Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 05 Council MinutesAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/16/2018 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: AJ Ripka Staff Phone No: 541-726-3700 Estimated Time: Consent Calendar S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Mandate ITEM TITLE: COUNCIL MINUTES ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, approval of the attached minutes. ISSUE STATEMENT: The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval. ATTACHMENTS: Minutes: a. March 26, 2018 – Work Session b. April 2, 2018 – Work Session c. April 2, 2018 – Regular Meeting DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2018 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie (by phone), Moore, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Stoehr was absent (excused). 1. Planning Commission Interviews. Greg Mott, Planning Manager, presented the staff report on this item. Two candidates have applied for a Planning Commission vacancy created by the resignation of Commissioner Nick Nelson. The expiration date for this position is July 31, 2021. The Mayor and Council introduced themselves and interviewed Grace Bergen. 1. Why do you want to serve on the Planning Commission? (Mayor Lundberg) 2. The City is experiencing a severe housing shortage; would you support any of these actions to incentivize new housing: waiver of fees and charges; reduce or eliminate plan submittal requirements; increase zoning density to allow more dwellings per lot any others? (Councilor VanGordon) 3. In your opinion is it more important for the City to promote infill and redevelopment to accommodate growth, or expand the urban growth boundary to provide vacant, development- ready sites? (Councilor Pishioneri) 4. Developing within existing neighborhoods can generate strong objections to increased traffic, noise, loss of privacy, etc. As a Commission member you may be called upon to solve these neighborhood impacts; what would you require the developer to do to address these objections? (Councilor Woodrow) 5. Attracting new development to Springfield is a top Council priority; can you think of any ways to entice new development to locate here? (Councilor Moore) Marisa Aieta had not yet arrived so Council went ahead with the second item. 2. Transportation Funding Priorities. Mayor Lundberg noted that she had asked for additional information on the funding sources and other funding options for the projects. Emma Newman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report on this item. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2018 Page 2 Staff is seeking guidance from Council on our application priorities. There is funding received periodically through the Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and it is up to the City and partnering agencies in our metro area to prioritize where to spend those funds. There are several types of funds received by the MPO: Surface Transportation Block Grant – Urban (STBG-U, formerly STP-U), Transportation Alternatives (TA), and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Ms. Newman thanked Mayor Lundberg for her efforts in securing the CMAQ funds for our region. In total, they are looking at about $16.5M available for the region over the three year periods FY19, FY20 and FY21. Historically, the City of Springfield has received about 20-30% of these funds. These funds are split between City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County, City of Coburg, Lane Transit District and Willamalane. Ms. Newman provided a hand out with the MPO Regional Transportation Funding process. She explained the timeline and how tonight’s work session fit into the schedule. Once staff receives Council direction on their priorities, regional staff will submit project applications, which are then reviewed and brought forward with recommendations to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). Subsequently, the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) will make the final decision on regional funding allocations. Mayor Lundberg and Councilor Wylie are the current City of Springfield MPC representatives. Ms. Newman described the different funds available for transportation projects which includes Surface Transportation Block Grant – Urban (STBG-U, formerly STP-U); Transportation Alternatives (TA); and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. She thanked Mayor Lundberg for her efforts in securing the CMAQ funds for our region. The funds are split between Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield, City of Coburg, Ms. Newman described the process to determine priorities and get the information and provide input to the MPC. Ms. Newman said there are three components to transportation funding needs: preservation and maintaining the existing system; enhancement to the systems; and preparation to plan and design to leverage key opportunities and provide for future economic growth. The goal it to accommodate the multi-modal transportation system that has been in the policy for the City and region, to make sure there is coordination with agency partners to address the transportation needs of the whole region. In looking through the various different planning documents and programs, staff developed the regional priority brainstorm list. Staff then made recommendations specific to Springfield: 28th Street (Main to Olympic) Preservation - $1,500,000 14th Street / Mohawk Preservation - $1,800,000 Marcola Road / 19th Street Intersection Design - $200,000 New Franklin Blvd Continued Design (to east of Henderson) - $750,000 Pedestrian Bicycle Master Plan - $250,000 She asked Council for their input on these projects. Councilor Woodrow asked if the 19th and Marcola Road intersection could be brought into the developer plan rather than as a city project. It might change depending on the type of project. She felt Mill Street should be on the priority list above the 28th Street preservation project. Her four top priorities were Mill Street, Franklin Boulevard Continued Design, Ped/Bike Master Plan and 14th Street/Mohawk Preservation. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2018 Page 3 Mayor Lundberg asked about the TA funds and what those could be used to fund. Ms. Newman said because there are three different funding sources, and some flexibility with the different funding sources, the approach they are taking with the region for discussion purposes is to talk about it as one funding source, and then appropriate projects to the appropriate funding mechanisms. Mayor Lundberg said it might not be wise to pick only preservation projects as it might limit our funding from the TA funds. Ms. Newman said they could negotiate with the partnering agencies. Interim Development and Public Works Director Tom Boyatt referred to the question about the intersection at 19th and Marcola. He said it is an intersection that the public has already built and operates. It has been improved several times over the years. It would be difficult to hinge the need to reconstruct that intersection on a development project. He explained further. Ms. Newman said a portion of the project could be funded with SDCs that have already been collected. Councilor Woodrow asked if the type of development could make a difference based on traffic volume and other factors. Mr. Boyatt said the developer would have to deal with impacts at driveways, etc. It is not something the City has done a lot of in the past. Councilor Moore asked what was meant by failing intersections. Mr. Boyatt said in this particular case, it’s mostly the surface, but is also the demand on the facility. When looking at rebuilding the intersection, it is a good time to look at capacity improvements. Councilor Moore said there are a lot of trucks going that way to get onto the freeway. They have been doing a good job of filling pot holes, but the capacity continues to increase. Councilor VanGordon asked why the Mill Street project was removed from the staff list. Ms. Newman said it was based on cost for reconstruction, Councilor VanGordon asked how far the 14th Street preservation would be going. Ms. Newman said it would go to the edge of city limits. Councilor VanGordon said he has a lot of questions on the Willamalane and LTD list. He is comfortable leaving Mill Street off the list. If we don’t take care of preservation, we will end up with two more streets on the reconstruction list. Mayor Lundberg asked about other regional funding. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2018 Page 4 Mr. Boyatt said Connect Oregon has funding that is earmarked, so is not currently available. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) have taken a comprehensive look at funding they can expect. With other earmarks, there will be a reduction of funds available in the STIP for enhancement project. The ACTS around the state aren’t going to be weighing in much on the next STIP cycle, so there probably won’t be open applications. He is not sure where the next Surface Transportation authorization federally will go and what that will mean locally. Things will likely shift and change and there could be funding in the future. Mr. Grimaldi said they can also talk about other options to pay for reconstruction of streets. Mayor Lundberg said the only options left are Transportation Utility Fees (TUF) and bonds. Councilor Pishioneri asked about the $250,000 for the Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan. Ms. Newman said it could be prioritized as the Council wished. Councilor Pishioneri asked about the need for the Franklin Boulevard project. Ms. Newman said this funding would be for the design of the next roundabout plus the next segment, which was at 30% right now. Funding for the construction had not been identified. Mr. Boyatt said everything put towards design and right of way will help leverage federal funds. Councilor Pishioneri noted concern spending funds for this project because of the critical need for the preservation and repair of other streets, some of which are dangerous to drive. He doesn’t’ want to put funding into a big fancy street when other streets are in disrepair. Mayor Lundberg said the argument is that we have a contract now which would save money. Councilor Pishioneri said he understands the reasoning, but feels we need to take care of what we already have. His priorities are 28th Street, 14th Street, 19th and Mohawk intersection, and sections of Mill Street. Councilor Woodrow agreed. Councilor Wylie said she felt we should continue with the design of Franklin Boulevard. Mill Street is also very important, as is the whole list. Councilor Moore said it would be very sad to see the work on Franklin Boulevard stop. She would like to see us continue. It is such an important part of what they are doing in Glenwood. She would also like to have a discussion regarding a bond. For her, 19th Street and Franklin Boulevard are high priority, and the rest are fine. Councilor VanGordon asked how much is saved if we continue with the Franklin design. Mr. Boyatt said staff could get that figure. Councilor VanGordon asked if it would be harder to get funds for reconstruction of Mill Street, or design funds for Franklin Boulevard. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2018 Page 5 Mr. Boyatt said it would likely be easier to get funding for Franklin Boulevard as it is more tied to the region. Mayor Lundberg said she is hearing an interest in discussing a bond measure for streets. It would be easier to get a bond for fixing streets rather than designing streets so she would argue in favor of including the Franklin design in this funding list. She agreed that they need to know how much would be saved by moving forward on the Franklin design now, and also the costs for Mill Street. They need to do something to finish Franklin. She would like to fix those streets that aren’t too bad such as 28th Street and the Mohawk area. She asked about the intersection on Marcola and 19th and would like to know if there is another way to deal with the trucks. The Marcola Meadows development could impact transportation at that intersection. She is fine with 14th and Mohawk, 28th Street rehabilitation, and the 19th Street intersection. Mr. Grimaldi asked if Council would like another work session on this topic. Yes. Councilor VanGordon said he didn’t think he could be supportive of using this money for the Springfield Open Streets Program because of the infrastructure needs. He thought the Moe Mountain path design and construction were part of Willamalane’s recent bond. Ms. Newman said they are trying to program a little bit of funding to do a feasibility study. There is currently no funding allocated to this project from Willamalane. Councilor VanGordon said he would like more information on that project. He is fine with Safe Routes to School, but feels Point2Point is not necessarily. He would like to get the LTD list down as much as possible, perhaps just down to Safe Routes to School and the Gateway ridership. Councilor Pishioneri agreed. He is hesitant to use this type of funding for staffing positions. Ms. Newman reviewed the request from the region to bring forward the Safe Routes to School regional programming to get the IGAs in place and continue to pay staff as of October 1, 2018. They acknowledged that the Springfield Public Schools would contribute half of the Safe Routes to School staff position. There are also the state infrastructure funds, which is a new funding source. They have been working with the regional staff over the last week, taking the dollar amount the school district contributes to the staffing position, and requesting the remaining goes into infrastructure, allowing them to leverage those funds at a 1:5 rate. She explained how those funds would increase the amount to Springfield. Councilor Woodrow said she was unclear about the kiosks. She also felt the new resident piece could be incorporated into other things that are currently available. She felt the Gateway ridership was regionally important. She was not supportive of the Bike Fix-it Stations as it feels they are contributing funding to something that is a Willamalane issue. Councilor Pishioneri said he would like more detail on what the New Resident piece would involve. He felt the Gateway ridership should be an LTD project. Councilor VanGordon said the individual marketing plan for Point2Point doesn’t make a big impact, and takes a lot of effort. He feels something that reaches a larger group would be better. Councilor Moore asked if the City had any say about whether or not LTD applied for the Point2Point. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2018 Page 6 Ms. Newman said each agency chooses which applications they want to submit. If these applications turn into something more staff can get additional information. It sounded like there was support for Safe Routes to School funding, but not the other Point2Point ideas. The MPC will make the final decision. Mayor Lundberg said she does not support Smart Trips, but would like to put money into the Gateway EmX ridership. She has heard from businesses in Gateway and talked with LTD board members about how they can figure out where the ridership is coming from or not. LTD needs to figure out solutions and she wants to support that. They can call it a Point2Point solution if they are out there talking to people and meeting with businesses about why people aren’t riding. She would like the figures on the ridership in Gateway. She supports Safe Routes to Schools as long as it is for infrastructure, connectivity, lighting, etc. She would love to see them do a program where one staff member comes up with a curriculum to share and educate other staff rather than paying for separate coordinators. She is concerned about the connectivity with Moe Mountain so would like them to figure out what the system should be. She would rather wait until they have the full plan instead of paying for one piece. She felt the onus for the Bike Fit-it Stations should be on the bike friendly businesses. Mr. Grimaldi said staff will put these in the order based on Council input and get that information back to the Council. The second Planning Commission applicant arrived so she was brought in for her interview. The Mayor and Council introduced themselves and interviewed Marisa Aieta. 1. Why do you want to serve on the Planning Commission? (Mayor Lundberg) 2. The City is experiencing a severe housing shortage; would you support any of these actions to incentivize new housing: waiver of fees and charges; reduce or eliminate plan submittal requirements; increase zoning density to allow more dwellings per lot any others? (Councilor VanGordon) 3. In your opinion is it more important for the City to promote infill and redevelopment to accommodate growth, or expand the urban growth boundary to provide vacant, development-ready sites? (Councilor Pishioneri) 4. Developing within existing neighborhoods can generate strong objections to increased traffic, noise, loss of privacy, etc. As a Commission member you may be called upon to solve these neighborhood impacts; what would you require the developer to do to address these objections? (Councilor Woodrow) 5. Attracting new development to Springfield is a top Council priority; can you think of any ways to entice new development to locate here? (Councilor Moore) Council discussed the qualifications of the two applicants. Both were well qualified and interviewed well. The Council agreed to appoint Grace Bergen to the Planning Commission during the April 2 Council meeting. 3. City Board, Committee and Commission Bylaws and Charges Review. Gino Grimaldi, City Manager presented the staff report on this item. During recent review of some of the City’s BCC Bylaws and Charges, it was noted that there is little consistency in the membership requirements, including being a resident of the City of Springfield. Council expressed a desire to make sure that our City BCC’s reflect Springfield representation. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2018 Page 7 After review of the City BCC Bylaws and Charges, Council may direct staff to make changes to some or all of the BCC Bylaws and Charges. Mayor Lundberg said she would like some general input from the Council on the BCC Bylaws and Charges, and would recommend having a small subcommittee to bring back a recommendation to the full Council. She said she would serve on this subcommittee. Councilor Woodrow provided the following comments: Arts Commission is already done; BPAC needs an updated Charge; and Budget Committee, CDAC and Development Advisory Committee are fine. She asked about the City’s and NEDCO’s role in the Downtown Advisory Committee. That committee needs a Charge. She asked who was staffing the GRAC. There are state requirements for the Historic Commission, the Library Board is fine, and the Museum Committee needs their Charge recognized. She questioned whether or not they want to allow non-residents to serve on the Planning Commission. The SPAC could remain as it is since it was recently updated. Councilor Pishioneri said because of its complexity, the subcommittee should sit down with the spread sheet and try to standardize as much as possible and bring back to Council with a recommendation. He would like to serve on subcommittee. Council agreed this was a good idea and would like more consistency. Councilor VanGordon said he would also serve. He felt they should also standardize the attendance policy. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY APRIL 2, 2018 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 2, 2018 at 6:22 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Stoehr, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption. Erin Fifield, Community Development Analyst, presented the staff report on this item. The City recognizes that there is a shortage of affordable housing within the community and is working to address the problem. The findings point to a shortage of housing and the expense of housing relative to household incomes. According to the American Community Survey 2010-2014, half of Springfield households who rent are cost burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on housing and basic utilities; 27% of households who rent are severely cost-burdened, paying more than half their income on housing and basic utilities. Almost all (2570 households) of these severely cost-burdened households earn 80% or less of the Area Median Family Income. The housing problem is getting worse as housing costs are increasing faster than incomes. One of the Council’s Affordable Housing Strategies is to “Contribute to Income-Qualified Housing Development.” A property tax exemption for low-income rental housing is one tool available to help finance an affordable housing development with low rents. Oregon cities have been empowered to create low-income rental housing property tax exemption programs under Oregon Revised Statutes since 1989. The purpose of the low-income rental housing tax exemption is to provide an incentive that will encourage rental housing for low-income (defined as income at or below 60 percent of the area median income) persons. At the April 10, 2017 Work Session, Council expressed support for updating the existing Municipal Code provisions for low-income housing property tax exemption in hopes of increasing the availability of housing affordable to people with low incomes. Staff have drafted amendments to Municipal Code Section 3.500 to reflect the statutory amendments that have occurred since the City initiated its program in 1993, as depicted. Staff have also prepared updated Standards and Guidelines for Council consideration, as outlined. Staff requests Council direction on the questions contained in the Council Briefing Memo, concerning moving forward with updates to the City’s low-income housing property tax exemption program. Councilor Woodrow said the provisions indicated that they pertained to non-profits, but for-profits weren’t noted. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 2, 2018 Page 2 Ms. Fifield explained that the first application in the Code allows anyone to apply. The second piece has additional information for non-profits. Councilor Woodrow asked about the other taxing agencies that would be affected. Ms. Fifield said it would include Willamalane, Springfield Utility Board, Springfield School District, Lane County, LCC, etc. It would have to be approved by at least 51% of the taxing agencies. The exemption would then be divided by only those who approved. Councilor Woodrow asked if there were actually 20,000 units that were rentals in Springfield. Mr. Grimaldi said staff could check and confirm those figures. Councilor Stoehr asked about requiring that people applying for the exemption would not exceed a certain monthly rent. Ms. Fifield said when the City uses Federal HOME dollars, there is a requirement that rent be capped. Councilor Pishioneri asked if we have people wanting to have this section of the Code updated which would warrant staff working on this. Ms. Fifield said there has been interest from both for-profit and non-profit agencies, especially during HOME fund discussion. Councilor Pishioneri said the statute description for property owner lists private corporations and non- profits. He would like to add private property owners so it is available to all. City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said she would look into that and get back to them with that information. Councilor VanGordon asked if the City would still have to get approval from the other taxing districts since we already have this program in our Code. Ms. Fifield said in looking back to 1993 when this section of Code was originally added, they could not provide proof that the City had asked the taxing agencies at that time. Councilor VanGordon asked if this program would be stackable with the multi-use property tax exemption (MUPTE) program. Ms. Fifield said she was not sure adding the MUPTE to this program would actually add anything. Councilor VanGordon asked if the edits would make our Code closer to what Eugene has since they have had more interest in this program. He would like to structure out Code in a way that makes it more attractive and easy to use. Councilor Moore said if they are only allowed to build affordable housing, could they set a percentage of the tenant’s income rather than a rent amount. She asked what would happen if the property was sold during the 20 years. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 2, 2018 Page 3 Mayor Lundberg said her issue has been with the HOME Funds and the Request for Proposals (RFP). All of these programs are mentioned for Eugene’s sites, and nothing in Springfield. Eugene has more incentive programs making them look more attractive. Regarding corporations, she noted that there are a couple of non-profits that have sold to corporations who specialize in rentals, which concerns her. She wants to make sure we keep in mind what we are trying to accomplish. The Council addressed the questions in the Council Briefing Memorandum. Question 1: Does Council wish to restart the Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption program? If so, does Council wish to reinstate the program as outlined in the proposed Municipal Code amendment or with modified program requirements? The Council said they would like to reinstate the program, but still have questions and concerns that need addressed. Question 2: Does Council wish to limit the duration of tax exemption for land that is being held for future development? If so, for how long? Councilor Pishioneri said he would like to see this program set up so it attracts a large group and pencils out. If it doesn’t pencil out, how can we look at what we can do to make it more attractive to a larger group. Councilor Stoehr asked what would prevent people from holding land and then deciding later that they can’t do anything with it. Ms. Fifield said they could offer the exemption for only two years and if they did not build during that time, then certain things would happen. Council could also say they don’t want to allow an exemption for vacant land. After further discussion, Council directed staff to remove the exemption for undeveloped land. Question 3: Does Council wish to expressly allow properties to subsequently apply for low-income housing tax exemptions following the 20 year exemptions? Council discussed this topic and decided that a property owner could apply for whatever program is available at the time, so there is no need to include this section. Councilor Pishioneri asked about an encumbrance on the property. Ms. Fifield said a property owner could opt out of the exemption at any time during the 20 years. It was also noted that if someone using this program sold their property, the exemption could remain as long as the new owner met the requirements. Due to time constraints, Ms. Fifield said she would like to skip to question 8. Question 8: Does Council have any other criteria you would like to establish as part of the Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption program? Or any changes to the Draft Standards and Guidelines? City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 2, 2018 Page 4 Councilor VanGordon said he is in favor of having a cap and would like to look at the other incentive programs the City has and their caps. He was not sure $173,000 would be enough. Ms. Fifield explained that the actual portion of tax exempted is fairly low per property so many could be assisted. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the $173,000 was based on inflation. He would like to see it adjusted to fit the current property valuation. Staff will bring this back for another work session in order to address the rest of the questions, and Council concerns. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY APRIL 2, 2018 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday April 2, 2018 at 7:06 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Stoehr, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Wylie tried to participate by phone from 7:06-7:11pm, but the connection was too poor to continue, therefore she was considered absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Mayor’s Recognition. a. Purple Heart City Proclamation. Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation and proclaimed Springfield as a Purple Heart City. Keith Wittnebel Jr. Vice Commander, Gary Grange Department Adjutant and Larry Rupp Department Commander came forward to accept the proclamation. They presented a plaque to the Mayor and Council acknowledging the City of Springfield as a Purple Heart City. Lapel pins were also provided to each member of the Council. One of the members noted that this is the second year the Order of the Purple Hearts will be holding their annual convention in Springfield. b. Library Week Proclamation. Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation and proclaimed April 8-15, 2018 as Library Week in the City of Springfield. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. March 5, 2018 – Regular Meeting b. March 19, 2018 – Regular Meeting 3. Resolutions City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2018 Page 2 a. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-09 – A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY FOR FUTURE FRANKLIN BLVD RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.7 OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE. 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters a. Approval of Liquor License Application for George & Violet’s Steakhouse, Located at 305 Main Street, Springfield, OR. b. Approve the Mayor to Sign the City Attorney’s Employment Agreement. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – WYLIE). 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. A Resolution to Establish a Fee for Accessory Dwelling Units Reviewed Under a Type II Process. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-10 – A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADDING A FEE FOR A TYPE II ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO THE MASTER SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES. Senior Community Development Manager Sandy Belson presented the staff report on this item. On March 5, the City Council adopted Ordinance 6376 which amended the Springfield Development Code to make it easier to add accessory dwelling units. These amendments allowed accessory dwelling units in the Washburne Historic Overlay District when reviewed under a Type II process. The amendments also provided property owners an option to 1) meet alternative design standards and 2) determine availability of on-street parking based on a parking utilization study. In both of those instances, the code requires a Type II review process. Previously, all accessory dwelling units were reviewed under a Type I process, so no fee was established for a Type II process. The review of the accessory dwelling units under a Type II process will not be significantly different than that of a Type I process. Therefore staff proposes utilization of the same base fee which currently is $811.00 plus a 5% technology fee for a total of $851.55. However, with a Type II process, the City mails a notice to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property being reviewed and to the applicable neighborhood association. This notice provides a two-week long opportunity for written comment. Therefore, staff recommends inclusion of the postage fee for a Type II decision which is currently $174.00. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2018 Page 3 Thus, the grand total would be $1025.55 to cover the mailing costs and a portion of staff time to review and process the application. Councilor Woodrow asked for clarification on some of the figures. Ms. Belson explained. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. 1. Kris McAllister, Springfield, OR. Mr. McAllister thanked the Council for the work done on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). He is not in favor of this fee due to excessive charges that might come into play for those building an ADU that is ADA accessible, etc. Ms. Belson said there is a provision allowing the applicant to apply for an exemption or reduction for development fees of any kind. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2018-10. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 RECUSED – PISHIONERI AND 1 ABSENT – WYLIE). BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE Mayor Lundberg read the following: “Now is the time in the agenda for the Council to hear business from the audience. If you have signed up to speak to the Council regarding Roy Gray’s application for a Metro Plan amendment and zone change to property on Fifth Street which is an agenda item for this evening, the Public Hearing and Record in that matter have been closed. While you may speak to the City Council at this time, the Council cannot consider any public comments made this evening in our decision to approve or deny this application. The Council will make its decision only based on information that is already in the record, which includes all public testimony provided to the City Council during the public hearing on May 15, 2017.” 1. Dan West, Eugene, OR Mr. West said he was one of the founding members of Raising the Bar Pole Vault Club. Having an indoor track would be a great thing for the community. Unfortunately, their club will be losing their ability to vault at Willamalane, so their club will be looking for another place to vault. He was at Montana State University when they had indoor track, and he felt it was a wonderful sport. Raising the Bar has helped nearly 100 kids in the local area learn how to pole vault. He recommended the Council find a way to get an indoor track. 2. Dan Umenhofer, Springfield, OR Mr. Umenhofer said he also coaches at Raising the Bar. There are a tremendous amount of people that do track and field in this area and there is no indoor track facility other than the University of Oregon, which no longer allows outside groups to use their facility. They have up to 40 members of their club that need a place to train, but there are also many other athletes looking for a place to train indoors. An indoor track could bring in many people and would be a great asset for the City. 3. Bill Carpenter, Springfield, OR Mr. Carpenter spoke regarding general zoning and planning and neighborhoods. He referred to a packet of material he provided to the Council. Over the last 15 City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2018 Page 4 years or so, he has become discouraged about the lack of concern by the Council for preserving established and existing neighborhoods, and their lack of consideration for established zoning code against spot zoning. The City no longer has the friendly, small town feel it had 25 years ago when he served on the Bicycle Committee and Planning Commission. One of his greatest accomplishments while serving the City was the St. Vincent DePaul first-time buyer’s housing development west of Rainbow Drive on Fairview. He referred to photos of that development as well as photos of a development in Cottage Grove with small houses that are rentals. He asked the Council that as they consider future zoning, they think about a buffer between existing neighborhoods and medium residential. He asked if the Council was denying petitioners the ability to present a rebuttal on the staff report. City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said they will address that when the item is discussed by the Council later on the agenda. 4. Rex Meisenheimer, Springfield, OR Mr. Meisenheimer said when reading through the information for tonight it mentioned apartment across the street, but he noted that the subject area was never zoned that way, and those areas with apartments were always zoned that way. He is upset because last year, all of the residents of the area came in with 99% of them objecting and willing to negotiate. They got no comments or acknowledgement from the Council and received no support. 5. Laughton Elliott-DeAngelis, Eugene, OR Mr. Elliott-DeAngelis serves as the Safe Routes Coordinator for the Springfield School District. He referred to a memo he submitted to the Council last week. He highlighted some events in May including bike/pedestrian safety classes and encouragement events. He thanked the City for their continued partnership and efforts from the engineering and planning staff in action planning and some important engineering projects such as Virginia-Daisy and Filling in the Gaps project which will connect neighborhoods. Their program encourages students to walk and bike to school safely by trying to make walking and biking more accessible. He explained some of the ways they do that with events and education. It starts with open engagement with parents, teachers, school, and city engineers to identify how to most effectively make things safer. They are trying to find creative ways to leverage funding locally. He hopes the Council will join in some of these events. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the chaperones for the walks were paid staff or volunteers. Mr. Elliott-DeAngelis said the event at Two Rivers Los Dios Elementary was all staffed by volunteers. Two of the other elementary schools, Maple and Centennial, include a combination of himself and interns establishing routes. They then engage volunteers and parents. The interns are volunteers. They would like to see a private and public partnership. 6. Sue Scott, Springfield, OR Ms. Scott said she moved back to Springfield after being away for 6 years and had always defended Springfield. Recently, she has been disappointed, embarrassed and surprised about the rezoning on 5th Street. She would like the Council to consider in the future retaining neighborhoods as established and looking at the bigger picture and not just dollars it could bring into city government. She asked that they not have zoning intrusions in the future that impact livability. She also encouraged a much more transparent process and a feeling of working with citizens. She feels decisions have been made for her without the citizens being heard. She also asked that the neighbors could receive more notice about meetings such as this. She urged them to pay attention to what neighbors are saying. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2018 Page 5 7. Tom Hinkle, Springfield, OR Mr. Hinkle said he was out of town and was surprised to hear that this item was happening tonight. He received no notification from the City and just heard about it through the grapevine. He is also surprised no comments are allowed and they can’t address directly the decision from LUBA. Reading through the staff report, he didn’t see that they addressed everything LUBA said about meeting the criteria for rezoning. He didn’t feel that had been answered. The citizens of this neighborhood spent a lot of money on attorney fees as this was important to them. What clearly applies is what the developer wants. He feels like they haven’t been heard. 8. Kris McAllister, Springfield, OR Mr. McAllister spoke on Council assignments. As a member of the Poverty and Homeless Board (PHB) there is something valuable about having elected officials at some of these meetings such as the Housing Policy Board (HPB), which the City has not been present at for the past two years. The HPB established a plan and some of the things they are considering are things the City of Springfield is already ahead on. He would like to encourage the Council to have a representative return to the HPB. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS ORDINANCES ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments a. Planning Commission Appointment. Planning Supervisor Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. Nick Nelson resigned his seat on the Planning Commission via email on December 28, 2017. The City received two applications for one vacancy during a 7-week recruitment period. At the March 26, 2018 Work Session the Council interviewed two candidates. At the conclusion of this interview process the Council unanimously supported appointing Grace Bergen to fulfill Nick Nelson term on the Planning Commission. Formal appointment is requested. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO APPOINT GRACE BERGEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A TERM EXPIRING ON JULY 13, 2021. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – WYLIE). 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2018 Page 6 b. Council Operating Policies and Procedures Amendments. City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented this item. At the Mayor’s request, additional language was added to Section IX Council Boards, Commissions, Committees and Task Forces, adding subsection (2.4) to address councilors serving on committees as a City representative: 2.4) If a City Councilor would like to serve on a committee as a representative of the City that is not appointed through the process established in Section 2.3, they must present their request and be approved by the full Council. If appointed, the City Councilor will provide regular communication regarding the committee. Council is asked to review the additional language and approve, amend or not approve the proposed amendments. Councilor Moore asked if this applied to League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and if the Council wanted her to go through the formal process for her current LOC appointments. Mayor Lundberg said there is no need to do anything this year, but she would like them to use this process for future appointments. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO APPROVE THE AMENDED COUNCIL OPERATING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – WYLIE). c. Mayor/Council Committee Assignments. City Recorder Amy Sowa noted that the only change was moving Councilor VanGordon off of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) and moving Councilor Pishioneri to LRAPA to take his place; and adding the Mayor to the newly formed Museum Committee. Mayor Lundberg acknowledged those changes. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Request for Room Tax Funds to Support the Initial Evaluation of an Indoor Track Facility in Springfield. City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented this item. The need for an indoor track facility that would serve as a venue for collegiate, high school and middle school events has been a topic of discussion in the track community for a number of years. Such a facility could also serve as a venue for other sporting events when it is not in use as a track facility in addition to providing space for a variety of meetings and other non-sports related events. Travel Lane County is requesting $130,000 in Room Tax Funds to assist with an initial evaluation and conceptual design of an indoor track facility. An indoor track facility would bring visitors to Springfield and the metropolitan area. The use of Room Tax Funds for this project would be an appropriate use of those funds. Funds are available in the Room Tax Fund. Should the City Council grant the request, a contract between the City of Springfield and Travel Lane County would be established creating a payment mechanism and scope of the work to be performed. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2018 Page 7 Councilor Moore asked if staff could clarify for the audience what transient room tax funds can be used for. Mr. Grimaldi said transient taxes are generated when someone stays at one of our overnight facilities. The focus of use of those funds is to generate additional room nights in those facilities and improve the overall economy of the area. It is tourist related. Councilor Woodrow said she is very excited about this idea and wondered about a timeline. Mayor Lundberg asked Kari Westlund and Janis Ross from Travel Lane County (TLC) to come forward. Ms. Westlund said the study should be completed within 90 days. It will be an initial scoping. They may need additional feasibility analysis. Councilor Pishioneri asked if they would look at proximity to services in this study. Ms. Westlund said they would. She did note that sports facilities are not as dependent on immediately proximate amenities as conference centers. Councilor Pishioneri said he would like to see documentation on that. Ms. Westlund said she would provide that information. She noted that the indoor track is generating a lot of interest. Mayor Lundberg said she appreciated TLC and their willingness to step up and assist with this project. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH TRAVEL LANE COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING $130,000 TO BE USED FOR THE EVALUATION AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF AN INDOOR TRACK FACILITY IN SPRINGFIELD. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY 2. Adoption of Amended Findings and Amended Ordinance for a Metro Plan Diagram Amendment and Zone Change for a 3.35 Acre Property on 5th Street, Cases TYP417-00002 and TYP317-00004. ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 1.96 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR); CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING THE SAME APPROXIMATELY 1.96 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO MDR; AMENDING THE METRO PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 1.39 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR); CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2018 Page 8 THE SAME APPROXIMATELY 1.39 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO HDR; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FIRST READING) Assistant City Attorney Kristina Kraaz said at this time, members of the Council should declare whether or not they have any potential or actual conflict of interest, and disclose any bias or ex parte contact that has occurred between June of 2017 and present. That ex parte contact would include the letter they received from the petitioners last Friday. Ms. Kraaz said the Council conducted the public hearing on this matter on May 15, 2017 and the hearing and the record were closed at that time. The decision was appealed by three petitioners who are residents of the adjacent neighborhood, to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA remanded the decision to the City Council on the basis of inadequate findings, specifically requiring the City to adopt a better explanation for its decision and interpretations of the Q Street Refinement Plan in the decision that were not there. This basis for remanding the decision does not require the City Council to obtain any new evidence that the Council did not have at the May 15 public hearing and was provided into the public record before the public record was closed last spring. For that reason, the Council does not need to re-open the public hearing or record to take additional testimony to adopt the findings they have in the ordinance that is proposed at this time. They cannot take additional public testimony under consideration unless they wish to re-open the record. Now would be an appropriate time to specify whether they are rejecting any public testimony received earlier or if they will be re-opening the record. Ms. Kraaz clarified that if the Council rejects tonight’s testimony, they would just excluding it from the record, but not discounting its value. Councilor Stoehr asked if it would be appropriate to comment on the testimony from earlier tonight before they determine whether or not to exclude the comments from the record. Mayor Lundberg said this is not an actual public hearing but is a State appeal and action so there are very strict rules on what they can and can’t do. Ms. Smith said the decision before the Council is whether or not to exclude the testimony heard tonight as testimony in the record. They need to keep their discussion to that only. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY MAYOR MOORE TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS HEARD TONIGHT UNDER BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE FROM THE RECORD FOR THIS ORDINANCE. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 1 AGAINST (PISHIONERI). 1 ABSENT - WYLIE Ms. Kraaz asked Council to declare ex parte contact since June 2017. She explained what that would include. Councilor Stoehr said he had none. Councilor Woodrow said beyond receiving the correspondence last Friday, she had none. Councilor Pishioneri said beyond receiving the correspondence last Friday, he had none. Councilor VanGordon said he also received the correspondence from last Friday. He also noted that although he serves on the LRAPA Board with Mr. Carpenter, they have not discussed this subject. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2018 Page 9 Councilor Moore said she received the correspondence last Friday and also an email from Ken Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt’s email stated that he didn’t understand the Council decision and felt the questions were not addressed. Ms. Kraaz said there is no need to open the hearing to provide the applicant an opportunity to rebut the question about the zoning as that fact was already entered into the record. A question brought up during public testimony was whether or not those opposed to the application could rebut or provide evidence against the new findings. Under Oregon land use law, there is sometimes a requirement that the record is re-opened when they adopt a new interpretation of a code that didn’t exist before. That has to be an interpretation that was not foreseeable or reasonable based on the evidence they had in the record for their prior decision. In this case, the interpretation that is proposed in the amended staff report and ordinance is an interpretation that was contemplated and reasonable based on evidence and facts that are already in the record so does not dramatically depart from what a reasonable person would have expected. For that reason, there is no legal requirement to provide an opportunity to rebut that interpretation and evidence since it was already provided last spring. Mayor Lundberg beyond receiving the correspondence last Friday, she had no ex parte contact. Councilor Moore said her understanding was that when they received the LUBA report, they were asking for clarification. Ms. Kraaz said that is correct. LUBA wanted additional findings to better explain the Council’s decision. Mayor Lundberg said that is the basis for what the Council is doing this evening. There was nothing wrong with the reasoning, it just needed clarification. NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 8:03 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder