HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/2003 Work Session
.
.
.
..
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2003
The City of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 6, 2003 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ballew, Woodrow, Burge, Fitch, and Malloy. Also
present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney
Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Dave Ralston was absent (excused).
Mayor Leiken introduced and welcomed the new Development Services Director for the City of
Springfield, Bill Grile.
1. Amendment to Article 40 of the Development Code, Adding Automobile and Light Truck
Sales to the List of Permitted Uses in the Downtown Mixed-Use Area.
City Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. Mr. Metzger said the
applicant is requesting modification of Article 40 of the Development Code to allow the
continued operations of existing auto-truck dealerships in the Downtown area. The area is likely
to be rezoned to Mixed-Use Commercial in the near future, and dealerships are not among the
permitted uses in Article 40, at this time. At issue is whether the approval criterion found in
Article 8 of the Springfield Development Code for amending the Code are met in this request.
The adopted Mixed-Use Zoning District (Article 40) does not list auto dealerships among the
allowed uses in the Mixed-Use Commercial zone. Existing dealerships in the Downtown are
located within an area designated "Downtown Mixed-Use" on the Springfield Downtown
Refinement Plan map. It is anticipated that the Downtown Mixed-Use area, which is now zoned
Community Commercial, will be rezoned to Mixed-Use Commercial in the near future.
Generally, when a zone change is made and an existing use is not allowed under the new zoning,
that use can continue as a "continuing, non-conforming use." Article 5 of the Development
Code explains how such non-conforming uses are to be treated. In short, the Code allows for the
continued operation of an existing use, but it cannot be expanded or extensively remodeled, and
cannot be rebuilt ifheavily damaged by a disaster. In seeking the Development Code
amendment, Lithia wants to maintain the ability to continue and expand their business in the
future. Plans have already been submitted for expansion at their present location.
The staff report, included in the agenda packet, analyzes various aspects of the code amendment
request. Among the issues considered is the impact of allowing the dealerships to continue when
the Downtown area is being considered for nodal development. Staff has determined that the
dealerships are on the periphery or outside the recommended boundaries of any future
Downtown node.
.
.
.
,.:.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 6, 2003
Page 2
The Planning Commission considered this matter at its meeting on September 16, 2003. The
Commission made some minor modifications to the code amendment for clarity. The applicant
indicated that they were supportive of the Commission revisions in their proposal. The
Commission then voted 5 (for) and 1 (against) to recommend that the council approve the
revised amendment.
Mr. Metzger referred to a map showing the area that will be identified in the nodal development.
Councilor Burge asked how the center of the nodal development was determined.
Mr. Met~ger said transportation centers are generally used as the hub for nodal developments.
Staff used the new L TD Springfield Station on South A Street, which will be completed by the
time the nodal development is in place.
Discussion was held regarding using the proposed L TD station on South A as the hub versus the
existing station at 5th and B Streets or City Hall.
Mr. Metzger noted the issue regarding the alley vacation reverting back to the City if the use was
abandoned in the future. He referred to the map showing this property and discussed alternative
access to the interior lots using a privately owned 20 foot access which would be a de facto alley.
It would still allow access to maintain sewer lines, cable lines, and other utilities. Lithia would
.... have the ability to redefine where the 20 foot access would be located. He said the question is
whether or not the alley should be publicly owned or privately owned. He said the current
agreement lists this alley as a privately owned access way that functions like a public alley, but
Lithia retains ownership. He asked council for direction on this issue.
Mr. Leahy discussed this issue. He said that he called and spoke with Doug DePriest, the
attorney for Lithia, this afternoon. He said that Lithia may be willing to have the additional
condition, which would run with the land, that in the event that the property changes hands or is
used other than a car dealership, that a site review is required at that time. As a condition of site
review the City can require dedication of the alley as configured at that time and they can require
that dedication without the concern of a Dolan application in terms of enhancing or capturing the
transportation that has been lost. He said it seemed like a fair way to do this to guarantee access
to the interior properties.
Councilor Burge said that more modern cities are not incorporating alleys into their
developments for several reasons. Some of those reasons include 1) alleys are a waste of land, 2)
alleys can be dangerous for pedestrians, 3) there is low vision in alleyways, 4) alleys attract
criminal activity, and 5) alleys are not normally maintained. He feels alleyways are no longer
attractive to most communities.
Mr. Metzger discussed the alleys in the downtown commercial areas and the purpose they serve.
He agrees there are problems with some of the public alleys. He discussed the difference
between private ownership versus public ownership and the level of security enforced on each.
Councilor Ballew asked who would record and enforce the deed restrictions if we went forward
with this.
Mr. Leahy said it is a condition of the vacation agreement and would be recorded by the city. He
said because it would be part of the record, any perspective purchaser of the property would see
that language. He said the city would be enforcing it.
.
.
.
..;,
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 6, 2003
Page 3
Councilor Burge asked why we need to negotiate if this is not causing difficulties for the general
public. It seems unnecessary. He feels elimination of the alley is a benefit to the public and the
city. He says that having the alley is detrimental because of the maintenance and security costs
involved.
Mr. Metzger said the original agreement was written to allow the property owner the most
flexibility.
Councilor Fitch noted that she had addressed this issue at agenda review. She would like to see
Lithia be able to do what they need to do, but she would also like to look out for the city's
interest. She is looking at the future and if Lithia does sell some of the property.
Mr. Metzger noted a change on the staff report in the agenda packet. The staff report noted that
the Springfield Refinement Plan mandated maintenance of alleys, but it is the Springfield Station
Area Plan that mandates maintenance.
Councilor Ballew noted residential alleys and the need for them.
Councilor Woodrow asked who owned the alley now and if it would go to Lithia if we approved
this vacation. Mr. Metzger said the City owns it now and it would go to Lithia if we approve this
vacation. Councilor Woodrow asked if the city would have to buy it back if this property was
redeveloped and the city needed it for access. Mr. Metzger said the city would not need to buy it
back and noted the condition in the agreement if the property is purchased.
2. Development Task Force Recommendation.
Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas presented the staff report on this item. Ms. Pappas
introduced Mike Evans, Chair of the Development Services Task Force and City Engineer Al
Peroutka. She said the Development Task Force, under the guidance of Chairman Mike Evans,
has been meeting since July 23,2003 to analyze development review processes in the
Development Services and Public Works Departments. The Task Force is ready to make
recommendations to council on two issues: the proposed Land and Drainage Alteration
Permit (LDAP) Program and the review of Article 31 of the Springfield Development Code.
At later work sessions in October, the Task Force will bring recommendations on two additional
issues: 1) planning fee increases, and 2) process improvements to speed up the development
review process.
This is the fIrst of three recommendations that the Development Task Force will bring to
Council. The Development Task Force will return to Council on November 3 to make final
recommendations on new Planning Fees. In addition, at the October 13 joint work session with
the Planning Commission, the council will hear a report outlining the results from the Rapid
Process Improvement sessions and how the timeliness of development review will be positively
impacted.
One area of focus for the Development Task Force has been an evaluation of site plan review
requirements. After hearing from Planning Manager Greg Mott, the Task Force determined that
Article 31, Site Plan Review, needs to be simplified, because it is an article that is the result of
years of accretion - adding new requirements as was deemed necessary. It is time to take a
wholesale look at the entire article to determine if the requirements for review could be
.
.
.
,..
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 6, 2003
Page 4
simplified. The Task Force is recommending forming a subcommittee comprised of three
members of the Task Force and Planning Division staff.
Mr. Evans gave a brief background of the committee members and how staff has worked with
the committee to make recommendations that everyone felt comfortable with. He said the task
force has enjoyed having staff included in most of their meetings and the dialogue between staff
and committee members regarding the needs of each. Members of the task force were
supportive of a program dedicated to the LDAP process. He said the task force members were
reluctant to raise fees to accommodate that, or to raise fees to hire additional staff. He said the
members are now supportive of the additional funding in the manner proposed. He noted that
there was some concern of giving more money and having it used to create new regulations. He
commended Al Peroutka and his staff and the program Mr. Peroutka has proposed. Mr. Evans
spoke of clear and concise standards, with some flexibility. He said it was implemented in a
cooperative mode and the task force is comfortable with this recommendation.
Mr. Evans discussed the new regulations that have caused staff to get backed up in their work.
The task force discussed these regulations and ways to make the process more efficient. He
spoke of a subcommittee including Monica Anderson, Don Lutes and Mike Evans who will work
with staff to streamline this process. .
Mr. Peroutka said the LDAP program has been handled by a large number of staff who work on
this, yet have many other duties that they are getting behind on. He feels that the proposal to hire
two full-time employees (FTE) staff for this specific purpose, would allow them to streamline
the process and make it run more efficiently. He noted that there was good support from the
committee.
Mayor Leiken thanked Mike Evans and the task force. He said they have a very impressive
group with a varied membership. He said this has been a worthwhile task force. He feels the
next step is taking the recommendations from the task force and moving forward. There are
challenges and council is ready to take on these challenges.
Councilor Woodrow asked about sewer user rate fee increases that were implemented in April
2003 and whether or not this was the fund this money will be coming from. He asked if council
will need to come back in the next year to raise fees again to increase the fund.
Mr. Peroutka discussed the need to increase fees in the future. He said when they put together
their estimate of 2.0 FTE, under current conditions the total amount of subsidies not covered by
fees is about $100,000. He said the additional staff would be funded by many different funds.
He said that if council felt other funds were more appropriate to pay the gap for the additional
staff, council could direct staff to adjust those funds. The program has evolved into looking into
water systems and the task force felt it should be paid by the fund which relates to this. He
discussed the fees for the LDAP permits that would help to cover some of these costs.
Councilor Woodrow feels that many citizens will not want to pay higher sewer user fees to pay
for the staffto work on these LDAP processes. He asked about Attachment II, page 7 of the
agenda packet and the amount of land moved. He asked who reports it and how is it calculated.
Mr. Peroutka said the developer reports the amount of dirt moved. He said staff can get the
formula used for these calculations.
u , " '_
.
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 6, 2003
Page 5
Councilor Ballew said she appreciates this committee and the work they have put in on this. She
said it is city policy to collect 100 percent in fees to cover work, but she would feel comfortable
with the split in costs because there is benefit to the community. She would like to have a good
rational as to why the City is paying for this program to show that all citizens will benefit.
Councilor Burge noted that the April increase in fees was prior to the formation of this task
force. The additional staff costs would only be a contributor, not an instigator, of future
increases. Some citizens may not want to pay additional fees so other homes can be built, yet
that is how new homes are built including those that are already there. He said that some of the
older sewer systems are those we are repairing and yet those homeowners did not pay those fees
at the time those homes were built. He said that people have a right to have new homes, new
theatres, new grocery stores, etc. without being punished by those that are already residents.
Councilor Malloy asked if staff has a good project cost system regarding earth moved.
Mr. Peroutka said staff has a system for permit projects for public infrastructure where a code is
attached to projects which are tracked.
Ms. Pappas said staff is looking for direction from council regarding bringing the LDAP
proposal back to a regular session.
Council gave approval to bring it to a regular session for action.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 pm.
\-
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Attest:
~.~
Amy Sow
City Recorder