Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/2007 Work Session City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JULY 2,2007 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 6:00 p.m" with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and 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 Attorney Matt Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Choices for Establishing a Downtown Urban Renewal District. Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. Attachment 1 illustrates two different approaches and election dates for establishing urban renewal downtown. Inherent in choosing a fall 2007 election date would be the need to give staff specific direction at or before the July 23rd meeting with Team Springfield to avoid returning during the August recess. The spring 2008 alternative would provide more time for planning and decision making, but would delay the capture of tax increment revenues for a year. Attachment 2 provides an analysis of the pros and cons related to the questions identified in the issue statement above. Fall 2007 versus a Spring 2008 election. A successful fall election would allow tax increment revenues to begin accruing July 1,2008. A successful spring 2008 election would start the revenue accrual on July 1,2009. Meeting the deadlines for a November election requires a tight schedule that is achievable but leaves less time than a spring election for coordination and communication with the public, and affected taxing bodies. Form a new downtown renewal district or expand the Glenwood district? State laws allow for the expansion of an existing urban renewal district by up to 20% of the established district's area. Forming a new district allows a new boundary to be designated, without being limited to an acreage that is 20% of the Glenwood district (about 120 acres). Expanding the Glenwood district would allow increment revenues from Glenwood to be used in the downtown and vice versa. Forming a new district would keep the revenues separate. Attachment 3 shows three potential renewal district boundaries. If the Glenwood district,is expanded into the downtown, then Boundary 1 or a similar boundary must be chosen to meet the 20% statutory limitation. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Metzger said there was a number of staff that had worked on this. He acknowledged, Community Services Manager John Tamulonis, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, Development Services Director Bill Grile and other staff that had contributed to this item. Mr. Metzger said the fIrst question was regarding timing of an election. He discussed some of the advantages and disadvantages of going with either election date. The taxing partners at the CEO level were supportive of an urban renewal district in downtown. Councilor Pishioneri said he liked the idea of setting up the downtown urban renewal district (URD) independent of the Glenwood URD. The citizens voted for the Glenwood URD and this was a different area. He asked if there was any cost associated with either election. Discussion was held regarding whether or not there would be a cost at either election, Councilor Pishioneri said he would encourage staff to go for the General election unless there was an urgent need to go sooner, It was important to do the job right. Mr. Metzger asked for clarification on which election Councilor Pishioneri was referring to. Councilor Pishioneri said he was referring to the election in the spring of 2008 (actually the Primary Election). He said either election would be fine as long as staff felt they could do a good and complete job. Mayor Leiken said the November 2007 election was not a General Election, but rather a Special Election. He said Mr. Grimaldi had mentioned the investment already made in downtown by private developers. Waiting until the Primary would delay collection of the tax increment until January of 2009. Capturing investment was important, but making sure the public was on board and supportive was also very important. Councilor Ballew said she didn't recall that Council had made a decision to form an URD in downtown. Mr. Metzger said it was in response to a Council goal set in January 2007 to form an URD in downtown. In April, staff came back and talked about a plan for revitalization and the URD was one way to move that along. Council would take formal action whether or not to form an URD at a later date. Councilor Ballew said she liked waiting for the Primary Election better or even the General Election in 2008. There weren't any milestones yet in the Glenwood URD, so she was concerned about staff time spent on both areas. She felt the two areas should be separate, and downtown shouldn't be an extension of Glenwood. There would be more money coming from a downtown URD than the Glenwood URD. She also noted that regarding the boundary choices, she preferred Boundary One, and would be reluctant to extend it to Boundary Two. Councilor Woodrow said he agreed the downtown URD should be a new one and not combined with Glenwood. He felt they should go for the November 2007 election to allow SEDA to capture tax increment from the new development of Lithia, Wynant's Food Store and others. It would be beneficial to start collecting those funds in 2008 rather than waiting until 2009. He had City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 3 confidence that if staff said they could do it properly and be ready in November 2007, that they could. He would support Boundary Two because it included all of Booth-Kelly. Mr. Metzger said he would like to give Council some additional information regarding the boundaries following the discussion regarding timing of the election and new or expanded district. Councilor Ralston asked if an election was required if the Glenwood boundary was expanded. Yes. He said there had not been a lot of success in Glenwood. He didn't want to go much farther than Boundary One for downtown and felt that joining with Glenwood might help to get things going in Glenwood. Both areas would need to develop together at some point. He thought the November election might be too aggressive of a schedule. Mr. Tamulonis said one of the advantages in the downtown area was the number of studies that had been done over many years. Glenwood was a new area with new projects. Councilor Ralston asked if the property values were locked in once an area was identified. Mr. Tamulonis said the County Assessor's office would set the property values as a base value starting January 1 of the year following Council adoption. If the URD was passed at the November 2007 election, it would go into affect January 1,2008. If they waited for the May 2008 election, it would go into affect January 1,2009. Councilor Ralston said if they chose Boundary One, success would move out along the whole corridor, He felt choosing Boundary Three cut too much into taxes for the General Fund. Trying to convince the public that a Downtown URD was the right thing would be difficult. Councilor Lundberg said she was most in favor of Boundary Two. Getting past a certain point might be harder to make it a single vision. She felt that there was time to prepare for a November 2007 election regarding educating the public. If it didn't pass in November, they could work to bring it back for a vote in May. The partnership issue was stronger in Downtown than in Glenwood, so she felt it would be easy to get the stakeholders on board. She was a proponent of going out to voters in November 2007 and felt staff could get everything ready by then. Councilor Wylie said she thought that if it was feasible, the earlier timing for the election was best. She felt the downtown URD should be separate from Glenwood. She thought going out to Boundary Two would be best at this time. Twenty percent could be added at a later date without an election, taking it out to Boundary Three. She asked how an URD affected a residential area (Willamette Heights). Mr. Metzger explained the principals used to determine the different boundaries. The ftrst principal was where investment needed to be made to revitalize downtown and nearby neighborhoods. In Willamette Heights, there were infrastructure issues that were affected. The . east side had the potential for redevelopment and an URD could assist with some of the infrastructure. He discussed apartment complexes on the north end and how strategic investments could help clean up that area. The boundaries were drawn with the idea of capturing revenue and in areas where investment could be made to help the overall area grow. That was one of the rationales for Boundary Three, There were advantages and disadvantages with all City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 4 boundaries. He explained why staff originally thought Boundary Three might be best. He agreed, however, that people's vision of downtown was a smaller, more compact area. Councilor Woodrow said if the rest of the Council was supportive, he would approve of Boundary Three. He referred to Councilor Ralston's suggestion to combine the downtown URD with Glenwood's URD. He felt that would be unfair to Glenwood because it was a unique area and combining them might cause undue concern by Glenwood residents. It was correct that development that could occur in the downtown URD should help generate more in the Glenwood URD. Progress in Glenwood had been slow, but that was the nature of an URD, He discussed the difference between downtown and Glenwood. He agreed that the November 2007 election was the right timeframe for the downtown URD to go to the voters. That would still give ample time to get the word out and explain to the citizens why an URD was a positive thing and could further the efforts started by the Wildish Theater, schools and other businesses to make downtown a better place. Councilor Pishioneri said he had no problem going to the voters at the earlier date as long as staff had adequate time to do the job right and get it passed, rather than having to do it twice. Councilor Wylie asked how the URD worked with historic preservation. Mr. Tamulonis said there were several options. One option was to use URD money to reinforce historic buildings to meet current codes and seismic requirements. Mr. Metzger said the URD was a financial tool and the SEDA Board could determine how to use that money for different projects. Mr. Tamulonis said it was a way to separate an income stream that would allow targeted projects or programs to be done. He discussed how the funds could or couldn't be used. Councilor Wylie asked for more details on what could or couldn't be done with URD funds. Mr. Tamulonis discussed a couple of options and noted that often the funds were used for , ' infrastructure, to purchase buildings and build parking areas. He said ideas from the Council would be explored to see if they could be done. The first phase of the URD would include getting input from the stakeholders of downtown regarding potential projects. Councilor Wylie asked about the Housing and Urban Development (RUD) programs that assisted homeowners with roof replacement, paint and other maintenance needs. Mr. Tamulonis said a similar program had been set up by SEDA in Glenwood called the Glenwood Residential Improvement Program (GRIP) that was patterned on the federal program. Mayor Leiken asked Mr. Tamulonis to send an email to the Councilors regarding specifics on what types of projects could or couldn't be done with URD funds, Mr, Tamulonis said he could do that. He would include projects that were currently happening downtown, City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 5 Councilor Ballew suggested getting consensus, or close to consensus from Council on when the election should be held and whether or not to make the downtown URD separate from Glenwood. Mr. Metzger said that would be helpful to staff. Councilor Lundberg asked first for input on whether to create the URD's separately or together with Glenwood. Councilor Ralston said he wasn't opposed to URD and was more than willing to support the November election and through Boundary Two. The reason he was considering combining the two URD's was because the SEDA Board was already in place for Glenwood. Mayor Leiken said the SEDA Board would remain the same for both URD' s. Council consensus was to create the downtown URD separate from Glenwood. Five Councilors supported going to the November 2007 election with the downtown URD. One Councilor (Ballew) preferred waiting until May 2008. Mr. Metzger said staff would work towards the November 2007 election and ifthere was concern they would not be well prepared, they would notify Council and determine if they should wait for the May 2008 election. Council agreed. Mr. Grimaldi said Mr. Tamulonis would distribute some figures regarding the differences between the different boundaries. Those figures would be sent to Council before their July 23 Council meeting. Mayor Leiken said that although they were not all visible, there had been a lot of successes in Glenwood thanks to Mr. Tamulonis and staff. He noted the relationships formed with residents in Glenwood by Mr. Tamulonis and ownership by those residents in Glenwood. He noted the number of people interested in that area. Downtown was a different situation, with projects ready to go immediately. Mayor Leiken said he spoke with the Senior Forum this morning and they were v,ery supportive ofa downtown URD. 2. Concurrent Metro Plan/Refinement Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Regarding Property Near 44th and Main Street. City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The applicant requests approval of a Metro Plan / Refinement Plan Map Allendment to the East Main Refinement Plan and a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment. The request involves two parcels, and is located on approximately 5.24 acres identified as Tax Lots 400 and 402 on Assessor's Map No. 17-02-32- 00. Specifically, the applicant proposes to change the Metro Plan designation from Light Medium Industrial (LMI) to Commercial and a concurrent Refinement Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment from LMI to CC. The applicant seeks approval of these applications in order to facilitate development of a future Medical Office building on the site. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 6 On June 5th, 2007, the Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on the subject applications (LRP2007-000l3 & ZON2007-000l2). One citizen, Nancy Falk, testified in opposition to the proposal at the first public hearing and requested that the record be left open for seven days. The Planning Commission granted the request and instructed Staff to leave the record open until Tuesday, June 12th, 2007. Staff received one written testimony from Lauri Segel, Goal One Coalition Planner, on June 12th, 2007. A written rebuttal to Ms. Segel's letter was then submitted by the applicant the following day, June 13th, 2007. Both letters were received within the specified deadlines as noted in the Planning Commission public hearing on June 5th, 2007. The original Staff Report and exhibits are attached for Council's review. After reviewing all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated on the applications on June 19th, 2007, and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that both applications be sent to the City Council for consideration and approval. Mr. Reesor presented a power point presentation on the subject property, based on maps and photos included in the agenda packet. Councilor Ballew said it was difficult to distinguish on the maps which areas were Medium Density Resi~ential (MDR) and which were Low Density Residential (LDR). Mr. Reesor said often when comparing zoning maps with metro maps, there were differences. Some of those were plan zone conflicts. Those conflicts would eventually be corrected through a rezone process. Mr. Reesor discussed the commercial uses already on Tax Lot 402. Those had been in place for decades. This application would bring the nonconforming uses into conformity with the zone. Mr. Reesor said the applicant cited the 1992 Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and the 2000 Commercial Lands Inventory as part of the burden of proof. The City had worked with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) transportation analysis because Main Street was under ODOT'sjurisdiction. He noted a recommended condition of approval regarding trip caps. He described the basis for that condition. Mr. Reesor said one person testified in opposition to this amendment on June 5 before the Planning Commission. The speaker had requested that the record remain open for seven days, At the end of the seven days, staff had received one written comment from Lauri Segal of Goal One Coalition. The applicant then had one day to provide a rebuttal. All of those written statements were included in the agenda packet. The Planning Commission deliberated after hearing all comments and voted unanimously for approval. Mayor Leiken confirmed with Development Services Director Bill Grile that Springfield had a surplus of Light Medium Industrial (LMI) property, but a deficit of Community Commercial (Ce). This would rezone from LMI to CC. Councilor Woodrow asked ifODOT would be able to come in and take away their curb-cut if this was rezoned and the site plan was approved. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 2, 2007 Page 7 Mr. Reesor said access would be considered during site plan review. Often, ODOT would consolidate accesses if needed, Councilor Pishioneri noted that the commercial building adjacent to this property that was already occupied had limited access for all the employees. He said he wasn't opposed to this project, but wanted to make sure there was adequate access. Mr. Reesor said the City worked with ODOT to try to make it a safe environment for traffic. PeaceHealth was going in on the application with the owner of the property and would need to be aware of the concerns. Mayor Leiken agreed with Councilor Pishioneri and the need for adequate access for people coming and going to a medical facility. He encouraged working through this issue with ODOT with a common sense approach. Councilor Ballew asked iftherewas a north/south connection bounding the property. Mr. Reesor said there was not. There was no 45th Street on the north side. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Attest: ~ JC1,Q d---- Amy Sow City Recorder