Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 07 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: June 18, 2007 Meeting Type: Department: S P R I N G FIE L D Staff Contact: C I T Y C 0 U N C I L Estimated Time: Regular Meeting City Manager's Office Amy Sowa, 726-3700 O}' Consent Calendar 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) June 4, 2007 - Work Session b) June 4, 2007 - Regular Meeting c) June 11; 2007 - Work Session DISCUSSIONI FINANCIAL IMPACT: None Sowalagenda/minutes AIS City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2007 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 4, 2007 at 6:04 p.m., with Council President Lundberg presiding. A TIENDANCE Present were Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Mayor Leiken was absent (excused). 1. Concurrent 0 Street Refinement Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Regarding Property Near the Corner of 18th and 0 Street. City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The applicant is requesting these amendments in order to pursue a future professional office building on the subject site. The applicant chose to apply for the GO Zone and Refinement Plan designation because the City's existing definition of the GO Zone designates it as appropriate for areas which serve as a transition zone, providing a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial development. On May 15th, 2007, the Plal111ing Commission held a work session and publiC hearing on the subject applications (LRP2007-00012 & ZON2007-00011). Other than the applicant, there was one additional testimonial at the public hearing. The testifying Springfield citizen noted that she did not oppose the applications, but had questions about how future traffic issues would be addressed. Staff responded by outlining the review procedures in the site plan review process, of whiCh the applicant would be required to adhere to during Site Plan review of a new professional office building. During the Planning Commission deliberation, the Commissioners discussed the appropriateness of the site as a future GO site. Discussion ensued regarding the location of adjacent Community Commercial uses and how the existing high traffic volumes contributed to the sites undesirable characteristics of remaining as a residential zoning district. Planning Commission discussion also addressed the comparison ofthe site's characteristics in comparison to the definition of the GO zone, and concluded that the site seemed appropriate for GO designation. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that both the Refinement Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment applications be sent to the City Council for consideration and approval. Mr. Reesor gave a power point presentation showing the subject property and the adjacent properties. He said there was a provision in the Metro Plan that allowed approximately thirty- two auxiliary uses in a residentially designated property. The zone was currently medium density residential (MDR) and the applicant was requesting general office (GO) zone. There were a number of other areas in Springfield with this type of zone within residential areas. The I City of Springfield . Council Work Session Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 2 applicant's proposal included a taxed amendment, which created criteria for approval for future General Office zones that might go into this refmement area and created a policy. He said it was similar to the Gateway Refmement Plan policies and criteria for siting GO in the refinement area. Mr. Reesor noted that a couple of edits had been made to the ordinances that had been included in the agenda packet. He distributed the amended copies of the ordinances. Councilor Pishioneri asked about the transition of 18th Street between the back of the business and Q Street. It was currently used as a short cut. Mr. Reesor referred to one of the photos in the slide presentation which showed the area. Councilor Pishioneri referred to page 3-71 in the agenda packet which stated, "Some of this future development is in existing right-of-way that is proposed to be vacated in the future".. Mr. Reesor said the applicant was in the process of gathering signatures to apply for a street vacation for that portion of 18th Street. Their ultimate goal would be to include that portion of the site in their site plan for a professional office building, if the proposed amendments were passed. That would help to clean up that corner. During the development issues meeting, staff from traffic was present and noted there would be no change regarding traffic. There would be compensation to the City and the action would be coming to Council for approval. Councilor Pishioneri referred to page 3-46 in the agenda packet, last sentence of the last paragraph, "The Springfield Drinking Water Protection Overlay Map indicates at least part of the site appears to be within the I-year Time of Travel Zone for the 16th and Q Street Wellfield". He asked what type of mitigation would be included in the plan to address that. Mr. Reesor said those types of requirements would be addressed during the Site Plan review. The applicant would have to apply for a drinking water protection application. There was certain criteria that needed to be met. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the developer would have to improve that street at their cost. Mr. Reesor said that would also be addressed in Site Plan review. Any new development on that property would be required to have frontage brought up to current standards, either at that time or in an agreement that the improvements would be made in the future. Councilor Pishioneri said there was other development in surrounding areas and he asked if the improvements would fInish off that street. Mr. Reesor explained circumstances that would involve the agreement for a future date. The property owner would be assessed for their share of that improvement at the time of improvement. Councilor Pishioneri said he liked the idea of the proposal. He asked if there was enough setback for the side of the building facing the traffic to be landscaped. Mr. Reesor said there were provisions in the site plan criteria that addressed screening. He hadn't seenthe conceptual drawing ofthe building. Currently, the applicant was just looking at the zoning change. GO zoning was the strictest as far as what type of uses were allowed. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 3 Councilor Pishioneri asked if this would come back to Council later at the design stage. Mr. Reesor said whatever the zone was now, the applicant was still required to go through the site plan process, which would be coming back to Council and allow for public input. Mr. Grimaldi said this zone amendment was not tied to a specific project. There were protections in place and could ensure more review. Councilor Woodrow asked if this was an overlay district. Mr. Reesor said this was just a change in the refinement plan designation and the zoning. There were other overlay districts, such as drinking water protection. Councilor Woodrow asked if there could be a sunset date in case what was being proposed was not done. Mr. Reesor said the GO zone had specific lists of what were acceptable and allowable uses. Most allowable uses were compatible with residential areas. Councilor Woodrow asked about the residential properties currently on that land. He asked if they could remain residential and if there was a potential issue regarding future sale or refinancing of those residences. Mr. Reesor said there were a lot of properties in the City in this type of designation. He explained further.. . City Attorney Joe Leahy said there was the potential for a problem. The houses would be grandfathered in; however,.ifthe developer didn't follow through with this project, and the property was sold, it could be a prob lem if one. of the homeowners went to get a loan on the home. They could be denied from the bank due to the conflict in zoning. On the other hand, the value of the property may go up with the zone change, which could encourage the use the applicant was looking for. Councilor Woodrow asked if the developer owned all the property at this time. Yes. Councilor Ballew referred to page 3-13 in the agenda packet. She noted the chart listing the designations in the Metro Plan. She said the proposal was a trivial amount, but asked how it affected Springfield's overall buildable lands inventory. Mr. Reesor said the applicant was supporting their proposal by listing out actual numbers within the Refinement Plan area, calculating the number of acres of residential and commercial. The proposal was not to change the Metro Plan. He discussed further the Metro Plan and the number of acres considered for amendments to that plan. This parcel was smaller than the minimum. amount that required a Metro Plan amendment. Mr. Reesor said the General Office was its own zone. It would show up on the City's records as GO, not residential. Discussion was held regarding the buildable land inventories and how these smaller parcels were included in the inventories. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 4 City Planner Mark Metzger gave further clarification on this subject. Councilor Lundberg asked if the City owned the easement or the property owner. She asked if the property owner paid taxes on the easement. Mr. Reesor said the easement was owned by the property owner and allowed certain uses. Right- of way was owned by the City or County and was not calculated into the property owner's parcel for tax purposes. Taxes were paid on easements. Councilor Lundberg said ifthis was changed to GO, there was a potential for more tax revenue. Mr. Reesor said it would most likely provide more taxes. Councilor Lundberg asked ifthere were houses that would have to agree to street improvements. Mr. Reesor said the street improvements were addressed in the site plan review. In a development like this, the developers only made improvements fronting their property. Improvement to the additional properties in the area were sometimes addressed through Local Improvement Districts with approval of a certain percentage. In this case, it would likely just be the portion along this property. Those would be issues that would be worked out through the Site Plan Review. The applicant couldn't get Site Plan approval until they met all of the Code requirements. Councilor Lundberg asked if it could be a situation where only a portion ofthe block would have sidewalks. Mr. Reesor said that was correct. The City couldn't require sidewalks along the whole street. . Councilor Pishioneri asked how much of the property near 18th and Q Street would be added to the project. He asked about egress and ingress and if it would be off of Q Street. Mr. Reesor said egress and ingress would be a Site Plan issue. The applicant would have to work through the City Code. Councilor Pishioneri said he was concerned about the number of trips and the curve in the road at that location. He said traffic mitigation might need to be part of that plan. Mr. Reesor said the traffic engineer looked at this and noted that at this level the proposal was not considered significant enough to change the Metro Plan's compliance with Goal 12. The City did look at access and traffic during the Site Plan review. If the developer wanted to propose an access on Q Street, they would have to submit a traffic impact analysis to support that. He referred to a past request to have access on Q Street by another applicant that was denied. Councilor Pishioneri said we didn't know what type of businesses would be going in or what type of traffic. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Reesor said at this level, staff looked at regional worse case scenarios by looking at all the uses allowed. The traffic engineers felt the traffic trips were fine given the current infrastructure. He noted other zone changes that would have significant impacts on traffic. Mr. Grimaldi said the first reading on these ordinances would occur during tonight's Regular Meeting. 2. Franklin Boulevard and Gateway/Beltline Project Funding. Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt presented the staff report on this item. This is an opportunity to provide Council with information regarding proposed work activities on both the Franklin and Gateway/Beltline projects. These work activities will require contract amendment and a new Architectural and Engineering Related Services contract. Cost, funding sources, and work effort rationale is included inthe attached Council Briefing Memo. The City currently has a Professional Services Contract with CH2M-Bill in the amount of $556,000 to: 1. Refine the Gateway/Beltline project to a point where it can move forward for Construction, and 2. Complete a Facility Plan for the Franklin Boulevard Corridor in Glenwood, including concept consideration for the Franklin/McVay intersection. The attached Council Briefing Memo describes staff's proposed changes to the current contract and explains the need to enter into a second contract for work necessary to undertake a Gateway/Beltline roadway design. Project funds are currently available from STP-U, Lane Transit District and annexation agreement sources to cover increased cost. Mr. Boyatt noted an error in the contract figure noted on the agenda item summary. The correct amount was $566,000. He reviewed the discussion points in the Council Briefing Memo included in the agenda packet, starting with Item 4. The first task in the contract for Franklin Boulevard was to access the work program. This task would bring more of a public involvement process that would have more iteration with the stakeholders and also a compressed time frame of design and meeting with the Citizen Advisory Committee. Discussion was held regarding charts for this type of item, and why it would have been difficult to use them for this item due to the complexity of some of the issues. Mr. Boyatt discussed Item 3. These were dollars that the City would have to spend in the design process anyway to acquire the design base model. Staff was proposing to bring this into the existing contract so the City could get the survey design model as soon as possible. The survey design model would show specifically what was on the ground. This cost would be absorbed by the project and would help to rush it through. Mr. Boyatt discussed Item 2. This item was a cost the project would absorb after the work of the current contract was done. Bringing it into this contract would enable the project to move forward more quickly. He described the costs and the true increase to the project. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 6 Mr. Boyatt said the true increase was in Item 1. Staff was working with information that the City had learned when developing the couplet project. They learned that the Environmental Assessment (EA) addressed traffic that was forecast at that time, but development in Gateway had accelerated the traffic in that area beyond estimates. The types of businesses going in were better businesses, but generated more trips. In the EA, the cost identified for the couplet project was between $20M-$22M in 2002 before construction costs increased dramatically. With current prices, it was more likely that $22M was now on the low end of the estimate and that was why staff was proposing to do some optimization now. Optimizing the EA was a basic process of taking the current estimated volumes of 2008 and growing those on a trend line that agreed with the EA trendline, and then looking to see where the system broke down first and what the least cost, least impact, most beneficial solution would be for that problem. It would allow the City to look at the elements within and outside the EA. Council's consideration of those elements would determine other things. The City was still on the path of delivering the EA. Focus meetings were taking place with property and business owners to discuss driveway locations and crossover easements. The City could continue to pursue that path, but to fully understand the advantages and disadvantages of the business decision by Council, this would bring out the alternatives. Optimizing would also buy the City enough time to look at the future of Gateway as it continued to evolve and grow. It was an increase of$176,000, about a forty percent increase to the Gateway/Beltline contract, but it alone represented less than one percent of the total project. Staff felt it was prudent to investigate it now. Councilor Ballew asked about the Surface Transportation Program - Urban (STPU) funding. Mr. Boyatt said the City did have it. He explained the amounts received by the City for different projects. Councilor Ballew asked about the meaning of photogrammetry. Mr. Grile said it was mapping. He explained how they were created. Councilor Lundberg said a lot of money had been spent on modeling and getting to the EA couplet. She talked about the cost to get those access and rights of way. She felt the planning horizons were too long and the couplet may end up getting thrown away and create something that was more practical, longer term and more responsive to development. It was a better idea to change it ahead oftime rather than going down a path that didn't work. It was a disappointment to continue to spend extra dollars on these things. She would support the amendments. 3. Council Procedures Regarding Support Requests. City Recorder Amy Sowa presented the staff report on this item. On April 2, Council discussed a letter that had been received asking a Council member to write a letter of support for a particular issue. It was determined that Council did not have an official process for handling these types ofrequests. Council asked staff to prepare a process that could be used in these types of situations and bring it back to Council for discussion. Attached was a draft process for Council's consideration. Ms. Sowa said if Council wanted to go forward with this as written or with any changes, it could be incorporated in the Council Operating Policies and Procedures or as a separate policy. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 7 Councilor Pishioneri commented on #4. Everything else Council did was by Roberts Rules and by votes which were recorded. He said endorsements were quite personal and he would like to see the acceptance of these types of requests under the same guidelines as Roberts Rules. He would not want his name attached to something that he was strongly opposed to. He asked that only those that wanted to be associated with the letter have a line for their signature. Councilor Ballew asked if the letter could just include the count of votes for and against, rather than everyone that supported something signing the letter. Discussion was held regarding the perception if a letter was sent out as being endorsed by the Council, yet one or more Councilors were adamantly opposed to the subject matter. Ms. Sowa suggested that if it was not unanimously supported, those Councilors that did support the issue could send out their own letter. Councilor Lundberg agreed. City Attorney Joe Leahy suggested including a notation on the bottom of the letter stating the names of the Councilors that voted "yay", "nay" and "abstained". Council agreed with that suggestion. Discussion was held regarding the types of requests Council received. Councilor Lundberg said if it was unanimous, the letter could go out as such, and if not the letter would list the votes. Ms. Sowa asked if Council would like this included in the Council Operating Policies and Procedures. Yes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Sidney W. Leiken Mayor Attest: Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2007 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 4, 2007 at 7:06 p.m., with Council President Lundberg presiding. ATIENDANCE Present were Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Mayor Leiken was absent (excused). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council President Lundberg. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Krey Property Donation. Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. Mrs. Millie Krey and her family members representing property interests of the Krey Trust have reached agreement with the City on the terms regardin~ the donation ofthe 0.9-acre property on the 4900 block on the southside of Main Street. The donation agreement (Attachment 1 in the agenda packet) includes conveying one-half the interest in the property to the City of Springfield with restrictions on how the proceeds of any sale of the assets could be used by the City of Springfield. The donation and a subsequent sale of the property (valued by recent appraisal at about $327,000) would likely entail netting out some costs for legal services, and (based on a Level 1 Environmental Study) removal of asbestos tile and moldy debris, and other relatively incidental costs. Initial estimates are $20-25,000 for these activities and these expenses would be deducted from the proceeds after sale. Chief Smith acknowledged the support of Mrs. Krey over the years and her most recent donation of funds towards purchase of a Police dog. Mr. Leahy noted the hard work done by the Police Department and the affection of Mrs. Krey in wanting to help the Police Department. He discussed the patience of Mrs. Krey while legal counsel worked through some ofthe legal issues around this property. He explained the other property interest and how the proceeds would be separated and shared. This effort was a Millie Kreyeffort. She had the idea and stuck with it while the attorneys and staff worked out the details. It was a great benefit for the City. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes. June 4, 2007 Page 2 Councilor Ballew thanked Millie Krey for her generosity. It was very appreciated by the City. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A Sl!;COND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO APPROVE A MOTION TO HAVE THE MAYOR SIGN AN AGREEMENT BY MILLIE KREY REGARDING A RESTRICTED DONATION OF PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FOR SUPPORT OF THE JUSTICE CENTER AND POLICE SERVICES IN THE COMMUNITY OF SPRINGFIELD. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Purchase of Real Property. . Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. The City's current plans for the Justice Center Project identify the need for the City to lease or acquire additional land for public and employee parking. On April 23, City staff discussed with Council the opportunity to purchase the property located at 220 5th Street, located across the street to the west from City Hall. The Council established financial parameters for the purchase and authorized staff to proceed with the negotiations with the property owner. Staff has provided an offer to purchase the property, within the Council guidelines, to the property owner and is requesting the Council's authorization for the City Manager, upon acceptance by the seller, to sign the purchase contract. Mr. Duey explained how the downpayment and subsequent payments would be made on this property. The loan would be carried by Mr. Carter at seven percent interest. There was an early pre-payment penalty often percent in the fIrst five years, decreasing after that to zero. Most of the property was leased out, with the exception of a couple of areas. Staff was waiting for [mal review from all parties and asking for Council's concurrence to move ahead with the contract. Councilor Ballew asked about early payment penalties. She asked if it was possible to have those penalties removed if Mr. Carter were to dispose of the contract and sell to someone else. Mr. Duey said they could talk to Mr. Carter. Mr. Duey said he was not too concerned about the first five years because of the existing leases during that time and the City would want to honor those leases. After five years, the City had the ability to do whatever it wanted with the building. The prepayment penalty would go down to eight percent in year six, and would decrease two percent every year after that. Mr. Leahy said times could change in the future and Mr. Carter might consider doing away with that provision. Councilor Ballew said she would like to consider a stipulation that if Mr. Carter no longer held the contract, the prepayment penalties could be removed. Mr. Leahy said they would ask Mr. Carter about that. \ IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 220 5TH STREET IN SPRINGFIELD. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 3 SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Recognition of Millie Krey for Donation. Police Chief Smith and Officer Charbonneau walked with Mrs. Krey to the front of the Council Chambers. Council President Lundberg said she was very happy to be the one to present this to Mrs. Krey along with Chief Smith. Council President Lundberg read the following statement: Millie Krey has been a long-time resident of Springfield. She and her late husband, Ken Krey, have been strong supporters of the Springfield community and have always believed in the importance of an effective Police Department providing for a safe and livable community. Millie has been a much appreciated benefactor of the Springfield Police Department including previous donations of time, energy and financial support for the Springfield K-9 Unit. Tonight, we acknowledge and thank Mrs. Krey for her generous donation of one-half interest of the property located at 4909, 4911 and 4915 Main Street to the City of Springfield for the use arid support of the City of Springfield Police Department, and specifically for the support of the proposed Springfield Justice Center (Police, Court and Jail Facility) currently proposed to be built in the area bounded by A Street, C Street, Pioneer Parkway and 5th Street in downtown Springfield. The City intends to sell the donated property and use the net proceeds from the sale for support of Police services and the Springfield Justice Center as directed by donor Millie Krey. '- We present this plaque in honor of Mrs. Krey's generous gift and her support of the Springfield community. Mrs. Krey said she was just giving back to the community that had given so much to her and her family. Chief Smith said Mrs. Krey had been a long time supporter ofthe Police Department, putting the best interests of the City in the forefront. He thanked Mrs. Krey for everything. . CONSENT CALENDAR IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM S.B. (Later changed to S.a. - see below) REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND o AGAINST. 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. May 14,2007 - Work Session b. May 21, 2007 - Work Session c. May 21, 2007 - Regular Meeting d. May 29,2007 - Work Session City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 4 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters b. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract in the Amount of $159,785 with Clair Company Inc~ for Special Inspection and Testing Services for the Justice Center Project. c. Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Cabo Grill, LLC, Located at 3344 Gateway Street, Springfield, Oregon. ITEMS REMOVED City Attorney Joe Leahy said this was something Mike Harman from the Police Department had worked through. He explained that the full document was not included in the Council packet. The full contract was before Council now and had been reviewed by the City Attorney. It was noted that the incorrect item was pulled from the Consent Calendar. Mr. Leahy asked to correct the record to show it was 5.a. that was pulled from the Consent Calendar. 5. a. Award the Subject Contract to Day Wireless Systems in the Amount of$47,415 for the Regional Radio Project. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO APPROVE ITEM 5.B. AS MODIFIED AND CORRECT THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT 5.A. WAS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ORIGINALLY. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit cOInments 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. Concurrent Q Street Refinement Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Regarding Property Near the Corner of 18th and Q Street. ORDINANCE NO.1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 0 STREET REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING 1.17 ACRES OF LAND FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO GENERAL OFFICE (GO) AND AMENDING THE REFINEMENT PLAN TEXT TO ESTABLISH A POLICY AND CRITERIA FOR LOCATING THE GENERAL OFFICE DESIGNATION WITHIN THE REFINEMENT PLAN AREA (FIRST READING). ORDINANCE NO.2 - AN ORDINANC'E AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING 1.17 ACRES OF LAND IDENTIFIED AS LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP 17-03-25-24. TAX LOTS 3600.4700.4800.4900 AND 5000. FROM MDR TO GO (FIRST READING). City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 5 City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The applicant is requesting these amendments in order to pursue a future professional office building on the subject site. The applicant chose to apply for the GO Zone and Refmement Plan designation because the City's existing definition of the GO Zone designates it as appropriate for areas which serve as a transition zone, providing a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial development. On May 15th, 2007, the Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on the subject applications (LRP2007-00012 & ZON2007-00011). Other than the applicant, there was one additional testimonial at the public hearing. The testifying Springfield citizen noted that she did not oppose the applications, but had questions about how future traffic issues would be addressed. Staff responded by outlining the review procedures in the site plan review process, of which the applicant would be required to adhere to during Site Plan review of a new professional office building. Dunng the Planning Commission deliberation, the Commissioners discussed the appropriateness of the site as a future GO site. Discussion ensued regarding the location of adjacent Community Commercial uses and how the existing high traffic volumes contributed to the sites undeslrable . characteristics of remaining as a residential zoning district. Planning Commission discussion also addressed the comparison of the site's characteristics in comparison to the definition of the GO zone, and concluded that the site seemed appropriate for GO designation. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that both the Refmement Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment applications be sent to the City Council for consideration anq approval. Mr. Reesor noted the amended ordinances that had been distributed to Council during their work session on this item. . . Council President Lundberg opened the public hearing. 1. Paul K wake. 1867 17th Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. K wake said he owned property behind the development and had sold the subject property to the former owner. He said the access road approach on Q Street curve was usable and the site plan review could not stop that access. He said he was concerned about putting a commercial building including access onto Q Street. He discussed the danger of that particular curve. He said he was told there would only be limited access from that site. This Council needed to understand that the approach that was there now could stay. He was supportive of the development, but wanted Council to know about the access. Council President Lundberg said she had another Request to Speak card from Rick Satre, representing the developer. 2. Scott McKee. 1742 Delrose Avenue.. Springfield. OR. Mr. McKee said he was the property owner. He said he owned a company called the Quality Group and was interested in expanding his business and putting an office building at 18th and Q Streets. He had sponsored the American Legion team in Springfield and owned a business and lived here for ten years and lived in Springfield for ten years. He said he understood Mr. Quake's concerns and noted that they would not have access on Q Street. He spoke tonight to allow Council to put a face to the business. He said he had a small fmancial planning business for twenty-five City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 6 years and was trying to expand from fourteen to twenty employees and needed a bigger building. He said his company currently owned the building at 110 1 16th Street and had been there since purchasing the building six years ago. He said he hired Satre and Associates to help develop this site so his business could expand. Councilor Pishioneri asked Mr. McKee ifhe would b~ vacating the business on 16th Street. Mr. McKee said they would be moving from 16th Street. 3. Rick Satre 132 East Broadway. Suite 536. Eugene. OR. Mr. Satre said he was assisting Mr. . McKee and speaking in favor of the applications. Council asked a number of very good questions during the work session this evening regarding street vacation, street improvement, access, traffic, trip generation, safety, design, landscape, setbacks, and neighborhood compatibility. Planning and zoning was the first of many steps in the development process. The site review would be the next step, which would address many of the questions brought forward by Council. The Springfield Development Code and Engineering Design Standards Manual from Springfield were two excellent documents. The GO zone included a well defmed list of uses that could occur within that zone, including setback, landscape, visibility, access and safety. He appreciated staff recommendation and the Planning Commission unanimous recommendation of approval of both applications. He said he concurred with suggested text amendments drafted by staff and included in the ordinance. The use of the GO zone was appropriate in general because the Metro Plan allowed for small scale office uses within the residentially designated areas such as the subject site. This type of amendment to the Refinement Plan existed in many other places in the community of Springfield, particularly in the Gateway neighborhood. Springfield's commercial land study noted there was a shortfall of commercial land in Springfield. Although GO was not a commercial zone and a commercial designation, it did help satisfy some of the commercial land supply need. GO was an appropriate designation for this site because it was a transitional land use and would serve as a buffer between the more intensive use of commercial and the less intensive uses of residential. Mr. Leahy said he received an inquiry from Councilor Pishioneri regarding Council review of this matter. Mr. Leahy said he talked with the Planning Director. This was presently a Type II procedure, which meant the appeal would go to the Planning Director; however, there was a provision in the Type II that the Director may determine that the application should be reviewed as a Type III decision. The Director was prepared to determine that in response to concerns expressed by the Council if that was Council's direction. In that case, the Site Plan Review would go to the Planning Commission as a public hearing to allow for public and neighborhood input. Council consensus was to go forward as Type III Site Plan Review. Council President Lundberg closed the public hearing. NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY. 2. Supplemental Budget Resolution. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 07-23 - A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING FUNDS: GENERAL. STREET. SPECIAL REVENUE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. RIVERBEND DEVELOPMENT. FIRE LOCAL OPTION LEVY. DRAINAGE CAPITAL PROJECTS. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. POLICE BUILDING BOND CAPITAL. STREET CAPITAL. SDC LOCAL STORM IMPROVEMENT. SDC TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT. LOCAL W ASTEW A TER OPERATIONS. REGIONAL WASTEWATER. AMBULANCE. DRAINAGE OPERA TING. BOOTH-KELLY. REGIONAL FIBER CONSORTIUM. INSURANCE. VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT. AND SDC ADMINISTRATION. Budget Officer Bob Brew presented the staff report on this item. At various times during the fiscal year the Council is requested to make adjustments to the annual budget to reflect needed changes in planned activities, to recognize new revenues, or to make other required adjustments. These adjustments to resources and requirements change the current budget and are processed through supplemental budget requests scheduled by the Finance Department on an annual basis. This is the last of four FY07 supplemental requests to come before Council. The supplemental budget being presented includes adjusting resources and requirements in the General Fund, Street Fund, Special Revenue Fund, Community Development Fund, Fire Local Option Levy Fund, Drainage Capital Projects Fund, Development Projects Fund, Police Building Bond Capital Fund, Street Capital Fund, SDC Local Storm Improvement Fund, SDC Transportation Improvement Fund, Local Wastewater Operations Fund, Regional Wastewater fund, Ambulance Fund, Drainage Operating Fund, Booth-Kelly Fund, Regional Fiber Consortium Fund, Insurance Fund, Vehicle and Equipment Fund, and SDC Administration Fund. . The City Council is asked to approve the attached Supplemental Budget Resolution. The overall financial impact of the Supplemental Budget Resolution is to increase total appropriations by $323,159. Councilor Ballew asked for an explanation of the $IM change from Beltline to MLK Parkway. Mr. Brew said PeaceHealth gave the City about $7M for a variety of projects. The area concerned was the area where Beltline and MLK Parkway overlapped. Since both projects were done, the books were being straightened out by applying the money to one project rather than the other. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-23. Mr. Grimaldi reminded Council to conduct the public hearing. COUNCILOR WOODROW WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITHDREW HIS SECOND. Council President Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 8 Council President Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-23. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 3. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield (White - Case Number LRP2007-00016). RESOLUTION NO. 07-24 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE THE ANNEXATION. City Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. The property owner, Terry White, has requested annexation of::!:15,888 square feet of property located at 4080 North Street. The site currently contains one residence. The purpose of the annexation is to facilitate a property partition and to allow the existing dwelling to connect with City sewer service. The legal description of the property to be annexed is more particularly described in Attachment 1, EXhibit A. The City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory to be annexed and the owners of more than half of the land to be annexed. Consent from all the property owners has been given. Lane County Elections advises there are no registered electors at the subject property. With Council approval, this resolution will be forwarded to the Lane Courity Local Government Boundary Commission for further consideration. The property to be annexed contains an existing house and is located inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The current City limits run along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. The applicant requests annexation in order to connect the existing house to City sewer and to facilitate partitioning the property in accordance with provisions ofthe Low Density Residential (LDR) district. In accordance with Springfield Development Code Article 6.030(2), the site already is (or can be) served with key urban facilities and services, including but not limited to City utilities, police, fire protection, library, parks and recreation, and schools. A full suite of public utilities are immediately available to serve the subject property. An existing sanitary sewer line runs within North Street along the frontage of the south property line. Additionally, there is a sanitary sewer lateral stubbed into the northwest corner of the property adjacent to South Redwood Drive. Because the required City utilities a,re immediately available to the property, it is the determination of staff that an Annexation Agreement is not required for this annexation request. . Council President Lundberg opened the public hearing; No one appeared to speak. Council President Lundberg closed the public hearing. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 9 IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-24. THE MOTION PASSSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 4. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield (Horton - Case Number LRP2006-00025). RESOLUTION NO. 07-25 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE THE ANNEXATION. City Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. The property owners, Don and Lauren Horton, have requested annexation of approximately 1.40 acres of property located at 809 South 57th Street. The site currently contains one residence. The purpose ofthe annexation is to facilitate subdivision ofthe property into nine residential lots. A portion of the property, comprising approximately 0.14 acres, was ~dded to the tax lot through a recent property line adjustment with tax lot 5103 to the north, which is inside the Springfield City limits. Therefore, this 0.14 acre portion of tax lot 5300 is already within the City limits, and is excluded from the area that is subject of the annexation request. The legal description of the property to be annexed is more particularly described in Attachment 1, Exhibit A. The City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory to be annexed and the owners of more than half of the land to be annexed. Consent from all the owners has been given and there are no registered electors at the property. With Council approval, this resolution will be forwarded to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission for further consideration. The area to be annexed contains an existing house and abuts the current City limits which run along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. The property that is subject of the annexation request is located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and it is immediately adjacent to the Springfield City limits. The applicant requests annexation in order to subdivide the property into nine single family residential lots, consistent with provisions of the Low Density' Residential (LDR) district. Existing utility connections are available to serve this property along the South 5ih Street and South 58th Street frontages. Additionally, in accordance with Springfield Development Code Article 6.030(2), the site can be served with key urban facilities and services, including but not limited to City utilities, police, fire protection, library, parks and recreation, and schools. Provision of public utilities to serve the future subdivision has been detailed in an Annexation Agreement that has been negotiated with City staff and the applicant (Attachment 4 included in the agenda packet). Mr. Limbird noted that a portion of this property comprising of approximately 0.14 acres, was added to this tax lot through a property line adjustment. That portion was inside the City limits and not subject to the annexation request. Councilor Ballew asked if the property was adjacent to City limits. Yes. Councilor Ralston asked where they would get access. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 10 Mr. Limbird said along South 57th Street. He described the streets within the development. Councilor Ralston said they seemed to be fairly small lots. Mr. Limbird said all the lots met minimum frontage and area requirement of Springfield Development Code. The plan before Council was a tentative plan. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the street would be City right-of-way. Yes. He asked if South 57th was still a County Road. Yes. Councilor Pishioneri asked if that would be an issue regarding connecting onto a County road regarding right-of-way. Mr. Limbird said there could be further consideration for a partial annexation of right-of-way. The current City limits were on the west boundary of South 5ih Street, then jogs across 5ih Street to the east side of the right-of-way just north of this property. That had been developed to City standards, so there was a possibility it could be amended to include portions of the right-of- way. That would have to be discussed with the County. Councilor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Councilor Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-25. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 5. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield (Nepute, Case Number LRP2007 -00017). RESOLUTION NO. 07-26 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVES THE ANNEXATION BY EXPEDITED PROCESS. City Planner Steve Hopkins presented the staff report on this item. The Property Owner, John Nepute, has requested annexation of approximately 1.03 acres of property located at 1540 Kellogg Road. The subject territory is described as Assessor's Map Number, 17-03-34-22, Tax Lot 800 and more accurately described in Attachment 1, Exhibit A. The site contains one residence. After annexation, the land owner intends to subdivide the property into lots for single family dwellings in conformance with the LDR (Low Density Residential) district. Article 6.030(2) ofthe Springfield Development Code requires that territories considered for annexation must be provided with "key urban facilities and services", as defined in Metro Plan Policy 8.a, Page II-B-4. Among these key urban services are water, sewer, storm water facilities, streets, electricity, parks, firelemergency services, and schools. Based on analysis and comments from the service providers, staff finds that all key urban services are available to serve the territory. The City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority ofthe electors registered in the territory to be annexed and the City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 11 owners of more than half of the land to be annexed. Consent from the property owner, who is also the registered elector, has been given. Two sanitary sewer laterals have been stubbed to the property line to facilitate future connection, pending annexation. The property to be annexed is located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and is adjacent to the Springfield City Limits on all sides. The site already has most city services, including SUB water and electricity. The site can be served with the minimum range of urban services including but not limited to police, fire protection, library, parks and recreation, and schools. Acquisition of right of way along the subject site's southerly boundary can be acquired when the site is partitioned or further developed. At that time, the site will be improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk. No annexation agreement is necessary. The City Council Resolution will be forwarded to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. The owners are requesting the Expedited Annexation procedure of the Boundary Commission. Council President Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Council President Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-26. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. Craig Sheets. General Delivery. Mr. Sheets said he traveled and spoke to City Councils around the nation. He said the last place he spoke was in Bend, Oregon. There was a subterranean meth lab in Bend and there was also a large lab in Oregon located in Eugene. He said it was a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) subterranean meth lab. He said he went to the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) in Salt Lake City, Utah and spoke with an agent who told Mr. Sheets he was right on the mark. He explained how the drugs were transported and delivered. This had been documented by the FBI as well as federal judges. He noted that railroads were also transporting cocaine. He discussed other locations with these subterranean meth labs. He said he would like City Council members to write to Federal judges about these issues, as well as utility companies. He said Council could use his name in their letters if they chose. The first three letters in Dealer were DEA. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. Correspondence from Robert and Daisy Lind, 2359 3151 Street, Springfield, Oregon Regarding the Pierce Property (will be included in the June 18 packet when Marcola Meadow is brought back to Council). City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 12 2. ' Correspondence from Patricia Keepers, 745 N. 71 sl Street, Springfield, Oregon Regarding the Home Depot Proposal. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO APPROVE THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BIDS ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments a. Historic Commissioner Confirmation and Appointment. Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. On May 29, 2007, the Council interviewed and tentatively re-appointed John Tuttle to serve his second, four- year appointment on the Springfield Historic Commission. John has an architectural design business in Springfield where he specializes in re-design, remodeling, and construction of residential structures. He is a property owner and resident living within the Washburne Historic District. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO RE-APPOINT JOHN TUTTLE TO THE SPRINGFIELD HISTORIC COMMISSION WITH A TERM TO EXPIRE APRIL 30, 2011. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports 1. Councilor Woodrow invited everyone to attend the K-9 Olympics on June 16 starting at noon, at the Regional Community Center on 32nd Street. He said it was a terrific event. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Leahy said he and Bob Duey had worked with Don Carter on the purchase of Mr. Carter's property. Mr. Carter was driven by a mission to do something for the City of Springfield. He encouraged Council to thank Mr. Carter when they saw him for his generous donation through this transaction. He deserved the Council's thanks. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:54 p.m. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 4, 2007 Page 13 Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa Sidney W. Leiken Mayor Attest: City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JUNE 11,2007 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 11,2007 at 6:22 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorneys Joe Leahy and Matt Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Pishioneri was absent (excused). 1. Telecommunications Ordinance Update. Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. The City's current telecommunications ordinance, which reverted to its 1997 form when the Utility Tax was repealed, is in need of updating. In addition, it is appropriate to modify the ordinance to account for the recent decision of the Federal Communications decision on franchising of competitive' cable television providers. It is timely to make housekeeping revisions to the City's telecommunications ordinance to assure . that it continues to comply with recent interpretations of Section 253 of the Telecommunications' Act of 1996. In addition, it is timely to modify the ordinance to accommodate the actions of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in providing alternative cable television providers an accelerated path to access to public rights of way to provide their services. Staff will review the draft ordinance and respond to questions from the Council. . Mr. Goodwin explained some of the items that needed to be updated within the ordinance. He discussed the appeals in the courts regarding sections in the current ordinance. He said there were a couple of other issues the City was dealing with. He explained. This ordinance treats all utilities the same, but this was not the Utility Tax. This only dealt with those companies that had physical things in the right-of-way. He said the changes in the ordinance were to get away from the franchise model. He explained how the change was made in the ordinance and how it protected the City. The proposed ordinance did not deal with certain issues related to cable TV, specifically obligations to serve the entire community rather than limit service to specific sections of the City, and any obligation to provide public, educational, and governmental ("PEG") channels for use of the public. He explained further. To address this issue, he suggested adding those provisions to the ordinance. That could be done now in the ordinance he would bring forward for a public hearing, or after the FCC ruling in October or November. He felt it made more sense to add that language in now, but it was Council's choice. Mr. Goodwin recognized Mr. Robert Schroeter from Comcast who was in the audience. He discussed an issue currently between Comcast and the City regarding digital voice, a form of . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 11, 2007 Page 2 telephone service. The City was telling Comcast that under their franchise, they didn't have the right to provide telephone service. He eXplained why that was the City's position. He said he told Comcast they needed to get a franchise for that service. The ordinance would not make any difference in regard to that issue. Mr. Goodwin reminded Council that this was not the Utility Tax. Mr. Goodwin had talked with the Chief Petitioner that had opposed the Utility Tax to explain these changes. The Chief Petitioner understood what the City was doing. Councilor Woodrow asked if the phone service provided by Com cast was through the same cable as the internet. Yes. Mayor Leiken said he was comfortable with the recommended action. He said franchises are decreasing and Senator Wyden was pushing it that way. He said this presented an opportunity. As technology continued to expand, the idea of hard wires in the ground would soon disappear. The City needed to continue to look for opportunities for revenue stream. He asked if there was a possibility of creating a zone, similar to Enterprise Zones, with in lieu of instead of fees for companies that do business in Springfield. He said he was disappointed with the National League of Cities because they were not looking at what cities could do to work on this issue in the future, but just to protect what had been in place for years. He acknowledged that Mr. Goodwin was one of the top experts in the State. He asked for Mr. Goodwin's thoughts on how cities could approach this. Mr. Goodwin said the reason telephone, broadband or cable companies succeeded was oecause citizens had gathered together in a government, a city, a small location where it was economically viable for them to make a success. Universal service funds were still in place to deal with the costs of extended service in these areas. The cities charge to these companies ought to relate to the fact that the companies could only prosper because we combined enough citizens together in a small space. It was important to understand the relationship between the density of population with profits of the companies that were selling these communication servIces. Mayor Leiken said the smart corporations would work closely with the local government so the relationship would be a positive one. He appreciated all that Comcast and our other corporate sponsors gave to the community, but in order for communities to provide quality service, those businesses needed to be willing partners to pay in the City fund. He said he was not sure how to get there, but encouraged working with the companies to fmd a way. He noted that Springfield did a nice job of reaching out and partnering. Springfield had the opportunity to be a leader in this area. Using the talents of Mr. Goodwin and other staff to negotiate some long-range opportunities with these companies made sense. He appreciated Mr. Goodwin's feedback. Councilor Ballew said if it got to a point where physical things were no longer put in the ground and the City may need to go to a straight business tax. She asked if the City owned air space. Mr. Goodwin said we did not. Council asked that Mr. Goodwin put it all in one package as recommended and bring it back to Council. ADJOURNMENT City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 11, 2007 Page 3 The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Sidney W. Leiken Mayor Attest: Amy Sowa City Recorder "