HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/2017 Regular City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY MAY 15,2017
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers,225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday May 15,2017 at 7:00 p.m.,with Council President VanGordon
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Councilors VanGordon,Wylie,Moore, and Woodrow.Also present were City Manager
Gino Grimaldi,City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the
staff.
Mayor Lundberg,Councilors Stoehr and Pishioneri were absent(excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council President VanGordon.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Mayor's Recognition
a. Kids to Park Day Proclamation.
Council President VanGordon read from the proclamation and urged residents of Springfield
to make time May 20th,2017 to take the children in their lives to a neighborhood,state or
national park.
b. Salvation Army Week Proclamation.
Councilor VanGordon read from the proclamation,proclaiming May 15-21,2017 to be
Salvation Army Week in Springfield and encouraged all citizens of Springfield to join in this
observance. Two members of the Salvation Army in Springfield were present to accept the
proclamation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
a. Approval of April 2017,Disbursements for Approval
2. Minutes
a. April 24,2017—Work Session
b. May 1,2017—Work Session
3. Resolutions
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 2
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Allow Activities Outside of the Hours of 7 am and 6 pm for the S. 42nd and Jasper Roundabout
Whitetopping Project(P21118).
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WYLIE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(2 ABSENT—STOEHR AND PISHIONERI)
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
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.
1. Request for Metro Plan Diagram Amendment and Zone Change for a 3.35 Acre Property on 5"'
Street,Cases TYP417-00002 and TYP317-00004.
ORDINANCE NO. 1 —AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN(METRO PLAN)AND Q STREET
REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 1.78 ACRES
OF LAND FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(LDR)TO MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL(MDR); CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP
BY REZONING THE SAME APPROXIMATELY 1.78 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO
MDR;AMENDING THE METRO PLAN DIAGRAM AND Q STREET REFINEMENT PLAN
DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 1.57 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(LDR)TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(HDR);
CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING THE
SAME APPROXIMATELY 1.57 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO HDR;ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE(FIRST READING).
Council President VanGordon reviewed the process for tonight's hearing by reading the following:
Now is the time in the agenda for a public hearing on a proposal to change the plan designation and
zoning of 3.35 acres of land on Fifth Street,just north of the Fred Meyer store,from Low Density
Residential to Medium and High density residential. If you have an interest in this matter and wish to
testify,please fill out a request to speak card located on the table to my right. Please fill in your name
and address and indicate if you favor,oppose,or are neutral to this proposal. Please give filled out
cards to the City Recorder."
Before I open the public hearing,I will ask our City Attorney to explain the standards and
requirements of tonight's hearing,which is a quasi-judicial public hearing. When our attorney
completes her explanation, I will open the public hearing and ask the Council if they have any
declarations of conflict of interest, ex parte contacts, or bias. When we've completed this procedural
requirement,I will ask the staff for a summary analysis of the applicant's proposal.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 3
After the staff report, I will ask the applicant or applicant's representative to address the Council on
their application.
After the applicant has concluded their presentation,I will call the names of everyone who has filled
out a request to speak card. I will first call those who have indicated they are in favor of the
application. The next group I call will be those who have indicated that they oppose the application.
The last group I call will be those who have indicated that their position is neutral to the application.
Each speaker is limited to three minutes of testimony.
When the public testimony has been completed,I will ask the staff to provide a response to the public
testimony. When the staff has completed this response,I will ask the applicant's representative for any
rebuttal.
When the applicant has finished any rebuttal,I will close the public hearing and close the written
record, or determine whether to continue the hearing and/or leave the record open for additional
written testimony. Under Oregon law, any person may request that the record be left open for
additional written testimony, and the Council must leave the record open for at least 7 days.
I'll now ask the City Attorney for her explanation of tonight's meeting process.
Assistant City Attorney Kristina Kraaz read the following regarding this type of hearing:
The hearing tonight is characterized as a de novo quasi-judicial hearing.
De novo means that any issue,procedural or substantive can be raised that is relevant to the approval
criteria.
Quasi-judicial means that certain due process procedural rights are associated with these decision-
making processes. These rights include the rights to notice,to present evidence,to have a written
decision based upon standards, and to an impartial decision-maker
The primary purpose of the hearing is to establish a record upon which a decision can be made.
EVIDENCE
The evidentiary rules associated with these hearings are less restrictive than used in circuit courts and
all relevant testimony, including hearsay testimony,may be considered.
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
• You must raise procedural and substantive issues at this hearing or you will be prohibited
from raising those issues subsequently on appeal before the Oregon Land Use Board of
Appeals.
• A person raising the issue must support raising the issue with statements or evidence
sufficiently specific so that the Council has an opportunity to respond to the concern or the
issue.
• If you are the applicant,you must raise concerns regarding any proposed conditions of
approval to preserve your right to appeal and/or to seek damages in Circuit Court.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 4
• Failure to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with
sufficient specificity to allow the City Council to respond to the issues precludes an action for
damages in Circuit Court.
BURDEN OF PROOF
In a quasi-judicial decision making process,the burden is on the applicant to show by a preponderance
of the evidence that all of the applicable approval criteria have been met.
CRITERIA
The application before the City Council tonight is a proposal for a Metro Plan diagram amendment
and a Springfield zoning map amendment. The criteria for a Metro Plan diagram amendment are
found in Springfield Development Code section 5.14-135. The criteria are:
• The amendment must be consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
• Where the Metro Plan applies,the adoption of the amendment cannot make the Metro Plan
internally inconsistent.
• Where the Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies,the amendment must be consistent with
the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
The criteria for a Springfield zoning map amendment are found in Springfield Development Code
section 5.22-115. The criteria are:
• The amendment must be consistent with applicable Metro Plan policies and the Metro Plan
diagram;
• The amendment must be consistent with applicable Refinement Plans,Plan District maps,
Conceptual Development Plans and functional plans; and
• The property must be presently provided with adequate public facilities, services and
transportation networks to support the use, or these facilities, services and transportation
networks are planned to be provided concurrently with the development of the property.
• A zoning map amendment that involves a Metro Plan diagram amendment must meet the
approval criteria for Metro Plan amendments specified in Section 5.14-100,which I have
previously listed.
• The zoning map amendment must comply with Oregon Administrative Rule
660-012-0060,which is known as the"Transportation Planning Rule."
These criteria are also posted on the wall behind the Council;they are outlined in the staff report; and
they will be summarized by City staff in their presentation.
RECORD
The record in this matter consists of the application and any supporting information,any staff report
and supporting documents,and any testimony and documentary evidence admitted during this hearing.
The record also consists of all testimony and documentary evidence submitted to the Planning
Commission on this application previously.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 5
If you want an item entered into the record present that item to the City Recorder,orally or in writing.
If there is any question in your mind whether any material is in the record make a point of asking that
it be accepted into the record.
Under Oregon law, any person has the right to request that the record be held open for 7 days for the
submittal of additional written testimony.You do not have to give a reason for this request,but you
must make the request to the City Council before the hearing is closed.
• If the written record is left open and new evidence is introduced during that time,the record
may be held open for an additional period of time to allow other parties an opportunity to
respond to the new evidence.
he last word.
• In a de novo hearing,the applicant always gets t
You also have the right to request a continuance of the hearing. A continuance is discretionary with
the City Council. The party requesting a continuance must show that prejudice to his or her rights will
not be cured by merely holding the record open.
TESTIMONY
This hearing is recorded on tape so I ask that those who wish to testify to follow a few procedures:
• First,please testify from the podium to my left(not the citizen's seats).
• Second,begin your testimony by stating your name and address for the record. This will
enable the City Recorder and the Council to identify the testimony offered by each speaker
and will assist in creating a transcript of the hearing if that is necessary.
• Finally, if you want a copy of the written decision,please provide your name and address to
the City Recorder.
DECISION
The City Council will issue a written decision after the record is closed.
APPEAL
[Type III City Council] The City Council's decision is final. Any person who appeared in this matter
may appeal the City Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Please consult an attorney
regarding the deadline for the appeal and the form of appeal.
IMPARTIALITY
The Oregon land use law requires that the City Council disclose any ex parte contacts or conflicts of
interest related to this matter, and allow any person to challenge the City Council for bias.
• A conflict of interest is a situation in which the decision maker,his or her family, or their
business would benefit or suffer by the decision-maker's decision.
• An ex parte contact is a communication to the decision maker that includes substantive issues
regarding the application and occurs outside the public venue.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 6
• Bias is an actual personal interest in the outcome of the decision,or a prejudgment by the
decision-maker as to the outcome without regard to evidence and argument submitted to the
decision-maker.
Councilor Van Gordon, it is now appropriate to open the hearing.
Councilor VanGordon opened the public hearing.
He asked the Council to declare any ex parte contact or conflict of interest.
Councilor Woodrow said she had no exparte contact or conflict of interest.
Councilor VanGordon said he had no conflicts of interest.He had exparte contact with Nancy Aarons,
who submitted testimony by email.He forwarded that email to the Planning Department who included
it in the public record.
Councilor Moore said she had no exparte contact or conflict of interest.
Councilor Wylie said she had no exparte contact or conflict of interest.
Andy Limbird, Senior Planner,presented the staff report on this item.He described the location of the
proposed site which is comprised of six tax lots with a total of 3.3 acres. Currently the property is
zoned and designated for low density residential(LDR)use pursuant to the Metro Plan,the adopted Q
Street Refinement Plan,and the Springfield Zoning Map. There are five dwellings on the site,and one
parcel is vacant. He referred to a map showing the subject properties and the zoning for this site and
abutting sites. The vacant parcel was identified in the residential housing inventory for the City as a
site for redevelopment.
Mr.Limbird said the proposal is to redesignate and rezone four of the parcels from LDR to high
density residential(HDR),and two parcels from LDR to medium density residential(MDR). The
proposal was presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on April 4,2017. The hearing
was closed and the record left open. The Planning Commission conducted deliberations on April 18,
2017.As a result of the deliberations,the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a
recommendation that differs from the application. The Planning Commission recommendation is to
redesignate and rezone three parcels from LDR to MDR,and three parcels from LDR to HDR.He
noted which parcels on the map. The logic from the Planning Commission was that there was a linear
pattern on the west side of 5th Street,and they wanted to replicate that boundary on the east side of 5th
Street. All written testimony received for the Planning Commission public hearing and the City
Council public hearing are all in the Council packet through last week, including emails. Staff
acknowledges that the application meets the criteria for plan designation and zone change. The
configuration of the redesignation and rezoning is different in the Planning Commission
recommendation from the applicant's submission,which is noted in the packet.
1. Rick Satre,Representative of the Applicant(in favor). He noted that that applicant has no
concern with the Planning Commission recommendation. He thanked staff for their assistance
in processing the application. Staff recommended approval and so did the Planning
Commission.The proposal is to redesignate and rezone six tax lots immediately north of Fred
Meyer shopping center on 5th Street and Q Street. This is not the end of the public process.
There have been a lot of legitimate concerns expressed from neighbors. Should this process
move forward, site plan review will apply to the project,which included additional public
notice and public comment period. The recently adopted 2030 Residential Land Use and
Housing Element noted that there is a housing shortage in Springfield, and surplus of LDR
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 7
land.It noted that more than 5000 new residents are expected to arrive in Springfield between
now and 2030. In terms of vacancy, in 2015,the national vacancy rate was 12.8%, and in
Oregon it was 8.3%.In Springfield the rate is only 5.5% showing a clear shortage of housing
in Springfield.A tight housing market affects job growth and economic development and
everyone who seeks to live in Springfield.Many of the councilors and the Mayor have been to
presentations regarding the missing middle housing. This project fits the definition of missing
middle housing. We have HDR housing on one side,and LDR on the other side,but are
missing the middle housing.
Mr. Satre said of the applicable criteria regarding the Metro Plan Diagram amendment,the
applicant is consistent with statewide planning goals,and do not make the Metro Plan
internally inconsistent, and are consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding the zone change request,the applicant is consistent with applicable plans and
policies.The site has adequate public facilities and urban services,and they comply with the
Springfield.Development Code and Oregon Administrative Rules. Specifically regarding the
2030 Comprehensive Plan, Staff Report Findings 27-35, staff has cited several housing
policies from Springfield's housing element that the applicant is in compliance and supportive
of that plan: 1) Springfield shall support locating higher density housing,residential
development and increasing the density of development near employment centers and
commercial services,along with transportation efficient services; 2)will reduce impediments
to more effectively utilizing residential land; 3)will encourage and facilitate development of
more attached and clustered housing types;4)will seek ways to introduce a variety of housing
options for all income levels; 5)designate land to provide a mix of choices; 6)promote
housing development and affordability in proximity to transit stations; 7)improve walkability
and convenient access; and 8)enhance the quality and affordability of neighborhood infill
development and multi-family development.
Mr. Satre said staff had noted that certain aspects of the Q Street Refinement Plan have been
replaced and superseded by the City's recently adopted housing element,yet there are still
some policies in the Q Street Refinement Plan that do apply; specifically residential criteria#2
and residential criteria#3.Regarding residential criteria#2,medium density housing,the
applicant is in compliance with that criteria as follows,"to designate medium density housing
in areas where the following occur—areas that are primarily developed as high quality
medium density residential,or adjacent to medium density residential development.As staff
notes,MDR property is located in the neighborhood across the street. Secondly,areas that can
serve as a buffer between commercial zoning and low density residential. As shown in the
staff's report,this property does provide a buffer of HDR and MDR between the more intense
commercial uses and the less intense LDR. Thirdly,areas within 1/2 mile of a transit transfer
station.He noted that the site is located on a bus route on 5th Street,next door to an LTD park-
n-ride facility(Fred Meyer)and less than 1/2 mile from the EmX route on Pioneer Parkway.
With respect to residential criteria#3 in the Q Street Refinement Plan,regarding high density
residential, it cites areas within 1/2 mile of community commercial uses; areas within 1/2 mile of
a transit station; and areas within 1/4 mile from an arterial or collector street. The proposal
complies with all of those standards.
Mr. Satre addressed other concerns from the public,which are not necessarily applicable
criteria,but are legitimate. They need to remember that this is not the end of the public
process.There will be public notice and public comment opportunities with site plan review.
Many of the concerns expressed before the Council address a few particular concerns. One is
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 8
building height and another is building setback. He referred to a map showing setback and
height currently allowed. The LDR property to the east could have a 30 foot tall structure, 5
feet from the property line.The LDR properties to the north could have a 30 foot tall structure
10 feet from the property line. Changing the zoning to MDR will increases the setback to a
minimum of 25 feet,and will allow the building to only be 25 feet tall. There is also a
requirement for a landscaped screen with trees in MDR;there is no landscape requirement in
today's LDR zone. Within the 25 foot setback,there are no automobiles allowed,which
provides significant assurances that the compatibility will be much greater in the future than it
is now.He reiterated that the applicant is fine with the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
Mr. Satre said there has been concern noted about crime. One of the neighbors contacted the
Springfield Police Department and asked for police call numbers for a 500 foot radius area
around Safeway and Fred Meyer. The person noted there are many more calls at Safeway than
at Fred Meyer. They believed that higher number was because there were more apartments
next to Safeway than Fred Meyer. He said they also called the Police Department and asked
for total number of police calls over a two-year period of time for the 500 foot radius at 5th and
S Street. Within those calls,there were 100 calls over that two-year period: 47%were for
single family residences, 18%were street related, 12%were related to commercial properties
or unknown, and 23%were related to apartments. There are problem residents no matter what
area. Within that same 500 foot radius,there was one residence in particular on T Street that
had 9 calls, and another that had 10 calls. The apartment complex in the 1000 foot circle near
Fred Meyer has 10 calls. Crime is not a criteria and crime cannot be assumed through the
housing type. There was also concern expressed about renters,but about 50%of people living
in Springfield are renters.He noted that about 45%of people living in the two census tracts
immediately adjacent to this site are renters.
Mr. Satre said he is available for questions.He reiterated that the applicant does meet the
applicable criteria,this is not the end of the public process,and the site plan review will have
public notice and testimony, and very rigorous site plan review and multi-unit design
standards will apply,much more rigorous than what could occur today if left LDR.
2. Kyle Gray, Springfield,OR(in favor). Mr. Gray said he runs one of the larger property
management companies in Springfield and is on the Board of Directors of"Multi-Family
Northwest",the state organization that represents apartment managers and property managers
in Oregon.He noted the need for additional housing in Springfield. The vacancy rate in
Springfield is actually below 1% since March. On average,his business receives about 40-50
applicants per vacancy, and there are a lot of people that have no housing options. His
company currently manages the houses on the subject property. There are two vacant houses
that have been boarded up for about 10 years,which have been problem sites with people
breaking in and causing fires and other issues. When he did the walk-through with the former
owner in the 1990s,he said it was his dream to build apartments and that's why he didn't fix
up the other houses. The original family home used to be on the property.
3. William Carpenter, T Street, Springfield,OR(in opposition). Mr. Carpenter said the Q Street
Refinement Plan was based on precise and understandable criteria,and was intended to
provide certainty,and was to be used in conjunction with the Metro Plan in making land use
decisions in the Q Street area. Staff did not look at whether or not the existing lots clearly had
prevailing LDR standards or conditions with them. If they do,the plan does not allow a
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 9
conditional application of what might be happening with the lands inventory,which this
process has done. Looking at the LDR criteria,which staff did not do in either of the findings,
it actually rate 3.5 out of a possible 4, and is only neutral on the lots that are directly on 5th
Street. It's designated as Metro low density, and not intermixed with Commercial Community
(CC)and is primarily developed as single family. Comparing that with the MDR criteria
shows that the MDR scores only .5 out of 4.There is no transfer station,which is one of the
requisites,and there is not any MDR already zoned in either of the two plans. If the
applicant's proposal gets started,the neighborhood will go from 15 to 320 residents in that
area which is a major impact and change to the number of people who will be traversing that
territory. There are no buffers so there would have to be manmade buffers which won't stop
noise. The solar setbacks would put LDR land on the north lot to 25 feet for a 20-foot
structure.
4. Rex Meisenheimer,T Street, Springfield,OR(in opposition). Mr.Meisenheimer said the
neighbors in their neighborhood know each other, see each other on the street, and it is a very
friendly place to live. Those living along the fence line in this area have an average of 22 years
living there.Everyone who has lived there has known that this would be a LDR area.
Someone tried to put something up about 30 years ago,but nothing happened.A group walked
around the neighborhood and got a petition.No one was in favor of anything other than LDR
in this area.They then went back and talked to all 77 people to ask what type of development
they could support.He referred to a picture depicting what a 25 foot structure would look like
from his backyard. They would like the proposed MDR changed to LDR and the proposed
HDR changed to MDR.
5. Tom Hinkle, 5th Street, Springfield, OR(in opposition). Mr.Hinkle said he lives across the
street from where the driveway would come out of the proposed rezoned property.He referred
to a graph showing what could happen if there were more rentals in the neighborhood.
According to the census,rentals drop surrounding property values by 13.8%. He noted areas
with high renter concentration in high crime areas. He referred to Mr. Satre's comment that
we have approximately 50%rentals in Springfield, and he can concur. This will just make the
problem worse. Looking at all of the people who are here, and the passion and interest they
have in opposing this rezoning,he thinks the Council will fmd there is good reason why not to
change the zoning.
6. Sue Stoneburner,T Street, Springfield,OR(in opposition). Ms. Stoneburner said her property
borders the rezone area. When she moved in 10 years ago, she felt this was her forever home
and thought meant to stay forever. She was hopeful she would have peace and privacy in her
backyard. She is concerned with the noise and traffic that will happen with the rezoning. She
did the crime stats for the area and felt it was relevant to what is going on in this area.
Safeway,Fred Meyer and Albertson are all very similar other than the fact that Safeway has
HDR adjacent,and Fred Meyer and Albertsons have LDR. Safeway's crime calls are doubled
over the other two areas and she is concerned that will happen to their area.In the last year,
Safeway has had approximately 198 calls that were not reported the Police Department. With
the new jail the citizens voted in,the crime rate has dropped significantly in Springfield and
they are very proud of that. We are now considered one of the safest places to live and the
Police Department has done a great job. She would like to keep that safe area the way it is
now and doesn't feel the rezoning would help with keeping the crime rate low.In looking to
the future,they would like to see Springfield be more of a family place to live,not known for
apartments and rentals.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 10
7. Ken Schmidt,Cardinal Way, Springfield,OR(in opposition). Mr. Schmidt said he owns a
duplex on S Street and grew up across the street from the subject property. It has been single
family residential for as long as he has been alive.He is a realtor and when he found out about
the rezoning,he did a search on Regional Land Information Database(RLID). It didn't take 30
minutes for him to find 10 acres of HDR vacant and 10 acres of MDR vacant land in
Springfield. About an acre and a half across from the subject property is zoned MDR,but has
single family houses on it. We have a shortage of single family residential in Springfield. He
has builders looking for property, and there were no sales in March of this year for any lots in
the Hayden Bridge area. There is high demand and builders who will pay up to$1M for
vacant land in Springfield that is flat and easy to build on.Hayden Bridge is a very desirable
district.He works for Springfield Family Physicians looking for homes for the positions
coming in,and everyone he has worked with so far has bought in Eugene because they can't
find anything in the Hayden Bridge area.Keeping this residential is the best way to go with
this property.
8. Beverly Medford,Dumas Drive, Springfield,OR(in opposition).Ms.Medford said she owns
a duplex in the affected area.Duplexes can be placed on single family zoning.The chance for
home ownership is being eroded every single day, and removing more suitable property for
single family units is just making that worse.Not only will this zoning adversely affect the
existing homes in this area,but the homes adjacent to this property will have issues. They
don't know what the developer's plans are for the property. Removing this property from
single family units will cause more of a shortage and will cause the prices to rise,and put a lot
of young couples out of the market who are now renters who would love to own their home.
The current zoning on the subject property was put into place a long time ago after a lot of
study by many different groups, and was supposed to be something to be relied on to make
decisions regarding where people could choose to live. The citizens don't get to pick and
choose which laws and rules they obey, so the City needs to hear that before they can justify
telling the people that they are arbitrarily changing zoning which will change the
neighborhood. She referred to an article she distributed written by Don Kahle in the Register
Guard about how the dream of homeownership is fading for so many. The developer had to
know that this property was zoned for single family units when he purchased the property.He
has not contacted any of the owners before or after he purchased the property.A lot of the
surplus of single family home properties is in the hills where it is very expensive to build,
putting everything out of market.
9. Margaret Donene Guest,T Street, Springfield,OR(in opposition). Ms. Guest said she rents in
this neighborhood and has been there for nine years. She looked for a long time and thought
carefully about where she chose to move. She enjoyed the neighborhood feel, and is
representative of a large segment of renters who are seniors.They enjoy renting,but don't
want to live in an apartment complex. She found the statistics about police calls and crime
very interesting.Just because police are called, doesn't mean there has been a crime. There
have,however,been two violent incidences across 5th Street in the apartment complexes—one
involving an accidental shooting, and one a stabbing. Anytime a large volume of people are
placed in a small space, it is prone to more violent activity. She has been a renter and a
homeowner in the past.As a renter, she lived in a variety of units. She shares the concerns of
her neighbors. There are a number of people up and down T Street that have lived in duplexes
long term. There are advantages of not having constant turnover and still having available
rental property.At most, she would like to see the plan amendment revised so the properties
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 11
that are proposed as MDR,could be LDR; and the properties that are proposed as HDR, could
be MDR. Duplexes and fourplexes can go in LDR.
10. Jamie Porter, 7th Street, Springfield OR(in opposition).Ms. Porter said she wants to make her
voice heard. She feels the current zoning is correct for the location. She has concerns about
crime,noise and traffic.
11. Rae Heselbach, 7th Street, Springfield,OR(in opposition).Ms.Heselbach said they have only
lived in the neighborhood for about 3 weeks. They chose to move into this neighborhood
because it is quiet,has great open backyards, is well established and well cared for.It was
affordable and convenient, and easy to get to work. She was concerned that the developer had
not disclosed how many units he wants to build.An influx of 300-400 people in that small
space is going to be a huge impact on the infrastructure and the environment in general. It
appears the quality of housing he supports is less than stellar in many instances. She is asking
if there are better places for HDR to be placed.This neighborhood is a great starter
neighborhood for families,and this is the first home she has owned. The thought that her
home could decrease in value with this type of development is disconcerting. She would like
the Council to consider the feel and tone of the neighborhood.
12. Michael Eaton, 5th Street, Springfield,OR(neutral).Mr.Eaton spoke regarding crime.He said
he had never seen as much crime now as they have since development started taking place. He
didn't feel well going to Safeway; something made him uncomfortable. Last week,the
neighbors across the street called about a person outside of his house.When he went out there,
the person who had robbed Shari's was there,but then he ran off.He also found hypodermic
needles in that same area. He's not saying he is in favor or opposed to the proposal,but noted
that the neighborhood used to be a nice neighborhood and he wants it to stay that way.
13. Anna Scott Hinkle, 5th Street, Springfield,OR(in opposition). Ms.Hinkle said she had lived
at this address all of her life(30 years), and she is opposed.
14. Sue Scott, 5th Street, Springfield, OR(in opposition). Ms. Scott said she along with husband
Tom Hinkle and daughter Anna Scott Hinkle have lived at this address for 30 years. They are
not opposed to development as LDR and understand the need for housing.In the time they
have lived at this address,they have seen the Safeway mall,2nd Street Apartments, St.Vincent
DePaul Senior Living,two apartment buildings on 5 Street,expansion of Fred Meyer,three
housing developments, and numerous businesses go up in the neighborhood. They are also
planning a development on their%2 acre lot.The plan was for a set of duplexes with plenty of
green space and no change in the zoning. This is the only plan in the area they have objected
to for the following reasons. People originally bought their home thinking it would stay LDR,
which is the nature and character of the neighborhood. Single family homes and duplexes fit
historically and presently in this neighborhood. They think living next door to an apartment
may be the same as living in an apartment. Changing the zoning will decrease home values for
those that have worked very hard over many years and maintained their homes. In contrast,the
developer buys the land he knows is zoned a certain way, and then wants to rezone it to
increase its value. They believe that is unfair. This developer has not told anyone what he
wants to build which is worrisome.They believe the developer can build very nice places
within the confines of the current LDR such as the development at 9th and Riverstone. She
quoted from George W. Bush, "We want people owning their own home. It is in our national
interest that more people own their own home.After all, if you own your own home,you have
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 12
a vital stake in the future of our country". She would like to add, "our city". Some questions
for the Council to consider are: Do we need more single family homes,duplexes,
condominiums,tiny houses and/or apartments?Yes,we do in Springfield.We don't need just
apartments;we need all of those.How many proposals of this sort have been denied?It seems
like it is just going through, and that worries her.Have they ever seen so many neighbors write
letters,research and attend meetings like this?Please take note of this extensive opposition—it
means something.
15. Lonnie Miller, 7th Street, Springfield,OR(in opposition).Ms. Miller said she has lived at this
address for 30 years.Her property is on the east side of and abuts the proposed property. She
is concerned she will have an apartment looking into her backyard. The neighborhood has
been small.Fred Meyer increased so her property now meets with their property. They have
taken out the two houses closest to Fred Meyer leaving vacant lots where transients stay. She
has seen what's happened to 5th Street since those apartments have gone in.They had
homeless camps behind Fred Meyer and she had a daughter living at home,which made her
very uncomfortable.Apartment living isn't all bad, and not all apartment residents are
criminals,but by adding 300 more people,the possibility of incidents is going to increase. It
is a quiet neighborhood and she would like to see it stay that way.
16. Ed Lewis,7th Street, Springfield,OR(in opposition).Mr.Lewis said his property abuts the
vacant lot behind Fred Meyer.The traffic density study shows a 14%increase.He noted the
difficulty turning left on Q Street at 5:00pm with the current traffic.He has seen many near
misses as people try to cross Q Street from Knechts.Adding a 200 apartment complex,it will
be impossible to drive near Fred Meyer.There is no transit station so he's not sure where they
got that information. The biggest concern for him is the traffic.The street where he lives has a
barrier and still cars speed through. He would like details on the traffic density study.
17. Art Ireland,T Street, Springfield, OR(in opposition).Mr. Ireland said many times he has been
scared that he may have hit somebody near the apartments on 5th Street as people run across
the street.At night, it is very difficult to see and is very dangerous.
18. Betty James, 7th Street, Springfield, OR(in opposition). Ms.James said she has lived at her
address for 30 years. The neighborhood is a very nice place to live and she would like to keep
it that way. She also has had problems coming out of the parking lot at Fred Meyer. It is very
high density in terms of traffic. She would like to not have any additional heavy traffic that
would be caused with apartment complexes being built next to them. They enjoy their privacy
and the feel of the neighborhood, and want to keep that.
Mr.Limbird said there have been impassioned pleas from those speaking tonight. Some of the
testimony was directed to the criteria and others were not. Crime statistics are not criteria,but if
Council would like additional information on this or any of the other topics raised, staff could do some
research.
Councilor Woodrow asked about the traffic counts if they don't know what is going to be built.
Mr.Limbird said traffic counts could be estimated based on what could be allowed with current
zoning and the proposed zoning. If the property was developed as single family housing, it could have
between 6-14 units per acre.Medium density for the entire site would be between 14-28 units per acre.
Traffic studies normally include 91/2 trips per day per unit.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 13
Councilor Woodrow asked when the type of development would be part of the public process.
Mr.Limbird said the City would require a traffic impact study of the development were to generate
more than 100 trips per peak hour,or 1000 trips per day. When a person comes in for site
development,they will propose the number of units they want and the traffic characteristics will be
calculated to determine how they would accommodate those numbers.
Councilor Woodrow asked if that was the type of criteria that has to be met at final approval.
Mr.Limbird said that was correct.The zoning opens up the possibilities,but once the specific design
is known,the details of the traffic counts will be evaluated.
Councilor Woodrow said an option was presented to change the zoning to MDR rather than HDR.
That might be something for the developer to consider.
Mr. Limbird said there is a provision for duplexes in LDR,although it must be on a corner lot. There
are no corner exposures for this site at this time so no duplexes could be built under the current zoning.
Under the proposed zoning of MDR,they could have a duplex.LDR could only have a single family
home.
Councilor Woodrow asked if there could be a possibility of changing it all to MDR.
Mr.Limbird said the developer was fine with the amended recommendation from the Planning
Commission. That amendment does still include the HDR component.
Councilor Moore asked if the 65-80 units for MDR were for the whole property. She asked how many
units for HDR.
Mr.Limbird said HDR allows 28-42 units per acre. With the Planning Commission recommendation,
there could be between 50-70 units for the lots proposed for HDR; and 28-56 units for the lots
proposed for MDR.
Councilor Moore said the Council has been talking about affordable housing and about Accessory
Dwelling Units(ADU).Anyone living in LDR could add an ADU to their property which would
increase the number of housing units. She lives off Q Street on 16th Street so experiences some of the
noise of the freeway and traffic,but does not experience crime issues.
Councilor VanGordon when they think about the adopted housing strategies the City has,he asked
how much weight should be put on the Q Street Refinement Plan.
Mr. Limbird said there are some housing elements in the Q Street Refinement Plan. Some of those
elements are superseded by the adoption of the Springfield 2030 Plan,Residential Housing Element,
which updated and acknowledged our current inventory and needs. That replaced some of the policies
of the Q Street Refinement Plan dated in about 1987.There had been a couple of provisions of the Q
Street Refinement Plan that were changed. The City looked at a global look of the City for the housing
strategy.By adopting that housing study for the whole City, it does replace/supersede some of the
older policies in the Q Street Refinement Plan. Where the housing element doesn't supersede, staff
acknowledges that the Q Street Refinement Plan still applies. Those were noted in the staff report.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 14
That does include the composition of existing neighborhoods,and provides for changes over time as
well as retaining existing composition. In those sections,there are elements that are contradictory.
Staff didn't do the ranking that Mr. Carpenter identified.
Councilor VanGordon asked if they needed to find it was consistent with the plan,not that one version
is more consistent than the other version.
Ms.Kraa7 said that is correct.The Q Street Refinement Plan sets up when those circumstances
dominate. If they find that it meets the intent of the language,they are not creating inconsistency.
Mr. Limbird said this provision would concurrently amend the Q Street Refinement Plan. If the plan
amendment and zone change are adopted,the Metro Plan and Q Street Refinement Plans would both
be amended so they match.
Councilor VanGordon asked if the issues regarding noise and crime would be addressed during the
site plan review.
Mr.Limbird said crime is difficult to quantify or identify as a specific planning issue.Typically,they
would be looking at the current design standards for multi-family residential/multi-unit design
standards,which are fairly rigorous in terms of buffering and screening and providing common open
space for the benefits of the residents of the complex. That does provide some appeal and aesthetics to
a site when it develops.Regardless of whether it's LDR,MDR or HDR, it is difficult to max out the
density.They typically fmd the lower end of the density range is developed due to other factors in
trying to max out the density.
Councilor VanGordon said many of the issues could be solved in the site plan,but cannot be addressed
in this process.
Mr.Limbird said that is correct. He noted some of the things addressed in site plan review.
Councilor Moore said she heard people stating there could be 200 units,but that wouldn't even be in
the outside range for that property.
Mr. Limbird said that is correct, even if it was all HDR. The maximum building height standard is 35
feet normally. If they went up 50 feet,they would need a 50 foot setback.MDR maximum building
height is 30 feet. The height can be increased with an increased setback.
Rebuttal of the applicant:
Mr. Satre responded to the questions from the Council.
Councilor Woodrow had asked about traffic.There is a traffic analysis required for the plan
amendment and zone change.It is documented and part of the packet,and part of Statewide Goal 12,
Transportation.This application falls within the State prescribed parameters regarding trip generation
and impacts,and meets the criteria for the plan amendment and zone change.At site plan review, if the
proposal is generating 100 or more trips during any peak hour, a second traffic analysis is required.
During that analysis,they will need to address specific mitigation measures. If the level of service of
any of the existing transportation systems(5th Street, Q Street, S Street, intersections and signals)all
below acceptable performance standards,mitigation would be required.As the applicant,they know
they will have to do that analysis and it will be vetted by Springfield staff. He explained some of the
mitigation measures that may be required.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 15
Mr. Satre spoke regarding density and number of units. There would be 1.75 acres of MDR(based on
the Planning Commission recommendation),and the same amount of HDR.The minimum to
maximum for all 3.5 acres would be between 67-133 dwelling units for the entire site. Often the actual
proposed density is much less than the maximum because of physical constraints.They also must
comply with design standards, setbacks,private space per dwelling unit,active space for the complex,
landscaping,and parking. With all of those requirements,there is not enough room to build the
maximum density.It is often a struggle to meet the minimum density.
Mr. Satre spoke regarding height limits and building standards. The site plan review standards,the
multi-unit design standards, setbacks, landscaping,open space and height limits are all the same
whether talking about MDR or HDR. The only difference between the two is number of units.
Mr. Satre addressed questions regarding the Q Street Refinement Plan.As noted,the City's adopted
housing element from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan replaced and supersedes certain parts of the Q
Street Refinement Plan.The City Attorney noted that with respect to the two criteria in the Q Street
Refinement Plan that still apply(Criteria#2 re locating MDR and Criteria#3 re locating HDR),that it
is a predominance,not all or nothing. If they are predominantly meeting those criteria,they are good.
Mr. Satre spoke regarding the transfer station.In the 1987 Q Street Refinement Plan,there was a bus
stop at 5th and Hayden Bridge that is not there anymore. Today there is a Park 'n Ride next door at the
Fred Meyer parking lot.There is a transfer station less than '/2 mile away per remaining Q Street
Refinement Plan criteria at Pioneer Parkway and Q Street.
Mr. Satre noted that Mr.Carpenter is correct about solar setbacks. Those apply no matter what the
residential density zoning(LDR,MDR, or HDR). The solar setbacks will apply during the site plan
review.They will most notably make a difference to the property to the north and will influence the
setback and height of the buildings.
Councilor VanGordon closed the public hearing and the record.
FIRST READING.NO ACTION REQUESTED.
Councilor Moore thanked everyone for coming and speaking.
2. Sanipac Franchise Renewal and Rate Increase.
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-14—A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING THE MASTER SCHEDULE OF MISCELLANEOUS
FEES AND CHARGES,RATES,PERMITS AND LICENSES IN ORDER TO AMEND THE
AMOUNT OF THE GARBAGE AND REFUSE RATES
Anette Spickard,Development and Public Works Director,presented the staff report on this item.
Sanipac,the City's franchise hauler for solid waste,has requested an increase in rates effective July 1,
2017 based on both a CPI increase and the increase in costs to comply with the County's new
requirement that all commercial haulers deliver waste to Short Mountain Landfill effective July 1,
2017.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 16
The Franchise Ordinance needs to be updated to include new DEQ requirements for recycling and
waste prevention programs.
Under section 16.4.b of the City's Franchise Ordinance, Sanipac can request rate adjustments once per
year prior to June 30t. This section states that the January Portland CPI-U will be considered for CPI
adjustments along with the costs related to new government regulations. Sanipac is requesting a 2.1%
CPI adjustment;the Portland CPI is 2.6%. Sanipac has also determined that the cost to comply with
the new Lane County hauling requirement for all commercial loads to go to Short Mountain Landfill
instead of the Glenwood transfer station is equal to an increase of 0.81% in costs and requests a rate
adjustment. Sanipac's proposed increase for both adjustments combined is $0.40 per month for the
most frequently used service.
Sanipac does not anticipate an increase in rates in order to comply with the new requirements.Based
on Council feedback, staff will prepare an updated Franchise Ordinance for public hearing.
Councilor VanGordon opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Councilor VanGordon closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WYLIE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.2017-14. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(2 ABSENT—STOEHR AND PISHIONERI).
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Emily Reiman,Executive Director of NEDCO.Ms.Reiman said she is approaching her two-year
anniversary as Director of NEDCO. One of the goals she inherited was the closing of all of the
active Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)contracts with the City of Springfield.
There were seven when she started. She has been working with City staff over last two years to
make sure the work happened and the contracts were closed as agreed. She is happy to say they
are all done. She will plan to attend Council meetings on a quarterly basis to provide updates
about the work NEDCO is doing in Springfield.During the NEDCO State of the Union last year,
she identified increased work through Community Lending Works.They have seen a huge
increase over the last two years.In FY15/16,they did a total of just over$44,000 worth of loans to
Springfield businesses. This year to date,they have done $276,000 of lending to Springfield
residents and businesses. That includes $216,000 in micro and small business loans to Springfield
entrepreneurs. They are also doing a pilot program with Springfield High School to have the first
10 SHS students doing NEDCO's IDA match saving program. This is the first time they have
worked with students and SHS has been a good partner. The first ten students are set to graduate
next month having met their match.
2. Lori Love,Building Works Director of NEDCO. Ms.Love said she was the project manager on
the CDBG project at SPROUT! which was the installation of the fire sprinklers. She thanked the
Council for that funding. It was great to get that project done. She thanked City staff(David
Bowlsby,Robert Castile,and Erin Fifield)who were very helpful in getting the project done.
3. James Platt, Springfield,OR. Mr.Platt had left the meeting before his time to speak.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 17
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Bill and Bev Medford Regarding Potential Rezoning of the Parcel North of
Q Street between the Fred Meyer Store and T Street.
2. Correspondence from Gloria Parrish Regarding Case Numbers TYP317-00004(ZMA)TYP417-
00002(MPA)Opposition to Proposed Changes.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WYLIE TO ACCEPT CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING.THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(2 ABSENT—STOEHR AND PISHIONERI).
BIDS
1. 42nd Street Roundabout Whitetopping Authority to Award Bid.
Jeff Paschall,City Engineer,presented the staff report on this item.
Staff requests Council authorization for the City Manager to award the bid for project P21118, 42nd
Street Roundabout Whitetopping to the lowest responsive,responsible bidder upon expiration of the
bidders' protest period.
The bid opening for his project is May 11,2017, so the lowest responsive bidder and the amount of the
requested bid award is unknown at this time. In an effort to maintain the current project schedule staff
is requesting that Council authorize the City Manager to award the bid to the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder once it has been determined and the protest period has expired.
All construction must occur between July 10, 2017 and August 14, 2017. This date range was
established so that construction could be accomplished after the July 4th holiday and prior to the start
of school.The limited 14 day construction window has been set to help reduce the inconvenience to
the traveling public. The next available Council meeting for award of this project is June 5,2017.
Delaying the bid award to June 5th may result in the need to postpone the construction schedule. The
reduction in time from bid opening to bid award is important to achieving the goal of beginning street
construction in early July.
The Municipal Code sets administrative limits on the City Manager's signature authority to award bids
where cost exceeds certain limits imposed by the Code except in certain cases of City Council
approval. For this project to proceed at an accelerated pace, staff requests that Council authorize the
City Manager to award this bid.
i IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WYLIE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD THE BID FOR PROJECT
P21118-42ND STREET ROUNDABOUT WHITETOPPING.THE MOTION PASSED WITH
A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(2 ABSENT—STOEHR AND PISHIONERI).
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
i
i
I
1
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15,2017
Page 18
1. Committee Appointments
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
b. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 8:57 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Christine L.Lundberg 0
Mayor
Attest:
City Reco%der