The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014 03 04 WS City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD TUESDAY, March 4, 2014 The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., with Commissioner James presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Chair James and Vice Chair Nelson, Commissioners Kirschenmann, Salladay, Vohs, and Bean. Also present were Current Development Manager Greg Mott, Senior Planner Mark Metzger , Hearings Official Gary Darneill, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith and Management Support Specialist Brenda Jones and members of the staff. ABSENT None AGENDA ITEMS MAKE SURE TO GET COPIES OF THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION MARK PRESENTED TONIGHT 1. ESTABLISH THE WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY SETBACKLINE FOR PROPERTIES IN GLENWOOD - Mark Metzger Senior Planner with Springfield introduced Gary Darneill Hearings Official for Springfield, and explained what his role is and what we and he can and can’t do. Wildish Land Company has submitted a request to establish the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line for property it owns in Glenwood. The application will come before a joint hearing of the Planning Commission and the Lane County Hearings Official on March 19th. Staff will not discuss the merits of the application, but will instead focus on the context of Greenway planning responsibilities and the overlapping river protections through the Federal Clean Water Act and the Springfield Natural Resources Study which is the City’s Goal 5 plan for protecting significant natural resource sites. When adopted in 1976, Statewide Planning Goal 15 required jurisdictions to establish the Willamette River Greenway Boundary “within which special Greenway considerations shall be taken into account.” The Greenway Boundary was to include “all lands situated within 150 feet from the ordinary low water line on each side of each channel of the Willamette River and such other lands along the Willamette River as the department and units of local government consider necessary for the development of such greenway” (ORS Chapter 390.318(1)). The Greenway Boundary in the Springfield area follows the 150-foot line mentioned above but also includes publically owned land such as Dorris Ranch, Clearwater Park and Island Park. Separate from the Greenway Boundary, Goal 15 states that “a setback line will be established to keep structures separated from the river in order to protect, maintain preserve and enhance the City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes February 4, 2014 Page 2 natural, scenic, historic and recreational qualities of the Willamette River Greenway…” Goal 15 indicates that the setback line does not apply to “water-related or water-dependent uses.” In 2004, a 75-foot development setback was established along the Willamette River as part of the City’s response to the Clean Water Act. In 2005, Springfield’s Goal 5 plan for protecting significant natural resources was adopted. That plan also identified a 75-foot development setback for the Willamette River. The Greenway Boundary, Greenway Setback Line and the development setbacks established under the Clean Water Act and Goal 5 will each be discussed with respect to their application to the pending Wildish application. PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS: Denise asked if ……… Mark said they would get to that. Where the line is put is determined by …… Denise 0 so if the new owner has a different use they could Mark Tim – is the green line the greenway setback Mark replied that it’s the Greenway boundary……………. John – from the low water line, correct? Mark – yes Tim - Mark – no its not. If you read………… .the greenway setback is not to .the transplant shows Tim- the Glenwood refinement plan built in setback…..is the setback line Mark - the plan that is enforced is the Glenwood Plan that was adopted 2. CELL TOWER APPLICATION – NEW CELLULAR WIRELESS PCD - LLC - The Planning Commission will consider the New Cingular Wireless application at its March 19th meeting. This is the first application for a tower facility under the new standards. The tower facility is proposed for the southwest corner of the Courtsports complex at 2728 Pheasant Blvd. in the Gateway area. The facility is a faux pine monopole design that is classified a “Moderate Visibility” facility requiring Planning Commission review. The location is zoned Community Commercial. The surrounding properties are zoned for commercial and multi-family development. Moderate Visibility WTS facilities are permitted in the Community Commercial zone. In February 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning the amendments to Section 4.3-145 and voted unanimously to recommend that Council approve the new WTS policies. Council adopted the amendments the following April. City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes February 4, 2014 Page 3 Among the changes contained in the amendments was the requirement that all tower facilities be reviewed by the Planning Commission (or the Hearings Official for applications outside of the city limits), regardless of the zoning district where they are proposed. Prior to the amendments, towers proposed for industrial districts or for locations zoned “Public Land and Open Space,” were reviewed by staff without public notice. Under the amended rules, there are minimum setbacks for towers from public streets and in some cases, applicants may be required to pay for peer review of tower proposals to verify that gaps in service cannot be met through collocation or the use of less visually impactful technology. The amended standards require staff notification of the City Council when tower applications are received. The amendments the Council elevate applications for their direct review if they vote to do so. Council was notified of the application and as of this writing, they have not acted to elevate the New Cingular application for their review. Staff will review the applicable approval criteria for WTS facilities with the Commission in preparation for their review of the New Cingular application. PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS: Steve- if another competitor wanted to locate on the same pole can they deny use? Mark – no, we asked that they sign an agreement allowing other competitors to co-locate on the same pole Stacey – what property will this be located Mark – it will be located on Pheasant Boulevard on the Courtsports property. Stacy – Who pays the taxes on this Mark- AT&T will pay Courtsports for renting this space which will include covering the taxes on this property. Tim – multiple riders, could this cause problems with existing providers Mark – Tim- for competitive Mark – Greg James 0 FCC regulates these providers Mark – this is really not something that we worry about but more than ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Tim- is it up to us to make sure this is something that will withstand high winds Mark –this is something our building department will review to make sure it meets all building requirements Tim- he thinks this looks worse than just having a traditional mono pole rather than a foe pine Mark – this is in your perview and can request they use a tradition monopole Denise- she has seen some that look better Mark – this is what they are proposing. Mark can forward a request that they bring to the public hearing other option that might be out there City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes February 4, 2014 Page 4 Greg James – they probably have more than one provider that can give them more options Denise – can you forward this information to the applicant so they have something to bring to the meeting. Tim- is the provider presenting this idea so that we will want just the monopole vs. monopine. Mark – that’s not what he believes is there intent. If you go to Springfield memorial Gardens ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Brenda Jones ______________________ Greg James Planning Commission Chair Attest: ____________________ Brenda Jones Management Support Specialist