HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/03/2000 Work Session
.
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000
The Springfield City Council met in Work Session at Springfield City Hall, Jesse Maine Room,
225 Fifth Street, Springfield, on Monday, April 3, 2000, at 6:02 p.m. with Mayor Weathers
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Weathers and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Leiken, Lundberg (6:32),
and Simmons. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino
Grimaldi, City Attorney Tim Harold, Senior Management Analyst Rosie Pryor, Administrative
Coordinator Shari Higgins, City Recorder Kim Krebs, AIC Development Services Director John
Tamulonis, Planning Manager Greg Mott, Planning Supervisor Mel Oberst, Planner I Colin
Stephens, Planner II Sarah Summers, and members of staff.
1. Gated Residential Developments.
.
Planner I Colin Stephens was present for staff report. He said council first reviewed this issue at
their February 28, 2000 work session. Staff presented council with potential procedures and
standards for gated residential development, and recommended the creation of Springfield
Development Code (SDC) language that would allow staff to apply specific standards to
proposals. Mr. Stephens said both police and fire staff provided information at that meeting
regarding the affects gates would have on the response time for emergency services.
After discussion on February 28, council indicated they did not wish to allow gated residential
developments as a permitted use in the SDC. Council specified gates should not be prohibited,
but suggested that an application be submitted for each residential development. Council would
then review the applications. Mr. Stephens said staff prepared three options for council
consideration. He reviewed each option.
Mayor Weathers stated she was not present during the first work session, but felt council should
not be the review body for each gated development request. She said she would not be
supportive of an approval process that recommends a Type IV application.
There was general discussion regarding each option. Councilor Simmons objected to the general
principal of gated communities and had concern over the access from public safety providers.
He felt the city should not permit the closure of property from public access. Mayor Weathers
felt property owners would have their own incentive for providing prompt access for safety
concerns.
.
Councilor Hatfield spoke regarding emergency access points. He shared his concern over having
manual power points if power gates were to fail. The safety issues surrounding gated
developments may be larger if delays occur due to access from police or fire. Councilor
Simmons suggested initiating a public review process, but shared concern over the ordinance
being given a higher workload preference than other current pending land use items.
City of Springfield
Work Session - 4/3/00
Page 2
.
Planning Manager Greg Mott said once an ordinance was approved, then staff would review the
pre-approved standards and the gated development would either be approved or denied. He said
the process should not be cumbersome and take a large amount of staff time, once the ordinance
was adopted. The alternative would be council review for each application.
By consensus, council agreed to direct staff in the area of Option # 1. Mr. Stephens said staff
would work with the City Attorney's Office on an ordinance regulating gates in residential
districts and return at a future date.
2. Request to continue the Public Hearing for the Springfield Drinking Water Protection
Overlay District (10. No. 99-09-219) to April 17, 2000.
Planning Supervisor Mel Oberst explained why the city was requesting the record/public hearing
be continued for the Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District. He eXplained
additional items had been received by staff for inclusion into the record and an extension was
needed to provide staff time to work with affected property owners and consider their issues
regarding interpretation of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Oberst reviewed the Time of Travel Zones (TOTZ), including the one-year TOTZ. Mr.
Oberst said the regulations included in the DWP Plan and Overlay District were mainly devised
for the one-year TOTZ, as they are the most critical to wellhead protection within the city.
.
Mr. Oberst and Chuck Davis from the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) reviewed the businesses
directly within the one-year TOTZ. He said they are the main property owners who have entered
items into the record and who have also had additional contact with staff.
There was council discussion regarding the hazardous materials that are groundwater
contaminants. Planner II Sarah Summers spoke regarding the hazardous materials. She
explained there are materials listed in the Uniform Fire Code that are exempt form the ordinance.
If they are not exempt, then a task team, including representatives from SUB, would review
specific requests and either approve or deny the hazardous materials based on a land use
application. Ms. Summers said if the listed use is in the Uniform Fire Code, then it would
become part of the ordinance by reference. City Attorney Tim Harold clarified that only some of
the hazardous materials from the Uniform Fire Code are contaminants to groundwater. Those
that would not affect the groundwater would not be considered hazardous in the ordinance.
Mr. Davis said that SDC, Article 17, would reference a hazardous materials list. Mr. Oberst said
if a specific list was entered into the SDC that it would need to be continually updated via
council approval. He said the ordinance needs clarity in its reference to the Uniform Fire Code
list by stating specifically what is allowed, exempted, or prohibited.
Councilor Lundberg arrived at 6:32 p.m.
.
Mr. Davis said the only items prohibited in the ordinance were Dense Non-Aqueous Phase
Liquids (DNAPLs). Other hazardous items are allowed, but in certain quantities only. Mr.
Davis said the Drinking Water Task Force reviewed the State Fire Marshall's regulations, as well
as other communities who have placed this type of regulation in their community.
City of Springfield
Work Session - 4/3/00
Page 3
.
Councilor Simmons suggested a definitive list be created that would not change often. To adopt
a blanket regulation without exemptions would not service the city well. Councilor Leiken
spoke about property owned by others such as the Federal Government or the railroad, which are
exempt. He felt companies who have the safeguards in place should be allowed expansion rights
ifthey have good company records and meet Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) standards,
etc.
Ms. Summers said the way Article 17 is currently written, states that most companies, including
Voith Sulzer, could expand their employment base and increase their use ofDNAPLs. She
provided an example of a company expansion and listed items from Section 17.050 that could
affect expansion. Mr. Harold said changes in land use would need to increase the use of
chemicals to prohibit expansion.
Ms. Summers said the ordinance was not meant to be all-inclusive, but to provide an alert to
businesses of potential risks. Councilor Fitch said the article and ordinance need more staff
work, clarification of terminology, and review time before council. Mr. Harold said this is a
planning article only. It would monitor hazardous materials, but its intent is to eliminate
expanded use by those in the one-year TOTZ.
.
Mr. Harold said the initial public hearing noticing costs were $7,500. He advised staff to seek
council approval to continue the hearing. The ordinance would then be refined and brought back
at a future date, without additional notification necessary. By consensus, it was agreed to hear
public testimony at the regular meeting and then continue the public hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes Recorder-Shari Higgins
~~,W~
Maureen M. Weathers, Mayor
ATTEST:
~
City Recorder
.