Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/2003 Work Session . City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MAY 12,2003 The city of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 12,2003, at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, Councilors Ballew, Burge, Fitch, Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Interim Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Joe Leahy, Administrative Coordinator Julie Wilson and members of the staff. Councilor Malloy was absent (excused). 1. Springfield Nodal I?evelopment: Consultant's Final Report. City Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this issue. Council is requested to review the recommendations found in the agenda item summary report and provide staff. with feedback and direction for future implementation. . Terry Moore, from ECO Northwest, will present a summary of his team's final conclusions and recommendations regarding Springfield's node sites. The presentation today details key issues and suggests recommendations that he believes will make nodal development more viable and likely to succeed. At issue is how staff should proceed with respect to the recommendations found in the report and the general implementation of nodal development. Mayor Leiken recognized Mr. Moore and noted his participation on the Governor's Industrial Lands Task Force. ECO Northwest (ECONW) was hired to assist the City of Springfield in evaluating implementation measures that would foster nodal development at various priority sites selected by the Council in May 2002. The intent was to do the homework necessary to identify strengths and weaknesses of each of the city's priority node sites and make recommendations that would maximize the viability of these sites for future development. ECONW has compiled a report that includes: 1) an assessment of infrastructure capacity; 2) a land-use analysis; 3) a transportation analysis; 4) and a market analysis for each site. Separate technical reports were prepared by the consultant team for each of these areas of evaluation, copies of which are available in the City Manager's Office. Out of these various analysis, ECONW has identified a series of principles for implementation and a set of specific action steps that can be implemented to support nodal development in Springfield. The agenda item summary report information focuses on the highlights of ECONW's findings for each site, as well as their recommendations. Terry Moore reviewed these issues and other issues during the presentation to council. Some action discussed included: . Action 1: Action 2: Adopt Metro Plan nodal development designation for all nodes. Create a Springfield Node designation at the refinement plan level. Work Session Minutes May 12,2003 Page 2 . Action 3: Action 4: Action 5: Make amendments to Articles 40 and 41 of the Springfield Development Code. Apply appropriate plan or zone designations in the identified nodes. In the longer run, consider other revisions to the Development Code and process to expedite development. Support development in Riverbend first. Follow-through on planned investments in Glenwood. Make transit, streetscape, and pedestrian improvements in Downtown and Mohawk. Jasper-Natron improvements happen later. Action 6: Action 7: Action 8: Action9: Mr. Moore discussed the difference between the planning and implementation phase. Mr. Moore said since late last fall, the land use and market analysis has occurred as well as other project activities. Mr. Moore discussed how the findings were categorized within the report (background, nodal site selection, infrastructure capacity within the selected node sites, land use analysis, transportation analysis and market analysis). The transportation analysis is still in draft form. The report does discuss types of improvements. The main conclusion of the market analysis is that in anyone of the nodes, the amount of development being planned for was optimistic but possible. He further discussed conclusions regarding market analysis. . Mr. Moore discussed the recommendations. Prior to that, he discussed principles for implementation. He referenced the principles posted on a wall chart. They included: Principle 1: Not all nodes are the same: They need different policies. Principle 2: Above all, do not require what is not desired or important. Principle 3: Necessary regulations should be understandable and efficient. Principle 4: To get the type and amount of development it wants in nodes, Springfield should consider supplementing regulations with additional incentives. Principle 5: Springfield does not have many resources to contribute to incentives and investments: it must target its effort. Principle 6: Some nodes are more ripe for development and public investment than others. Principle 7: To get development in nodes, Springfield must be flexible and optimistic. Mr. Moore discussed development planning status of Springfield nodal development areas. He referenced a wall chart containing the following information characteristics for Downtown, Mohawk, Glenwood, Riverbend and Jasper Natron. . Mr. Moore discussed Action 3 items. He said these points have been previously revised and recommendations are provided regarding this. Work Session Minutes May 12, 2003 Page 3 . Mr. Moore discussed Action 4 items. He said the report contains recommendations. In some cases, it is difficult; some recommendations, not so difficult. Mr. Moore discussed Action 5 items. He said parts of our code can be a little cumbersome for developers coming in. It is easier to list uses and standards you don't want, rather than a list of what is allowed use. Mr. Moore discussed the remaining Action 6-9 items. Mr. Moore said this is for council to review and determine if any of the ideas are ready to take to the next level, from a concept to an actual code or ordinance. Details would need to be worked out. Mark Metzger discussed flexibility issues and standard issues. Councilor Ballew asked about disincentives. Mr. Moore said in order to get nodal development in some areas, the standards include high density. He discussed the fact that structured parking becomes an element. It is not a cross function. Parking is relatively inexpensive for single level, but with structured or multi level parking, additional issues anse. Mark Metzger discussed downtown refinement plan policy. . Terry Moore said some developers have non nodal development, and others don't want to do it. Councilor Burge asked why the Booth Kelly site is not being proposed as included in the node. Terry Moore said it already has a mixed use designation on it. All nodal development overlay does. Councilor Burge said it is government owned. City owned property will be an integral part of the downtown core area. It should be part of the core overlay district. It is so close in proximity, less than two blocks, it should be included in the mappinglboundaries. Councilor Burge requested that council be provided with a list of successful nodal developments in the northwest. Mr. Moore will provide the information as requested. Councilor Burge said government planners don't have resources, time or funds for creative planning. This or any other zone we are dealing with needs to be open to the creativity of the private sector. They have designers, engineers, architects, etc. As you look around, we have spent too much money in this state, and in the local area, for land use planning. You look around and it is not very exciting or attractive. He further discussed theory versus reality. Many concepts become expensive for the public as well as the government agency. We need to go outside the government scope for help on design of the community. Councilor Ralston asked if Nodal development was part of the statewide goal. Mark Metzger replied yes, through transplan. We want to be sure what we do is workable and feasible. Mark Metzger said they are trying to include flexibility. He would like to see it happen, but is not sure what will work to encourage it. Mark Metzger further di~cussed flexibility issues. He said we try to balance what we are required to do. . The group further discussed issues of balance of regulation versus private sector, how many requirements we have now, flexibility, comparables, nodal designation and density, etc. Work Session Minutes May 12,2003 Page 4 . Mark Metzger discussed the primary goals of nodal development. Mark Metzger also discussed Transplan requirements. LTD conducted a survey about ridership. He discussed higher density corridors and land use approach to increasing alternate transportation (bus, bicycle, etc.). Planning Manager Greg Mott discussed land use measures, transportation management, nodal development, etc. Mayor Leiken said we will need to schedule this for another work session. There are more questions than answers. He asked that council provide Mark Metzger and Terry Moore with a list of questions prior to bringing the item back to another work session meeting. Cynthia Pappas said this would be proposed to developers for input prior to bringing the item back to council. Councilor Fitch said many good ideas were brought forward, such as including Booth Kelly. She did not hear others saying they did not support further review, but we can go forward and receive more information on this issue at another, work session. 2. Jurisdictional Transfer of South 42nd Street. Mayor Leiken welcomed Ms. Crane and thanked her for her involvement and assistance in this matter. . Technical Services Manager Len Goodwin and Public Works Director Dan Brown presented the staff report on this issue. Staff is recommending the council instruct staff to continue to pursue the South 42nd Street jurisdictional transfer IGA with ODOT. City staff is evaluating whether the city should accept jurisdiction of South 42nd Street (Springfield~Creswell Highway) from Main to Jasper Road from ODOT accompanied by funds with which the street can be improved and maintained. . ODOT staff has proposed that the city and ODOT enter into an IGA that would transfer South 42nd Street (Main Street to Jasper Road) to the city and at the same time transfer $4.125 million in state funds for the purpose of improving the street. This portion of South 42nd is classified by ODOT as a District Highway which means that it carries more local traffic than regional or statewide traffic found on the larger highways in the state. South 42nd Street is also being proposed as an urban standard improvement (sidewalks, bike lanes, drainage, lighting, traffic signal) in the ODOT Draft 2004-07 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for $4.125 million. The OTC and ODOT staff has recommended that this project be funded only if the city assumes responsibility for the segment of road that is being improved. Recent OTC policy and practice calls for transferring District Highways to local jurisdictions as one way to reduce the state's maintenance obligations. There is strong support for this project by residents in the community especially since the February 2002 death of a young boy who was riding his bicycle on South 42nd and was struck by a pickup truck. City staff is keenly aware of its Street Fund problems and the maintenance obligations South 42nd would impose on the fund. Staff believes that ifODOT provided $4.125 million, the city could improve the street to city standards and maintain it for a substantial period of time without needing to use Street Fund sources. Work Session Minutes May 12,2003 Page 5 . Councilor Ballew said this is a reasonable proposal. When you conduct the Jasper Extension improvement, you will have truck traffic on the main city streets. This is a matter of timing. Truck traffic is rough on the roads. She said if we take it, improve it and it is three more years until the extension is complete, it could cause problems and we don't have money to maintain the roads. Len Goodwin said a life cycle analysis would also be conducted. Councilor Ralston asked about easements and if property owners would have to pay for any of this. Len Goodwin said the residents have always paid something for urban street improvements. Dan Brown said the bids come in with ample money to improve, as well as residual money for maintenance. If we sign the agreement, we agree to improvement, and the bids come in higher than expected, the council could consider assessment/cost sharing if appropriate. Councilor Ralston said it makes sense that it is part of the city system. He said it is a dangerous area, and traffic does speed through that area. Not everyone wants to develop the street to city standards if they have to pay the cost. . Mayor Leiken further discussed state transportation issues within urban areas. He also discussed maintenance costs, etc. He said if we can continue to partner with ODOT, we may continue to have successful IGAs. . A councilor commented that in the future, we may need to consider amendments to the county charter and distribution of road funds. A new method may need to be developed. Council approved that staff continue to pursue the jurisdictional transfer IGA with ODOT. Mayor Leiken thanked ODOT staff for their assistance with this project. 3. Land Use Fees Study. Finance Director Bob Duey and Senior Management AnalystBob Brew presented the staff report on this issue. Council is asked to review and discuss opportunities to increase development~processing fees and to implement a new consultation fee in order to: 1) Generate revenues assumed in the City Manager's recommended FY 04 Budget consistent with prior council direction; and; 2) Improve service to development community. Land Use and LDAP fees are not recovering 100 percent of incurred costs, as directed by council. A new consultation fee is assumed in the City Manger's FY 04 proposed budget. A range of options are presented in the agenda item summary document. Bob Duey provided background information regarding this issue. Activity levels are and have been high. Turn-around time is therefore slowing down (resources not increasing, cost recovery not being realized). Bob Brew provided detailed information regarding cost recovery and turn around time issues. He provided examples of how the cost recovery was calculated. . Staff provided information regarding regulation changes as the population has increased over 50,000. Work Session Minutes May 12,2003 Page 6 . Councilor Fitch discussed land use fees and suggested reviewing option D and coming back to council. We may want to have a philosophical discussion regarding a step increase over time. Councilor Fitch discussed consultation fees. It would be important to educate on this matter. She supported Option B. Councilor Fitch discussed LDAP fees. Reality is we don't always like what the federal government tells us to do, so we have to meet requirements. It is a new fee we have to add m. Councilor Woodrow said we do need to cover cost. We should have a billable rate, paying for staff based upon fees. He agreed with comments made by Councilor Fitch. Councilor Burge discussed historical information regarding fee and fee recovery. He said staff is working 10-12 hours per day and that is not right. People can only do that so long. He is also concerned about cost to the public. He said he is also concerned about the public subsidizing a personaVdeveloper project and that is not right. He said he would like to see a dedicated fund and would like to see full cost recovery immediately (when we can make effective) on all three issues. There has to be accountability. He said the DSD Director will be held accountable for prudent cost accounting. We must also be able to provide timelier processing for the public/developers/homeowners, etc. Others have only windows of opportunity (finance, market, etc.). His concern is that prudent cost accounting and accountability occur as well as a more timely processing of applications. . Councilor Ballew said a time study needs to occur on fees. She does not like specialized funds. We should have as much flexibility as possible. With these fees, they are based on taking overhead for running the rest of the city. That makes the rest ofthe city subsidize the project. Bob Duey said there are various ways to track the cost of service. Councilor Burge said his concern is that he would like to see the cost associated with the service tracked. Councilor Fitch discussed the importance of providing initial information, facts, etc., to people prior to charging them a fee for the service. A time allocation/ceiling should be set for initial meeting with staff. Councilor Ralston said we need full cost recovery for LDAP and for consultation fees. Councilor Ralston said we need cost recovery for land use, he supported option D. He did discuss hiring of new staff (pros and cons - and is it needed). Councilor Woodrow said when input is provided by developers and a comparison conducted with other cities, this information should be provided to council. Bob Duey provided additional information regarding comparable study. Mayor Leiken said the city had an outstanding reputation in the 1990's. He said if we have a good product to offer, we should set a price or cost that will be beneficial to provide service to the citizens. . 4. Ordinance Amending Section 5.600 et seq, "Civil Enforcement of Code Infractions" Specifically Section 5.604(l)(a) to Apply the Civil Infraction Procedures to Sections 4.060, 4.426,4.428 and 4.450 of the Springfield Municipal Code. Work Session Minutes May 12,2003 Page 7 . City Attorney Joe Leahy and Water Resources Program Coordinator Chuck Gottfried presented the staff report on this issue. Council will be asked whether to apply the City of Springfield Civil Infraction procedure (including a warning, citation, and filing complaint in Springfield Municipal Court) for violation of Section 4.060 "Public Nuisance," Section 4.426 and 4.428 "Deposit Upon Public or Private Property of Objectionable Waste", and Section 4.450 prohibiting the commission of any act which threatens, impairs, or is dangerous to public health and sanitation or which hampers the city in the promotion and maintenance of public health and sanitation. Adoption of this ordinance would allow but not require that violations of the Springfield Municipal Code Sections 4.060 "Public Nuisance," 4.426 and 4.428 "Deposit Upon Public or Private Property of Objectionable Waste," and Section 4.450 prohibiting the commission of any act which threatens, impairs, or is dangerous to public health and sanitation or which hampers the city in the promotion and maintenance of public health and sanitation be subject to enforcement action pursuant to the Infraction Procedure prescribed by under 5.626 of the Springfield Municipal Code. The Civil Infraction procedure is intended to encourage voluntary compliance with certain Municipal Ordinances and Municipal Code Sections through inspection, notification and where appropriate the granting of reasonable compliance times and in those cases where voluntary compliance is not obtained or when the granting of time is not appropriate, establishes and implements a civil action procedure and schedule forfeitures for the violation of certain ordinances. This Civil Action procedure may include warning, citation, forfeiture, and hearing in Springfield Municipal Court. . There is no financial impact. This is a housekeeping item only and provides the citizens of the city with another tool to obtain compliance. It may result in some increase in the use of the Municipal Court. Joe Leahy said we cannot cite for areas beyond the city limits. Additional discussion may occur with Lane County at some point regarding their code language for property outside the city limits of Springfield. Joe Leahy said the city can determine which law they wish to enforce. At times, you may need to go to another level for enforcement. Councilor Ralston supported the proposed revisions on the three ordinances. 5. Ordinance Amending Section 5.600 et seq. "Civil Enforcement of Code Infractions" Specifically Section 5.604(1)(a) "Application and Amendment of the Springfield Municipal Code to Apply the Civil Infraction Procedures to "Grading" Section 8.300 Through 8.338 of the Springfield Municipal Code. City Attorney Joe Leahy presented the staff report on this issue. Council will discuss whether to apply the city of Springfield Civil Infraction procedure (including a warning, citation, and filing complaint in Municipal Court) for violations of the "Grading" Sections 8.300-8.338 of the Springfield Municipal Code. . Adoption of this ordinance would allow but not require that violations of the City of Springfield Municipal Code Sections 8.300-8.338 which provides specific rules and regulations to control excavating, grading, and earthwork construction, including fills and Work Session Minutes May 12,2003 Page 8 . embankments, and establishes an administrative procedure for issuance of permits and the safeguarding of persons and properties against unreasonable hazard resulting from uncontrolled grading and excavation be subject to enforcement action handled pursuant to the Civil Infraction Procedure prescribed by Section 5.600-5.626 of the Springfield Municipal Code. The Civil Infraction procedure is intended to encourage voluntary compliance with certain Municipal Ordinances and Municipal Code Sections through inspection, notification, and where appropriate the granting of reasonable compliance times and in those cases where voluntary compliance is not obtained or when the granting of time is not appropriate, establishes and implements a civil action procedure and schedule forfeitures for the violation of certain ordnances. This Civil Action procedure may include warning, citation, forfeiture, and hearing in Springfield Municipal Court. Adoption of this Ordinance would provide the City with the opportunity or the mechanism to utilize the Civil Infraction procedure for violations ofthe grading section 8.300-8.338 of the Springfield Municipal Code. There is no financial impact. This is a housekeeping item only and provides the citizens of the city with another tool to obtain compliance. It may result in some increase in the use of the Municipal Court. See discussion held under item number 4. . 6. Ordinance Amending Section 5.600 et seq, "Civil Enforcement of Code Infractions" Specifically Section 5.604(1)(a) to Apply the Civil Infraction Procedure to Section 17.070 of the Springfield Development Code. City Attorney Joe Leahy presented the staff report on this issue. Council will discuss whether to amend the Civil Infraction procedure (including a warning, citation, and filing Complaint in Springfield Municipal Court) for violations of Sections 5.600-5.626 of the Springfield Municipal Code. The Drinking Water Overlay District and the Time and Travel Zones established by that District established procedures and standards for the use of hazardous materials within the City of Springfield for the purpose of protecting the city's drinking water. The Civil Infraction procedure is intended to encourage voluntary compliance with certain Municipal Ordinances and Municipal Code Sections through inspection, notification, and where appropriate the granting of reasonable compliance times and in those cases where voluntary compliance is not obtained or when the granting of time is not appropriate, establishes and implements a civil action procedure and schedule forfeitures for the violation of certain ordinances. This Civil Action procedure may include warning, citation, forfeiture, and hearing in the Springfield Municipal Court. There is no financial impact. This is a housekeeping item only and provides the citizens of the city with another tool to obtain compliance. It may result in some increase in the use of the Municipal Court. See discussion held under item number 4. . ADJOURNMENT Work Session Minutes May 12, 2003 Page 9 . The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. \ " Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson Attest: {~.h-uJ L City Recorder . .