Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 02 20 WSPage 1 of 4 City of Springfield Regular Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2013 @ 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ATTENDANCE: Chair Greg James, Vice-Chair Denise Bean, Commissioners Johnny Kirschenmann, Steve Moe, Stacy Salladay, Tim Vohs, and Nick Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: 1. 2014-2018 Capital Improvements Program, A Community Reinvestment Plan – Commissioner James opened the public hearing for the 2014-2018 Capital Improvements Program (CIP), A Community Reinvestment Plan. Supervising Civil Engineer Jeff Paschall asked the Planning Commission to approve and recommend the 2014-2018 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to the City Council for their review and ultimate adoption March 18, 2013. Mr. Paschall stated there were no real changes to the document other than a few typo corrections in the document that had been discussed at the work session on February 5, 2013, with one notation. During the preparation and balancing of the capital budget it was discovered that some of the SDC funds, the SDC’s for transportation reimbursements were essentially broke. This resulted in staff having to cancel all capital projects in 2014, which left them with about a $24,000 reserve. This shortage to the transportation fund has come about due to the economic slow-down over the last several years. Mr. Paschall will make those changes to reflect in the CIP document. Commissioner James closed public testimony. Commissioner Vohs thanked and commended staff for producing a very detailed and concise document which helped the commission understand the project easily. Commissioner James asked Mr. Paschall for clarification on the SDC transportation issue. Mr. Paschall clarified that it is only on the reimbursement side, not improvements. We have been living off reserves, as revenues have not been coming in as projected over the last several years, due to the recession. There were two overlay projects that were completed with the others remaining on hold until we can identify a more stable funding source. Minutes Approved by Springfield Planning Commission: Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Bean asked what the major projects were that had to be put on hold. Mr. Paschall stated there weren’t any major projects only a few small items, like the City participation private project to help developers, and compliance with traffic signage. Commissioner Bean noted the way-finding signage is important and hopes we can find funding for this project. Mr. Paschall noted they were still looking at other funds they may be able to pull from. They try to keep separate what comes from operations/maintenance vs. capital. Commissioner Kirschenmann also stated what an awesome job was done by staff on this project. Motion: Motion was made by Commissioner Bean for recommendation of adoption of the 2014-2018 Capital Improvements Program to City Council as presented. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Moe. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Amendments to the Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 4.3-145 – Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities, and certain terms found in Section 6.1-110 – Meaning of specific words and terms, which apply to section 4.3-145. Commissioner James opened the public hearing for amendments to Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 4.3-145 – Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities. Mark Metzger, Senior Planner with the Development and Public Works Department had presented the proposed amendments to Section 4.3-145 of the Springfield Development Code pertaining to cell towers/wireless communication placement regulations at the Planning Commission work session on February 5th. Tonight’s proposal is for approval to replace this section in its entirety as council had asked us to look at changes to this code section. Key elements of changes to this section: • All cell tower facilities requests will come through Planning Commission for approval. This will allow for hearing and notification to the public. • Classify cell tower/wireless communication systems by visibility standards of high and moderate visible tower facilities rather than zoning districts. High visibility would be a typical monopole, and moderate visibility would be fake trees and other disguised tower facilities. • Staff would continue to evaluate and make decision pertaining to replacement and co- location of equipment on existing towers. • New provision requiring cell tower applicants to pay for peer review to look at all alternatives, before approval of placement of a new tower. Mr. Metzger emphasized that with this body of regulatory policy we have certain side boards, as a local government on how far we can push regulations. The commission needed to be aware that it was possible to be trumped on a Planning Commission’s decision by provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Mr. Metzger stated he had outlined the approval criteria in the attached staff report that Planning Commission would have to consider if they approved this body of amendments. Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Kirschenmann asked when future requests came before the Planning Commission would federal regulations and criteria be presented to them at that time. Mr. Metzger stated federal regulations are not extensive, but have come out as results of court decisions. All federal regulations are included within the attached staff report. One regulation is you can’t by intend or unintended consequences discriminate against one provider from another. Commissioner James commented that technology is rapidly changing. It doesn’t appear we have that many towers inside the city now. Mr. Metzger noted we have 18 cell towers within the UGB, with 15 of those located on Industrial and PLO zoning districts. Commissioner James asked if we have had any issues from vendors regarding peer review. Mr. Metzger stated staff had mailed a notice to all cell tower providers, and property owners with towers, explaining what we were proposing with the amendment change. To date, we have not received any comments to the notice. Commissioner Bean asked if we have any pending cell tower requests in review currently. Mr. Metzger mentioned we’ve had contact from a cell tower provider that wants to collaborate with Lane County, to place a cell tower that looks like a fake tree at the Waste Transfer site. If this application is submitted it would be reviewed by the City of Springfield as it is in the UGB. Mr. Metzger noted for the record that there is a typo on Attachment 2, Page 1, Attachment new amendment language, under the Purpose section item 4 that needs to be corrected. The sentence reads maximize the use of new WTS facilities in order to minimize the need to construct additional facilities. The word “new” should be replaced with the word “existing”. The correct sentence would read - Maximize the use of existing WTS facilities in order to minimize the need to construct additional facilities. Commissioner James closed public testimony. Motion: Motion was made by Commissioner Kirschenmann based on its findings with respect to criteria found in SDC Section 5.6-115 for approved amendments to the Springfield Development Code, and proposed amendments to SDC Section 4.3-145 is consistent with each criteria and recommends approval of proposed amendments to forward to City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner James welcomed Commissioner Nick Nelson to his first Legislative Session of the Planning Commission. Page 4 of 4 REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION: Commissioner Moe attended the City Council meeting of February 19th and reported they had first readings on two items. (1) Springfield Development Code amendments (2) making it a violation to issue false report to Animal Control officer BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Greg Mott, Planning Manager reported on the City Council work session held February 19th where fees were discussed. (1) Master fees considered to be based on cost-of-living increases, and (2) a proposal to increase the Building permit fees will likely be on a tiered approach. Building fees have not increased since 2007. BUSINESS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Commissioner Vohs asked if anyone knew more information about the “Save the Date” TBA that were received. Commissioner Salladay responded she believed it is for a scenario planning presentation, at the Downtown/LCC campus on February 28th @ 1:30. Invitation included Elected Officials/Staff and Commissioners. Commissioner Salladay will be attending. Commissioner Bean noted she would not be able to attend. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by, Karen LaFleur Development and Public Works Department