HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/23/2012 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a joint work session with the Lane County Board of
Commissioners in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday,
January 23, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present from Springfield were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie,
Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City
Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of
the staff.
Present. from Lane County were Board Chair Leiken and Board Members Handy, Sorenson, and
Stewart. Staff members from Lane County were also present.
Commissioner Bozievich was absent (excused).
Commission Chair Leiken read the title of this item. "This was a Matter of Amending the Eugene -
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram, Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram and Text,
Springfield Zoning Map, and Springfield Development Code"
1. Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Phase 1 (Glenwood Phase 1).
Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery introduced this item. He introduced Courtney Griesel,
Management Analyst, and Gary Karp, Planner, who would be leading the presentation. .
Ms. Griesel introduced Planning Manager Greg Mott.
Mr. Mott said this project had generated more enthusiasm than any other project he had seen during
his tenure at the City. He gave credit to the citizen advisory committee (CAC ) who attended 18 -20
meetings, tackling every subject in a very thoughtful way.- The members didn't always agree, but had
agreement on how they would get to the decision points. A prominent theme throughout was
maintaining a sense of place for Glenwood, with full understanding of the depth of potential for
Glenwood due to its location and characteristics. The potential was unprecedented in our metropolitan
area. Their allegiance to the vision developed by the City Council was respected throughout the
process. The visionaries and the realists came together during this process, recognizing that potential,
and that was recognized by the Planning Commissioners. He was encouraged by their tenacity and
commitment, which was reflected in the document prepared by the CAC, which the Planning
Commissions endorsed.
Ms. Griesel presented a power point presentation. She said the project core team met weekly on this
} project for about 3 years, discussing how to communicate and work with the CAC and address their
concerns.
Mr. Karp said the elected officials could ask questions throughout the presentation.
City of Springfield
City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners
Joint Work Session Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 2
Ms. Griesel said the Glenwood area was something staff had been looking at since the mid- 1980's.
Since it became an urban renewal district staff had focused on revitalization, business development,
and infrastructure planning. The community and staff had jointly been looking at Glenwood and how
to make it easier to live, enjoy, access, and develop in a respectful and new way. The current process
started in 2008 following Council direction to make Glenwood a priority. She referred to the timeline
in the power point presentation and noted that we were now near the end of the process.
Ms. Griesel said this part of the refinement update was focused on Phase 1. It included all of the
riverfront areas, as well as the Franklin and McVay corridors. Phase 2 would go through a similar
process. Refinement plans in general were used in staff's 2030 plan. Completion of the City's
residential and housing needs analysis showed that there was a need for 28 gross acres of high density
residential within Springfield. This was a great opportunity to find some high density residential.
Ms. Griesel noted that while looking at Glenwood, staff was also looking at downtown,
acknowledging that downtown served a purpose for Springfield that needed to be different than
Glenwood. Retail might be focused for downtown, where Glenwood offered an opportunity for
mixed -use housing, employment, and innovative design features and development that we had not
done before. The Plan established. a vision for the Glenwood area understanding the densities,;
infrastructure and facilities that would be required to support housing and employment in this area.
The Plan also helped with transportation and infrastructure'planning to support future development.
Another aspect of the Plan was to look at urban design standards, ways to protect natural and historic
resources, and update policies. It was important to make sure that the plans and policies supported
those things, but did not make it more difficult to develop. The next step was to look at system
development charges (SDC) to make sure they aligned with policies in the Refinement Plan.
Ms. Griesel noted that citizen involvement was a huge part of this project. Staff met extensively with
the CAC, held a series of open houses, engaged with the Glenwood Renewal CAC, communicated to
the public, and met with the Planning Commissions. The CAC met 18 times over 3 years, and reviewed
the entire plan. Through this process, great relationships were built although they did not always agree.
The process ultimately resulted in the recommendation of the Plan to the Planning Commissions from
Springfield and Lane County. Public testimony was received during the Planning Commission
meetings which resulted in more dialogue with the Commissioners and the public which resulted in
some changes. The final Plan was now before the City Council and Lane County Board of
Commissioners. The vision had been looked at by staff and outside groups over the course of the last
three years. Everyone looked at it in the same way: connectivity, amenities, natural resources, new
types of urban development, higher standards, and respect for the existing community.
Commissioner Handy asked about "green fingers extending into the community" as noted in the power,
point.
Ms. Griesel said that included things like park systems and natural resources that providing
connections throughout.the entire area. It was important to make sure there was access to open space.
Ms. Griesel noted the tour to Hillsboro taken by City staff, the City Council and some of the Planning
Commissioners. The tour included the Orenco Station and the Streets at Tanasbourne and provided
some designs, parking options, ways to integrate ground floor commercial and retail with upper story
residential or office use, some street designs and utilization of parks in an urban area. She referred to
some renderings of Glenwood that showed the feel of the area.
City of Springfield
City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners
Joint Work Session Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 3
Mr. Karp noted that the drawings were in. the Plan.
Ms. Griesel said plan goals included improved public connections to the Willamette River, open
public spaces including parks, aesthetically pleasing design, mixed -use suitable to unique
development, opportunity for development of a variety of housing, opportunity for businesses to
provide goods and services and restoration and maintenance of ecological areas 'as public resources. At
the same time, it was about celebrating Glenwood and the contributions Glenwood made to the area as
a gateway to both cities and its close .proximity to the I -5 corridor. They wanted to look at this area
with the goal of improving it from a transportation enhancement perspective, making it safe and
accessible for everyone to use, and also a Plan that facilitated redevelopment.
The process started by looking at what conditions currently existed. The first visioning in the
development of Phase 1 was looking at potential street grids, trying to understand densities, capacities
and land uses in the area, and looking at what the riparian riverfront corridor meant for redevelopment.
There was extensive staff work put into the creation of some of the Phase 1 documents including a
wetlands inventory, the Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) inventory, and the residential
land analysis. Through Phase 1, they looked at how to use vertical and horizontal uses, how to use
high density residential in the mix of uses, where employment opportunities could be identified, how
to serve hospitality needs and how to determine design elements.
Ms. Griesel displayed some photos of mixed -use in our area and other areas. She spoke regarding the
different mix -use options to be considered.
Mr. Karp said the retail uses in Glenwood were limited to serving the development in the area. There
were policies in the Plan and in the Code to address that issue.
Ms. Griesel noted there was a need for office' mixed -use and employment. She displayed photos of
other employment mixed -use that was currently in the Gateway area. This area was a good example of
where the design guidelines for buildings worked very well. Regardless of what was going on in the
inside, the outside was attractive for surrounding businesses and residents.
Ms. Griesel discussed Franklin Boulevard and the planned design to make'it a multi -lane boulevard
allowing different modes in different directions. The Franklin Boulevard design was done independent
of the Glenwood Refinement Plan, however was used by staff to reflect and build upon. The new
design managed how connections were made to the north area in a different way. She explained.
Commissioner Handy asked about integrating transportation planning with what was being done in the
Refinement Plan now instead of later.
Mr. Karp said transportation planning was currently happening. The design of Franklin Boulevard had
been approved by City Council and staff was starting on the NEPA study for the design. The road had
various nodes and included transit and pedestrian travel. While the final result would be completed
after the Plan was adopted, the groundwork had been laid.
Ms. Griesel-said the re- design of Franklin Boulevard would not only provide access, but would
provide safer pedestrian crossings. Integration of roundabouts had been used in the Plan for safety
reasons and traffic management. The Bus Rapid .Transit (EmX) ran down Franklin Boulevard to
Gateway, and the multi -way boulevard allowed transit to be integrated into the system with dedicated
lanes. This was also an opportunity to integrate public art and wayfmding.
City of Springfield
City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners
Joint Work Session Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 4
Ms. Griesel said they used the Franklin Boulevard concept and looked at street grids in the Franklin
riverfront area making connections, trying to support redevelopment and also making the area bicycle
and pedestrian friendly. She referred to the map of the area and identified the local collector streets,
main routes along the Franklin riverfront. Staff looked at design elements to slow down traffic and
make bicyclists and pedestrians feel safer. Sidewalks were addressed in the Plan and would be on both
sides of the street, continuous, wide, and set back and buffered from traffic. She explained further.
Parking had been discussed extensively. It was important to find the right balance to encourage
alternative modes, but also accommodate vehicles. The Plan provided flexibility to work with the
developer regarding parking needs. There would still be a need for restaurants and other businesses to
receive daily inventories of goods, so loading and parking areas were addressed.
Councilor Moore said Hillsboro had a lot of alley access. She asked if that was part of this Plan.
Mr. Karp said there could be alleys developed or parking on the streets. He spoke regarding
landscaping and pedestrian scale lighting.
Ms. Griesel said the Plan left some flexibility for the developer. She discussed open space used for
recreation and stormwater quality management. The `green fingers' referred to earlier included two
park blocks that ran through the north/south area surrounded by residential. This allowed those
residential units to call this area their 'backyard'. There were two different uses for the park. The first
was to have activities such as ball fields, manicured lawns, etc. The second was.to handle drainage,
such as a swale with meandering paths. The riverfront park was a long linear park. This park helped to
reconnect our community with the river with a bike path and open spaces.
Commissioner Sorenson asked who owned the riverfront land and how it would get into public use.
Ms. Griesel said it was a mix of private owners.
J
Mr. Karp said if someone came in to do a development, there was language in the Refinement Plan
that a certain amount of that area would be open space which Willamalane could take over in the
future.
Commissioner Sorenson asked if Willamalane taking over as. the owner of the riverfront property was
in the Plan.
Mr. Karp said it allowed them to be, although was not required. It was difficult to say what type of
development would occur. The intent was to work with the developer to. find a plan that worked for
the City and the developer.
Ms. Griesel showed drawings of neighborhood park blocks and a riverfront park.
Commissioner Leiken said a significant property along the riverfront was owned by Oldham and had
been an industrial use that may have some contamination. He asked who would be responsible for the
environmental cleanup.
Mr. Karp said the developer would work out an agreement with the property owner. Before the
development could occur, annexation to the City would be required. Any studies regarding
contamination would need to be agreed upon by the buyer and seller. _Willamalane wouldn't get
City of Springfield
City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners
Joint Work Session Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 5
involved until the development started to occur. By then, any remediation would have already been
addressed by the property owner.
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
handled remediation issues. Cleanup would be based on the use of the property more than on who
owned the property. DEQ had a ,program to work with property owners to help mitigate.
Commissioner Leiken asked if there was something set in terms of the realignment of Franklin
Boulevard to provide some certainty to developers. He asked for an update on the funding for the
Franklin Boulevard realignment project.
Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett said the alignment for Franklin Boulevard was not set with a high
degree of precision, although there was an area for the road to align. There was some latitude of where
it could shift within that area. The purpose of having the area identified was to allow them to make the
best decision for the final design. The City was about to launch the NEPA process which could take
about 18 months. A decision on the project should be ready at that time. The NEPA project was
expected to look at a build/no build option. Jurisdictional transfer was still under discussion.
Mr. Towery said the urban renewal agency could also be involved in the acquisition or development
aspects of some of the public rights of way, bike paths and parks. He noted that City Attorney Mary
Bridget Smith had responded to an earlier question for those that did not know her.
Commissioner Stewart asked about how much flexibility to change there was in the Plan. As an
example, he asked how much flexibility there would be in the Plan to accommodate if the Roaring
Rapids property redeveloped into a convention facility.
Mr. Karp said amendments to the Development Code were being proposed that created a process for
certain modifications, such as relocating streets. It would involve a public hearing process before the
Planning Commission. Since most applications would be. Type 1I Review, this process would fit.
There were mechanisms to make it flexible.
Commissioner Stewart said in the past the City tried to get a developer in Glenwood. At that time, they
found there wasn't demand and it wasn't economically feasible. He asked if that lesson had been taken
from the previous plan and been factored into the new Plan.
Mr. Karp said there were currently two entities that wanted to develop in Glenwood once the Plan was
approved. One presented to the Planning Commission in December and talked about development
costs. They thought they could get through the process without major issues. Through the upcoming
public hearing process, more developers may come forward.
Ms. Griesel said when Apex (the developer referred to by Commissioner Stewart) was looking at
redevelopment, the old Plan didn't extend south of Franklin, so there was no assurance that if they
developed a high end development on the north side, there would be a complimentary redevelopment
to the south. This process allowed staff to respond to that concern.
Commissioner Stewart said some of their concern was that the market study didn't support
development.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the 75 foot setback and if that was the minimum.
City of Springfield
City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners
Joint Work Session Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 6
Mr. Karp said in 2002, the City approved a 75 foot riparian setback. The Willamette Greenway made
the setback line to be the same so they were consistent. The Willamette Greenway coexisted with the
riparian area, which was a no -build area. The second 75 foot setback allowed building as permitted by
the zoning.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to the bike /pedestrian path in that area. He said it seemed unclear about
some of the features required in the setback area. As a developer, he would not like to see additional
encumbrances.
Mr. Karp said the first developers would need to go through the standards with City staff. The City
couldn't force them on some of the features.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to the staff report about peer review and noted concerns.
Mr. Karp said the peer review had been required when this was first drafted. Based on feedback on
peer review, staff had presented the Planning Commission with three options: to keep the peer review
as it was written; modify the peer review; or delete the section requiring peer review. The Planning
Commission voted to modify the process. Now the text read, "the Planning Director may require peer
review ". Peer review was for cases when staff didn't have the expertise and additional feedback was
needed from a professional.
Councilor Pishioneri asked why peer review would be required here and not anywhere else in the City:
Mr. Karp said it would not always be required.
Councilor Pishioneri said the Plan seemed to be full of requirements to dress up the area, but felt there
needed to be a balance. He asked if it could pencil out for developers. He also addressed the finger
parks. In Hillsboro, the parks were 180 feet wide, which he felt was very wide fora park. He asked if
we could look at decreasing that area to 150 feet to account for areas lost to dressing up.
Mr. Karp said 150 feet was for stormwater management. Willamalane was going to require 180 feet
for their parks.
Mr. Towery said the park blocks would be located in the areas with high density residential. There was
a need pursuant to Willamalane's Master Plan for a certain amount of parks and open space for
development, so it served a dual purpose.
Councilor Wylie said being dressed up were the amenities that .developers and consumers were
demanding in modern development. People expected this type of thing when looking for a place to
live and spend money. She was excited about this area and could visualize high -rise residential,
overlooking the river, with grocery, pharmacy, beauty parlor underneath and a park across the street.
They were forward thinking and moving toward modern design spaces.
Commissioner Leiken said Orenco Station struggled in the beginning, with a lot of the issue being the
housing component. He was pleased to hear this plan was flexible. Commercial and business would .
grow before residential. He wanted to make sure the flexibility stayed in place. He liked the multi -use
path along the river and felt it would be a great selling piece for this area.
City of Springfield
City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners
Joint Work Session Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 7
Mr. Karp said 33 of the 268 acres in Glenwood Phase 1 were dedicated to high - density mixed -use.
The rest was office, commercial and industrial. As development occurred on either side, residential
could follow. There was no requirement that said residential needed to go first.
Ms. Griesel said what was different in Glenwood was the riverfront.
Mr. Towery said they had heard that over time the residential component at Orenco Station had broken,
even. Orenco also had a large component of single detached homes, and that was not considered as
part of the residential development in Glenwood.
Mr. Tamulonis said the Orenco Station development had gone through three iterations of
development. Springfield was trying to learn through their mistakes. The housing component staff
looked at towards the transit line could be replicated in Glenwood. Having the river was a positive
amenity.
Councilor Woodrow said she loved the whole concept. She wanted Glenwood to be a destination, not
an isolated area, and she thought it should be marketed as such. She was excited about everything
planned, but didn't want it to be an enclosed area. She would love to see a conference center in
Glenwood.
Mayor Lundberg said this was a primary riverfront property and should be shared. She noted that
Crescent Village, which was designed to be an ,urban village, was now advertising for other people to
visit their restaurants and retail. If Glenwood was a destination, there needed to be-adequate parking. If
we planned for a little more parking, some could be removed, but if there was not enough to begin
with, it could not be added. She noted the challenges of parking in downtown to encourage people to
come. downtown. We were trying to encourage transit, bike and pedestrian transportation, but we also
needed adequate parking for cars. She had come to the point of flexibility with the ability to change as
we moved along. She would like to know how that could be accommodated. She was also concerned
about peer review and about property along McVay which did not have front or side of the building
parking. They needed to have some, even if just a few, parking places out front for those that could not
walk around the building. She would like to keep that option open. She thanked those on the CAC for
their work over the last three years. This was very good work. She agreed that the riverfront should be
available to everyone.
Commissioner Handy thanked staff for the presentation and for the CAC. Our world was changing in
terms of transportation, and we would see an interest in living closer to downtown and near transit.
Business invested in areas where.transit was fixed and the EmX provided that assurance. Some of the
concerns regarding parking would be addressed by the transit system. He asked how the vision would
be reached without having it chopped up in sections.
Mr. Karp said it would depend on what the City could offer regarding incentives and through urban
renewal.
Mr. Tamulonis said the urban renewal district in Glenwood was anticipating additional revenue over
the next few years with a couple of developments that had occurred. That would allow the City to
provide incentives for developers and perhaps some assistance to alleviate some of the problems that
occurred in the past. That would be on a case -by -case basis for some time, and there could be a delay
in some of those things. There were system development charges (SDC's) and credits that could be
applied depending on the development. Staff had been looking at grants. and .loans to help with some
City of Springfield
City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners
Joint Work Session Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 8
of the investment. The City had a small set of things available now and some could be negotiated.
Some of those areas had been identified in broad categories such as infrastructure, roads, sanitary
sewer, and parks. There could be some assistance for housing if mobile home park tenants needed to
be relocated.
Commissioner Handy asked about urban renewal revenue over the life of the district.
Mr. Tamulonis said it was outlined in the Urban Renewal (UR) Plan. When the UR Plan was first
formulated, it was based on anticipated activities. We had not yet seen the revenue stream occur
related to those projects. The Franz Bakery development occurred several years ago, and the taxes
from that development would come on next year. We were slightly behind on those revenues. The plan
that was discussed with Apex only included a small area and no assurance to the developer for the
surrounding area. He spoke regarding property option values which were relatively high at that time,
and noted that property owners had now adjusted their market values for potential developers. Some of
the issues faced by Apex. had been solved by development interest and the new Plan.
Mr. Towery said the Plan contemplated development proposals being processed through master plans
with a five acre minimum. That would alleviate the piecemeal development.
Councilor Moore said she was very excited by the Plan. She asked about parking. She liked going to
events at the Hult Center and parking underneath or in the parking garage. She wondered about issues
of groundwater related to underground parking.
Mr.. Karp said it would be an issue as it would contribute to the cost of a project. Developers would sit
down with staff to go over their plans before submitting them for approval. No studies had been done
initially.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the new Plan would allow someone to put in something like Roaring
Rapids with the parking standards.
Mr. Karp said the parking standards were based on square footage, so there could be a different
amount of parking allowed.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the proposed Plan would preclude something like The Olive Garden,
which generally required a large area for parking, from being developed.
Mr. Karp said the amount of parking was based on the size of the restaurant. If there was a nearby
office building, some of the parking spaces could be shared. He would have to go back and look at the
Plan to provide a'specific answer.
Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted businesses that could do well and wanted to make sure we
weren't prohibiting successful businesses. He also didn't want businesses to rely on neighboring
businesses for spill -over parking.
Mr. Karp said it would be part of a 5 acre master plan and they would look through it. Staff had been
open to getting businesses to a `yes'.
Mr. Barnett said trip generation analysis had been done to address parking and the' mix of uses. In
areas A, B, and C (north of the railroad), they took a 20% reduction in trips based on the mix of uses
City of Springfield
City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners
Joint Work Session Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 9
and the parking standards, including on- street parking. One trip needed to service multiple uses. Some
of the people that lived in the area would not need to drive. It was important to remember that they
justified the 20% reduction in trips based on those concepts. Without that reduction in trips, the trip
numbers were intensifying in the area causing a significant situation under the Transportation Planning
Rule (TPR) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).
Commissioner Leiken asked if Springfield had talked with City of Eugene staff about the Franklin
Boulevard corridor and the connection, especially with the draw of the Matthew Knight Arena.
Mr. Tamulonis said he had been in conversations about the Walnut Street node and redevelopment in
Eugene. Staff from both cities had talked a lot about the implications in those developments. The
corridor in Glenwood would look similar to what was in front of the PC Market in Eugene. They were
already seeing people going to restaurants in downtown Springfield and taking the EmX to the
Matthew Knight Arena, and they hoped to see more.. That was likely to happen on the Eugene side,
too.
Councilor VanGordon asked if that type of trip reduction had been demonstrated anywhere else in the
City.
Mr. Barnett said Springfield didn't have nodal development inside the City, but the information had
been developed from a variety of national studies. Based on the type of land use identified in
Glenwood, a'40% reduction was actually a consistent figure. Staff had opted to be conservative.
Councilor VanGordon asked if Orenco Station demonstrated that type of reduction.
Mr. Barnett said he didn't have specific information on Orenco. There were other Oregon sites
included in the variety of studies reviewed. He said he could find out about Orenco Station and
provide that information to the councilor.
Councilor VanGordon asked how employment and housing could be linked together.. There was no
guarantee someone would work and live in one area.
Mr. Karp said that was correct, there was no guarantee. The hope was that permitting commercial
areas to occur would attract residential. There was no requirement.
Ms. Griesel said from an economic development standpoint,_ they would try to get at that by talking
with developers and businesses that had employment bases with employees that was interested in
nodes and living and working in the same area. Some included things the City could do, but much of it
was market driven.
Councilor VanGordon said the conversation had to be about how to make Glenwood an option
friendly area. All of us were needed to support the commercial sector, and he would like to see what
other development had seen regarding people living and working in the same area.
Mr. Barnett said the studies he had referred.to regarding transportation were measuring that affect,
based on amenities, services, and employers.
Ms. Griesel said they needed to be cautious when looking at studies because Glenwood was such a
unique location. They could find some samples to try to find a balance.
City of Springfield
City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners
Joint Work Session Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 10
Mr. Towery reminded the audience that only 33 acres of the 286 were for residential development.
They were looking for the opportunity and the mix of housing. There was no illusion that all of the
employment would be supported by the residential. One important difference between Orenco Station
and Glenwood was the access to transit. Glenwood had the EmX, and Orenco Station had much less
access to transit. That factor played a prominent role in the trip generation figures.
Councilor Moore noted the many times she and her husband used the EmX.
Councilor VanGordon said many used the EmX in combination with their vehicle.
Mayor Lundberg said the City had always been consistent about having flexibility. This was going to
take a leap of faith, yet the City needed to continue to get information so the elected officials could
make good decisions. This was one of the most brilliant changes in the landscape between the two
communities.
Mr. Karp said the next step was a joint public hearing. That hearing had originally been scheduled for
February 21, but would be moved to March.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield Council Work Session, and Board Chair Leiken adjourned
the Lane County Board of Commissioners Meeting at 7:06 p.m.
Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa
LK/n
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
Amy Sow
City Recorder