Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/26/2012 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY. COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 26, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Matthew, Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Cell Tower Siting Standards. Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. At the December 5, 2011, Council requested that staff provide information about the feasibility of having design standards for cell towers in the City limits. Springfield was one of the first cities in Oregon to draft cell tower standards in 1997. Springfield had 18 cell tower facilities within its Urban Growth Boundary. Seventeen were built between 1995 and 2005. Only two applications for tower facilities had been received since 2005 and only one of those two were built. Based on the trend towards the use of smaller antennas for WTS coverage, it was unlikely that there would be a significant new demand for imposing new tower facilities as was experienced in past years. For the most part, providers in Springfield had replaced and upgraded equipment on existing towers and related facilities to accommodate increased service demand. Springfield had used increasing levels of design review to encourage towers to be built in industrial areas and on public land. Design review for placing towers in industrial/public land may be built using a Type I review process (staff review without public notice) requiring just building permits. Locating towers in commercial areas required Type. II review (staff review with public notice) and Site Plan Review. Placing towers in residential areas required a Type III review process that brought the matter before the Planning Commission (or Hearings Official) in a public hearing. A Discretionary Use process was used which allowed wide latitude on the part of the decision makers to require "stealth design" to minimize the visual impacts of the facilities. This approach had been largely successful. Fifteen of the 18 towers in Springfield were located in industrial zoning districts or on land zoned Public Land and Open Space. Councilor Ralston asked about the cell tower that went in at the Elks and if it was considered residential. Mr. Metzger said that area was in a commercial zoned area. The developer went through public review, and public notice was provided allowing time for public comment. He explained Type I, Type II and Type III review. Of the three towers that were not located in industrial areas, two were located in commercial areas, one at the Elks Club and the second on Gateway Loop; and one was built at the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) electric substation on Game Farm Road, which was zoned Medium Density Residential. He explained the process required for people applying to locate a cell tower. One of the things the person applying to site a tower needed to prove was that they could not locate on an City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 2 existing tower. The City preferred collocation. If it was shown that a new tower needed built and it got approved, the builder must sign a lease agreement allowing other companies including competitors to locate on the same pole. This was an attempt to try to minimize the number of towers in our community. Mr. Metzger said Council had asked for this discussion, so he was open for questions about current policies, issues or other concerns. Councilor Pishioneri asked about conditionally suitable sites that went to the Planning Commission, then to a hearings officer. He would prefer those applications come to Council for review before they reached the level of going to Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). He noted the cell tower that was located at Thurston High School and that the surrounding neighbors didn't have a choice. Mr. Metzger asked if he wanted them to go to the Planning Commission first. Councilor'Pishioneri said it should go through the Planning Commission first to make. sure it passed applicable laws, then to the Council for review and to hear public comment. Mr. Metzger said an application for a tower on public property in a conditionally acceptable location in residential would, if in City limits, go to the Planning Commission first. The Planning Commission would make a decision, and if that decision was appealed it would come to the Council. The other situation that went from the. hearings official to LUBA was because it was located outside City limits. Councilor Pishioneri said he felt sites on public land should come to Council and the PLO should be taken off the preferred site area. The cell tower on the water tower at Weyerhaeuser was good, as was the stealth tower in Roseburg. There was a difference between putting them up in industrial areas and putting them up in commercial and residential areas. He didn't want to see a proliferation of cell towers and billboards. He understood that with new technology smaller and more stealthy equipment could be used. The City may need to loosen up areas in the Code to accommodate for those types of antennae. He also noted that he would be concerned if the proposed realignment of the Metro Plan Boundary would affect the City's ability to weigh in on applications for towers outside. our UGB. He liked the idea of sharing pole sights with other fixtures. He asked if there was a new application in for a cell tower. Mr. Metzger said there had been an inquiry about a tower several months ago, but no application. There were no outstanding applications that could be grandfathered. Councilor Pishioneri said he would like this to go forward quickly. Mr. Metzger said he understood the issue of having a cell tower close to residential. When the policy was first drafted it was unlikely that it was envisioned cell towers would be going in at the high school. These were legitimate issues. As he reviewed the tower standards for Albany, Medford, and Roseburg he found that some had minimum setback standards. Councilor Woodrow said she agreed that it would be beneficial to have a way to run this by the Council. She felt there would be less than minimum concern as they came through. Having read the information, it sounded like there would be less and less requests. City Manager Gino Grimaldi said he understood that Councilor Pishioneri was asking for Council review on an appeal. He asked if Councilor Woodrow wanted a review prior to an appeal. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 3 Councilor Woodrow said it would depend, but she was fine waiting until it had been appealed. She felt comfortable with the process. Councilor Ralston said there could be a way to resolve this by revising the standards. He said having a certain setback could make it less of a concern. He asked if there were current setback requirements. Mr. Metzger said to locate a tower on a PLO without additional review, it needed to be away from the property line of the next property at least the height of the tower. Councilor Ralston said maybe it could be twice as far. He agreed with having Council review before something went to LUBA. Mr. Metzger asked Councilor Pishioneri' for clarification on the Council review piece. Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted citizens to have the right to appeal a decision by the Planning Commission to the City Council, rather than having to go to LUBA. Mr. Metzger said for an application inside City limits,. the Planning Commission had the power to make a decision on discretionary use, but if there was an appeal it would go to Council. That appeal and review was already in place. The tower that was taken to the hearings officials was outside City limits so there was a different tract through Lane County. Councilor Wylie said it looked like there had only been one cell tower built in the last 7 years. It sounded like there may never be another one built. Mr. Metzger said he was not sure about that, but technology was changing and more people were going with the small antenna. In.the City's code there were provisions for a whip antenna to be attached to an existing telephone pole without extension review. He again referred to the tower in the Yolanda area that had been appealed. He said one of the concerns was from a neighbor running a day care who was concerned about electro- magnetic radiation and the health risk. From a federal standpoint, the City was not allowed to consider health risks if the tower was built to FCC standards. Councilor VanGordon asked if there was- an opportunity in the Code to promote upgrade or improvement for current cell towers. Mr. Metzger said there were no provisions for upgrading appearances in the Code. The Code currently required collocating if available. Councilor VanGordon asked if there was a chance the City would run out of capacity. . Mr. Metzger said since 2005, most applications had been to replace or upgrade equipment on existing poles. That was allowed with a building permit. They had not received any applications for new towers recently. If an application were to be submitted tomorrow, it would be under current regulations. Councilor VanGordon said he was not sure this would be a big issue in the future. He agreed with having the ability for citizens to appeal to the Council. Collocation would do a lot to keep the number of new towers very minimal. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Metzger reviewed Council's comments. Some councilors wanted staff to look at how PLO and residential .sites were handled, and perhaps some setback issues in other areas. He asked if Council wanted staff to come back with some recommendations. Councilor Pishioneri said he would like the PLO moved from acceptable to allow Council to see it. Mr. Metzger said they could move PLO to the classification for commercial or residential. . Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted it to be reviewed by Council especially if a tower was going in to a neighborhood. Mr. Metzger said it was possible a new tower could come in, but technology was improving and fewer towers were being proposed. Councilor Woodrow said if the review by Council was in place, they would be ready if an application was submitted. Mr. Grimaldi clarified that Council wanted the PLO to be moved to a Type IV review, meaning it would come from the Planning Commission to the City Council before proceeding. Mr. Metzger said currently residential was Type III, which provided an appeal to the Council. Mr. Grimaldi said if they moved PLO to a Type IV review, they should also move the residential sites to be Type IV as .well. Mayor Lundberg said cell towers were unattractive and unsightly. She agreed that they should move PLO and residential to Type fV. Mr. Grimaldi said another option could be. to legislate some things in those two areas to help achieve the goals Council has noted. That would make it clear to the applicant from the beginning what they could or could not do. Mr. Metzger said federal law didn't allow City to prohibit cell installation if it could be shown that coverage could not be provided another way. The City did have the ability to determine how they wanted the structure to look. . Councilor Pishioneri said there were many dead cell reception spots throughout Springfield especially in the Thurston hills. Mr. Metzger said the construction of the amendments could be done in about six months. Staff would want to talk with the right people to get input. Planning Manager Greg Mott said they would receive technological input. The fallback for applicants was that it could be done but would be more expensive to meet new standards. Applicants might then try to find another location that was less expensive. He was sure they could have the amendments ready in six months. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 5 2. Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Springfield Utility Board Concerning Implementation of the Glenwood Refinement Plan. Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. There were a number of details about the provision of utility service, particularly electric service, which would be affected by the updated Glenwood Refinement Plan, which was before the Council for consideration. Since these details did not involve land use matters appropriate for a land use document, staff from the two agencies had met to reach agreement on those details. The agreement reached at the staff level was represented by the draft Intergovernmental Agreement included as Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. Once the Glenwood Refinement Plan was adopted, staff from each agency would present the agreement for final adoption by the respective agencies. Should the process of adoption of the Glenwood Refinement Plan result in any substantial changes, staff would review the agreement and may make any modifications necessary to incorporate changes to the Refinement Plan before presenting it for formal action. Mr. Mott said he and Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin worked with Bob Linahan and Jeff Nelson from Springfield Utility Board (SUB) on the agreement. They looked at the City's interest to redevelop Glenwood with an overall appearance that was attractive. In Glenwood, form was nearly as important as function and that message was conveyed to SUB. They felt they arrived at a number of collaborative resolutions on issues such as overhead power lines, transformer boxes, etc. One of the principle concerns was cost where the action of redeveloping and providing electrical service in Glenwood was part of SUB's improvement. For the most part, SUB would pay for that. Where it could be more of an optional performance standard, the cost (generally the overage cost) would be negotiated. There were other techniques people could use to minimize the effects. Some facilities needed proper ventilation so some transformers may need to be outdoors. That cost would be the burden of the developer. He noted that the St. Vincent DePaul building had an indoor transformer. SUB was taking this IGA to their Board in May. There were no questions from Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:19 p.m. Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa Attest: Amy Sow City Recorder Pishioneri :sident