HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/1995 Work Session
.
.
.
- ~
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1995
The City of Springfield Council met in Work Session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, December 4, 1995, at 6:05 p.m., with Mayor Morrisette
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Morrisette, Councilors Ballew, Beyer, Burge, Dahlquist, Maine and Shaver.
Also present were Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City
Recorder Eileen Stein, Administrative Aide Julie Wilson and members of the staff.
1. Mayor Morrisette explained that he wished to attend the City of Eugene Council meeting this
evening because the Sports Center urban growth boundary amendment would be discussed.
He stated he did not want this tied to the TransPlan. Council discussed th~ need to express a
date certain for resolution of this matter. Council stated that they would like a response from
the City of Eugene within 20 days only ifthis would cause Eugene to opt in.
2. Council Initiated Amendments to the Springfield Development Code - City of Springfield,
Applicant (Jo. No. 95-07-132).
Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this issue. The amendments
contained in the attachment were initiated by the City Council on July 24, 1995. The
proposed language has been reviewed by the Planning Commission at a work session on
. November 20, 1995 and is scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing on December
5, 1995.:
At the July 24, 1995 Council work session, staff identified a number of Code sections that
required revision in order to clarify ambiguous language, make the Code consistent with
changes in state law, and provide implementation of Council goals regarding simplification
and streamlining of the development process. Staff distributed the proposals to staff from
other agencies, officers of recognized neighborhood associations and the Chamber of
Commerce. While this outside review was occurring, representatives "from School District
#19 contacted the City and requested consideration of new Code language that would address
the District's needs in regard to future school construction. City staff met with the District in
a series of meetings that concluded with the language reviewed and informally supported by
the Planning Commission on November 20, 1995. The School District proposals are included
in the attachment.
Mr. Mott stated pages 7 & 8, Section 10.030 establish Discretionary Use criteria for school
siting; pages 14 & 15, Section 16.100(9) establishes special siting standards for schools;
pages IS, 16, 17 & I~, Sections 18.110, 20.100,21.040 & 23.100 establish schools as
discretionary or permitted uses in these zoning districts and reaffirm special siting standards
in Section 16.100. Staff is requesting that the City Council consider discussion of these
changes as the first part of the work session and that later in this same work session, or at a
subsequent work session scheduled on December II, 1995, discuss the remainder of proposed
amendments. .
Work Session Meeting Minutes
December 4, 1995
Page 2
.
Mr. Mott discussed the changes on pages 7 & 8(a-f) and the Discretionary Use criteria used in
the past. He explained that approximately 50% of the time, the criteria is sufficient, although
the other 50% it is not sufficient, and gave an example of day care centers. He explained that
the revisions assist with the School District Discretionary Use criteria. He also discussed high
school designations, Section 11(1)(c) and criteria referenced.
Mr. Mott responded to questions from Councilor Shaver and indicated that the design of the
school was a cooperative one. He discussed page 14 ofthe Council agenda item summary
packet. He also responded to a comment regarding section 9(d) and stated that it should be
modified to read, "light shall be directed away from neighboring and/or adjoining... intensive
use."
Councilor Maine raised a question regarding item (f) on page 8. Mr. Mott clarified the
language contained in this paragraph.
Mr. Mott discussed commercial inventory and school siting. He discussec;l the need for
schools to be constructed at the location needed, otherwise students must be bused to schools
ifthe building is not located nearby. He also discussed land classifications and explained that
the Planning Commission was concerned that this might continue to inhibit that possibility
and have an impact on the inventory.
.
Mr. Mott discussed the proposed school sites and stated that a change to Public Land/Open
Space (PLO) would accommodate one site. Under present provisions, another proposed site
would not be eligible.
Mr. Mott stated all these all changes proposed address the needs ofthe School District.. He
also discussed page 14, paragraph 9, and stated the word structure would be inserted after the
word playgrounds.
Councilor Maine discussed the zoning of a particular property on South 28th Street. She
stated it would have been helpful to have been able to-r~view the city zoning map along with
the proposed amendments. She also discussed existing commercial land inventory sites.
Councilor Burge asked if the School District was required to complete an environmental
assessment. He commented on the possibility of having heavy industrial on either side of the
school site. Mr. Mott explained that an environmental assessment was not required.
Councilor Shaver responded that the Planning Commission would review each situation and
had discretionary authority to determine if a specific site was not an acceptable use.
Councilor Shaver discussed page 12, (2)(b), solar setbacks for panhandles and suggested
alternative language for this paragraph. He also noted that on page 21, Historic Overlay
District, requires anyone within the Historic District to go through the Historic Commission
in order to remodel their home, even when they do not receive a special property tax
exemption from the state. He felt that people who do not receive this benefit should not be
required to go through the Historic Commission.
.
Councilor Shaver also discussed van pool parking space requirements on page 22. He felt that
van pools do not need specially marked spaces if they are reducing the number of parking
spaces. Gary McKenney replied that this is to make the Development Code comply with state
transportation planning rules and the intention of providing specially marked spaces is to
.
.
.
iIoI ,. yo
Work Session Meeting Minutes
December 4, 1995
Page 3
encourage the use of van pools. Mayor Morrisette commented that these spaces should be
provided on a request basis. Councilor Dahlquist suggested the language be amended to say
simply that van pool use is encouraged. Councilor Burge indicated that in other cities, such
as Eugene, parking is intentionally being reduced in order to try to encourage people to use
public transportation. Mr. Mott indicated he would relay to the Planning Commission the
Council's desire to delete this language until the point that further transportation planning
rules are finalized.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson
P#JI/~$
Bill Morrisette .
Mayor
Attest:
~~
Eileen Stein '( ,
City Recorder