Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/2012 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MAY 21, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 21, 2012 at 6:00 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, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Matthew Cox, Planning Secretary Brenda Jones and members of the staff. 1. Wastewater Service Extension Policy Discussion. City Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item. On October 17, the City Council held a Work Session concerning a request from a property owner on Anderson Lane for City assistance with extending a public wastewater main to the property because the on -site septic system was failing. Council requested staff to come back with a broader discussion on the City's funding policy concerning wastewater service extensions, which occurred at the Council's March 19 Work Session. At the conclusion of the March 19 discussion, Council requested an additional meeting to discuss the Anderson Lane request in more detail. As discussed in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, the property owner who made the initial request was able to repair their septic system to alleviate their immediate need. Since staff received several inquiries every year from property owners with septic systems about the process and cost for connecting to the public wastewater system, staff believed that. it was timely and relevant to confirm whether Council wanted to modify its wastewater service extension policy. The Work Session packets from October 17 and March 19 were attached to the agenda packet for background. The focus of this discussion was on the estimated cost for an unannexed property with a failing septic system to connect to the City wastewater system, and potential options for assisting the property owner with that cost. Tonight topics would include those properties not in the city limits, properties abutting city limits and those within 300 feet of city service. Mr. Vogeney said he would be discussing what the total cost would be under current policies and fee schedules to get a property connected to city service. Attachment 1 of the agenda packet provided the background information for a hypothetical situation of a home abutting city limits being served by septic. Page 3 of Attachment 1 provided a summary table describing the different options available and the costs associated with those options. The table also summarized the time it would take to get through this process. A Local Improvement District (LID) process could take 12 -18 months before sewer connection occurred. A Public Improvement Project process could take 8 -10 months. Costs to the property owners could range from $15,000416,000 with the LID process, and $19,000 - $20,000 with the Public Improvement Project (PIP) process. Council had provided staff direction not to have the City finance or reduce charges if someone needed to connect to the sewer. To address a policy that could shorten the time frame of getting a property annexed and .connected to the sewer, they would need to look at a health hazard annexation process. Currently, the City did not have anything in the code for an expedited process for a health hazard City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 21, 2012 Page 2 annexation. The Council could adopt an ordinance that could expedite or shorten that time frame, or perhaps allow a property owner to obtain service prior to annexation with an agreement they would connect once annexed. Other options for discussion could include financing from the City for health hazard annexations. Staff did not recommend that approach as it put the City at financial risk. A third option could include developing strategies around the City's Capital Improvement Program and master planning. Council could provide direction to staff to plan, budget and prioritize projects to start building and extending sewers, with the City being reimbursed when someone connected to the system. That could be scaled back slightly by modifying the scope of the next Wastewater Master Plan update to have a conceptual plan of how to get service to everyone, but not necessarily plan and budget for construction. Something similar was done in 1991 with the north Springfield sewer study showing where all sewers would go to connect all development. Since 1991 a number of improvements had been built, although not necessarily in the location shown in the plan. Mr. Vogeney spoke regarding financing by the City and noted there were advantages and disadvantages in doing that regarding lien position. Staff recommended code amendments to expedite annexations and policy implications of extra - territorial extension of sewers. If sewers were extended beyond city limits, there would be policy discussions needed with Lane County regarding jurisdictional issues. Staff also suggested modifying the next Wastewater Management Master Plan to include looking more broadly at the conceptual service areas. Councilor Ralston felt there should be an expedited process. It was expensive for a property owner to have their septic fail and then hook up to City sewer. He noted the issues in the Cherokee Drive neighborhood and said he was fine partially financing that because of the discrepancies through the years. In general, he was not comfortable with financing although he knew it was a hardship. He wasn't interested in building the system ahead of development. The City was already struggling to find funds for things we needed to build and repair. Councilor Woodrow agreed that there needed to be an expedited annexation process. She wanted more information on the LID compared to financing. She asked if there was a collection involved in the LID. Mr. Vogeney said if the City did a LID and someone chose to finance through that, the City would file lien against that property which would be paid off when the property was sold. The property owner would also make payments to the City at 6% for administration plus the regular interest rate. The LID did provide a financing structure that put the City in the first position on the liens. The other financing options could put the City in a lower position. Councilor Woodrow asked if annexing and connecting to the sewer would increase the value of the property. Mr. Vogeney said it would depend on the property, but generally it would improve their value. When annexed, it also increased the property taxes. It would be difficult to speculate how much, if any, increase in value it would bring to a property. Councilor Woodrow said she felt the City needed an expedited process. She favored the LID process. Councilor Wylie said she would like to go with the staff recommendations and have them bring back more information. That would cover the issues, allow an expedited process and provide more policy. She was not opposed to the financing, but she preferred the LID process. Financing could possibly be offered for a hardship case if needed. She asked about the difference in staff time. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 21, 2012 Page 3 Mr. Vogeney said staff would typically spend more time on the LID process, but the staff time was reimbursed through the total cost paid by the property owners. On the Public Improvement Project (PIP) process, the property owner only paid for the amount of time staff spent working on reviewing the design and inspecting in the field, so it was much less. Again staff would be reimbursed for their time through that process. The City provided the property owner with the option of the LID or PIP process and let them pursue their preferred choice. Many tried for the LID first, but if they were not successful in getting a petition signed by the other property owners, they elected to use the PIP. Councilor Pishioneri said the health hazard annexation should be in the Code. The cost for the LID seemed to be mostly City staff time. He asked if it would be less expensive for the property owner to contract out that work. Mr. Vogeney said it may not be less expensive. For the Cherokee Drive project, the City had staff available. If the work was contracted out, the property owner would still need to pay the City for administering and overseeing a consultant. He felt they got good value for the residents of Cherokee Drive by using City_ staff. Councilor Pishioneri said if a process or policy was set up for future projects, could they be sure City staff costs would always be a benefit to the homeowners or would there be a process to determine at the beginning of a project which would be the best for the property owner. Mr. Grimaldi said it was always the City's goal to bring it in at the lowest possible cost to the property owner. Councilor Pishioneri asked if there was a demand for this right now. Mr. Vogeney said staff had not gone out and solicited people that might be interested. They normally responded to those that came to the City or called with questions. Mr. Grimaldi said the demand happened when there was an emergency. Staff was trying to avoid the situation of reacting to one person at a time and provide ways to respond better when there was an emergency. Councilor Pishioneri asked what type of outreach or education the City could provide. Mr. Vogeney provided the example of the Cherokee Drive LID. That process was started with one property owner approaching the City and canvassing the neighborhood to gather signatures. Mr. Grimaldi said staff was not proposing to market formation of an LID or putting in sewers. Councilor Woodrow asked if the City had data about septic systems that might be failing that were put in about the same time. Mr. Vogeney said it was difficult to get data on condition of septic systems as each one was dependent on the care and use by the property owner. Councilor Moore said she was concerned about the 195 people that were within city limits and were not connecting. She asked if they paid wastewater fees. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 21, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Vogeney said if the sewer was stubbed to their property, they had been paying wastewater fees. A couple of years ago, Council amended that ordinance and those people were no longer paying sewer user rates. Councilor Moore asked if the City was doing anything about preparing to connect them. Some appeared to be fairly simple, yet some were more complicated and costly. Mr. Vogeney said for those properties within City limits, the same policies would be applied for those outside and abutting City limits with the exception of the annexation process. If the property was within 300 feet of the public line, the owner would be responsible to extend the sewer. If they were beyond 300 feet, the City didn't have a program in place to extend the sewer, so would authorize Lane County Sanitarian to issue permits to put in replacement septic systems. Councilor Moore. asked if it would be the property owner's responsibility to extend the 300 feet to their property. Yes. Councilor Pishioneri recalled that the City had done an outreach to those property owners and provided them with an opportunity to connect based on credit of what they had been paying in fees. Mr. Vogeney said that was correct, for those that had a system to their property. Councilor Pishioneri said some of those property owners did take advantage of that opportunity and some did not, but they knew about it and had a specific amount of time to respond. Councilor Moore agreed the City needed to have a policy for those that needed to annex into the City in an emergency situation. Councilor VanGordon agreed with the rest of the Council. As they developed a policy, they might want to look at the annexation fee package. If a group of homeowners wished to annex, there could be a package cost that was less than only one property annexing at a time. Councilor Moore said there were several small islands in Ward 3 that had been annexed into the City that were not abutting City limits. She asked if that had happened in the past when there was a need. Mr. Vogeney said those were done when the Lane County Boundary Commission was in existence and the rules were different allowing annexation of developing properties. Some of those may or may not have services. Councilor Moore asked how properties in Glenwood that had been provided services had been processed. Community Development Manager John Tamulonis said that property was annexed by going through the right -of -way which was also annexed. Sewer extension was offered to several other properties in that area which would have reduced the cost, but they declined. He noted the cost of annexing that property. Mayor Lundberg said she was also in favor of having some type of policy because there were homeowners that would have issues with their septic. She agreed that those living in city limits that were not connected would need to cover the cost of connection when needed. She agreed with Councilor VanGordon about providing an incentive to take advantage of opportunities for groups or neighborhoods to annex. Sewers could be addressed at that time. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 21, 2012 Page 5 Councilor Moore said annexation was a long -term benefit for the City. Mayor Lundberg agreed. She asked if the feedback from the Council was helpful to staff. Mr. Grimaldi asked if there was interest in anything to do with the CIP. Mayor Lundberg said they would like to keep with the current practice. Mr. Vogeney asked if Council would be comfortable with staff doing a more conceptual look at how to serve the areas in the next Wastewater Master Plan update. Yes. 2. Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Phase I (Springfield File Nos. TYP411- 00006, TYP411- 00005, TYP311- 00001, TYP411- 00007, Lane County File No. PA 11- 5489). Planners Gary Karp and Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions conducted a public hearing on October 18, 2011 and continued the hearing on December 20, 2011. Based on the record and the public testimony received, the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the project proposal with 30 text modifications. On January 23, 2012, the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners conducted a work session on the proposed amendments. Issues raised by Councilors and Commissioners at that work session were addressed during the staff presentation at the April 2, 2012 joint public hearing. Following the April 2, 2012 joint public hearing and Council -Board deliberations, the Council elected to close the record and requested a work session to discuss five issues prior to adoption. At the May 14, 2012 work session, Council directed staff to prepare an additional work session discussion on proposed drive - through restrictions in Subarea D, south of the Union Pacific Railroad trestle. Council also directed staff to prepare notice for and schedule a June 4, 2012 public hearing on the limited topic of permitting student housing within the Office Mixed -Use designation in Subarea C. The Council would hold a second reading on the Glenwood Phase 1 ordinance on June 18, 2012. The Lane County Board of Commissioners had a first reading on the amendments on March 14, 2012. At the April 2, 2012 joint public hearing, the Commission chose to delay their decision until the Council action and moved to leave their record open until June 20, 2012. Following the May 14, 2012 Council work session, the Commission elected to hold a public hearing on June 20, 2012. Ms. Markarian referred to page 1 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet which outlined how the drive - through discussion had evolved through the public process. Along McVay Highway they were trying to maintain and enhance through trips, traffic flow and address the need to provide multi -modal accessibility. Page 2 of Attachment 1 went into the reasons why the specific limitations in the exhibit were being proposed. Staff s recommendation was limiting permitting drive - through facilities in the portion of Subarea D south of the Union Pacific railroad trestle as depicted in Exhibit A. That language incorporated changes based on last week's discussion. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the drive - throughs were subject to the ingress and egress to properties. He asked if there was something in this language that articulated the specific distance formula. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 21, 2012 Page 6 Ms. Markarian said the distance was removed. Measures were put in place to ensure that someone crossing from a public sidewalk to a building would have a safe crossing. Councilor Pishioneri said the heart of the Refinement Plan was to cause less conflict with pedestrians and vehicles, yet maximize the ability for a business to be successful and maximize accessibility to businesses to people that had restricted mobility. Councilor Wylie noted the section on page 2 of Attachment 1 that stated, "drive - throughs are designed to attract and serve the automobile and generate excessive automobile trips ". She strongly disagreed with that statement. She could use her vehicle to do a number of errands by using drive - throughs and going to all of those stores and parking at each one would generate more trips and use of the automobile. Drive - throughs were an essential part of the lives of people with limited mobility. She knew they had made an effort to have drive - throughs in other areas. Mayor Lundberg said perhaps they could remove the word "excessive" from that sentence. She didn't' feel there was an issue in a parking lot of a building with a drive - through when she was walking. It's a whole new world trying to combine all of the modal forms of transportation. She felt staff had addressed what Council was asking. Ms. Markarian referred to page 2, Attachment 1 regarding the Student Housing in Subarea C. The original intent of office mixed -use area was to preserve several relatively large sites for employment use. Currently, office mixed -use allowed up to 50% use for other uses including hotels or fire station. The Citizen Advisory Committee extensively discussed educational facilities or university related facilities as employment generators. Council had asked staff about student housing in that area which was a natural complement to those educational facilities that would be permitted. Staff did some analysis regarding transportation trip impacts and how that would affect conclusions for that area. Student housing would generate fewer trips than typical apartments so it would not be an impact of Goal 12 compliance. Staff came to the conclusion that student housing could fit into that 50% allowance for other uses. Councilor Pishioneri said he was not sure he was comfortable with the word dormitories in this section. He felt dormitories were different than student housing apartments. Ms. Markarian asked if he would be comfortable with an apartment with five bedrooms. Councilor Pishioneri said he would not want to restrict the number of bedrooms. He felt student housing was more separate housing, compared to dormitories which shared common bathrooms, living areas, etc. Mr. Grimaldi said dormitories could be seasonal, but student housing was often year- round. Councilor Pishioneri agreed and said dormitories had more transitory tenants than student housing. Mr. Grimaldi said dormitories were normally under public ownership, while other student housing was generally privately owned. Councilor Pishioneri said he felt dormitories could also present safety issues. Councilor Wylie said fire prevention for dormitories was different from apartments and was dependent on criteria. Her understanding was that this provision was for apartments for students rather than dormitories. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 21, 2012 Page 7 Mr. Grimaldi noted that another difference was that older students normally lived in student housing apartments, while younger students lived in dormitories. Councilor Pishioneri said dormitories just didn't fit with the type of atmosphere that was desired in Glenwood with nice development and stable populations. Discussion was held regarding fire suppression in both types of facilities. Ms. Markarian said dormitories were on the City's list of permitted and not permitted uses. They were currently permitted in Subarea A where all the other housing was permitted. Based on this discussion, it might be helpful to hear Council's input on dormitories in that area as well. MayorLundberg said the goal was to have a sense of high density housing. The apartment style living was more what Council was looking for in high density housing for this area. She understood definitions needed to be included as student housing could include a broad range of housing. Councilor Woodrow said dormitories tended to have a common living area. Student housing, as being considered, had more privacy and self - containment. Ms. Markarian asked if there was a legal opinion on whether or not they could restrict dormitories. City Attorney Matthew Cox said they could look into that further and get back to staff. Councilor Wylie said they needed to make sure they weren't too restrictive, but needed the appropriate language. Councilor Pishioneri said communal living was significantly different to living in anonymity. Mr. Cox said it was a good question to determine if high - density housing included dormitories. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa Christine L. Lundberg Mayor tr Attest: Amy Sow City Recorder