed and conducted. They were brought on board from the beginning which was very nice. It was pleasant to be able to work with the City on an annexation -related project opposed to the alternative. He realized the City did not get the answer they hoped for, although it was what the OCVA expected. He didn't expect, and found disappointing, the sheer magnitude of hostility that was related to them by the more than 100 people that contacted them with their concerns. Unfortunately, this project was cursed from the beginning by past experiences with forced annexation. In light of the City's pledge of no force, representatives from OCVA tried to assure everyone that contacted them that the City was not forcing annexation, but they did not believe them. Mayor Lundberg thanked Mr. Ritter. Councilor Moore said someone asked her if the City was going to provide incentives for those that did want to annex. She asked if that was something the City was under consideration. Mr. Grimaldi said Council had asked staff to put a hold on that for now. Staff will come up with some incentives as septic systems start to fail, but will not have incentives for general annexations at this time. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 1, 2014 Page 8 CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS ORDINANCES 1. Amendments to the Development Code Implementing Adopted Changes to Metro Plan Chapter N. ORDINANCE NO. 6331 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.14-100—METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES MADE TO CHAPTER N OF THE EUGENE -SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mark Metzger, Senior Planner presented the staff report on this item. At issue is whether the proposed amendments to SDC Section 5.14-100 accurately implement the changes that were approved for Chapter IV of the Metro Plan. No new policies are being introduced into Section 5.14-100 other than those changes to Metro Plan Chapter 1V that were recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council last year. Chapter IV of the Metro Plan details the process for amending the Plan. and the role the various jurisdictions play in approving those amendments. SDC Section 5.14-100 contains the standards which implement the policies and procedures found in Chapter W. Eugene and Lane County have comparable sections in their land use regulations and will be acting on similar amendments. As mentioned above, the proposed changes to Section 5.14-100 are intended to implement the policy and procedural changes that were adopted last year. No new policies are being introduced apart from those already approved. Under state planning law, comprehensive plan policies are intended to be implemented through each jurisdiction's local land use regulations (Development Code). On October 23, 2014, the Joint Planning Commissions for Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed amendments and recommended approval to their elected officials. On November 10, 2014, Council held a joint public hearing on the proposed amendments with the Lane County Board of Commissioners. The Staff Report contains fmdings which address the criteria for approving amendments to the Development Code. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 6331. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – RALSTON). 2. An Ordinance Amending the Eugene -Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 1, 2014 Page 9 ORDINANCE NO. 6332 — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE -SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Mark Metzger, Senior Planner presented the staff report on this item. ORS 19 7.3 04 (enacted as HB 3337) requires Springfield and Eugene to create separate Urban Growth Boundaries. In doing so, it is necessary and appropriate to amend the Metro Plan to enable each city to adopt its own comprehensive plan. Working together with Special Counsel, Emily Jerome, the planning and legal staffs for each jurisdiction has prepared what are believed to be the needed amendments. The proposed amendments will allow each city to independently replace provisions of the Metro Plan with city -specific plans and policies over the next several years. They allow the cities to retain those provisions of the Metro Plan which the cities agree are regional in nature, particularly those elements which do not regulate land use within a UGB. The amendments will allow each city to proceed to adopt elements of local comprehensive plans on their own schedules and to have those elements take precedence over the similar Metro Plan provisions as they are adopted by each city (and co -adopted by Lane County as appropriate). On October 23, 2014, the Planning Commissions for Eugene, Springfield and Lane County conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments. Testimony was received from Bill Kloos, asserting that the proposed Metro Plan Diagram was different than the official 2004 Metro Plan Diagram, see Attachment C. Staff recommended removal of the maps from the amendment proposal. The Commissions agreed with staff's recommendation and all three unanimously recommend that the Joint Elected Officials approve the Ordinance to adopt the Metro Plan Enabling Amendments. On November 10, 2014, the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County held a joint public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan Enabling Amendments. The Staff Report provides context and an overview of the proposed amendments. The Draft Ordinance includes the proposed Metro Plan Enabling Amendments in legislative format and Staff Findings. A Summary Table is provided showing the proposed changes chapter by chapter. A letter of testimony was submitted to the Joint Planning Commissions by Bill Kloos. Mayor Lundberg said this was another momentous occasion that becomes a routine motion in the end. It has been years in the making and they recognize what it means to us as a community. It is a wonderful moment. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 6332. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT — RALSTON). BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 1, 2014 Page 10 Councilor Woodrow said the Springfield Christmas Parade is this Saturday, December 6. Mayor Lundberg said they will have plenty of candy and dog biscuits to distribute. Councilor Pishioneri said he was not going to be able to attend the parade as he would be out of town. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER Mr. Grimaldi reminded the Council that their winter break starts after this meeting. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:48 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ;;/-,—Z6--- AChristin:N'L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: a11 City Rec der