Springfield City Council — October 21, 2024

0:05 I'm going to call the work session of the Springfield City Council to order with roll call Mayon here councelor Weber here councelor Mo councelor rodley here councelor Blackwell here councelor Doyle here and councelor pisher here thank you all right we have two work session items this evening the first is the Springfield fiscal stability task force with Nate uh good evening mayor and Council uh back in a September work session I brought to you a five-year forecast and asked for guidance on how you'd like to address a persistent uh structural imbalance uh in our general fund uh the mayor asked that uh staff put together a committee charge for a mayor's task force uh that would look at uh City finances and services uh and provide

0:51 recommendations uh to the council for addressing that structural imbalance uh the guidance from that evening was that uh they take a holistic approach so not just focus on expenditures and the service Level side of things but also to include revenues and economic development and legislative initiatives uh there was also guidance to come up with a list of questions that we would want answered by this committee uh in your packet is that committee charge and about uh Midway through that charge I have a section on deliverables and then a bulleted area of areas that we would want feedback from that uh committee uh my question to you this evening is uh do those uh bulleted areas get you the information that you're going to need uh to inform your conversations on their

1:37 recommendations uh and is there any other additional information that you want me to include in this committee charge Cory so I have a few comments and I don't know that it goes into the charge but first of all I appreciate this I'm glad we're moving forward with it and I'm really glad that we're again you know trying to to get feedback on this um I think one it would be helpful um because I see you say up in there you're like about the like time implementation the 1: two the three to five the greater than five so I think that's going to be an important thing to look at because I you know I always want

2:22 us to like be future focused so what can we do in the short term and set some parameters around what that looks like in terms of is there going to be a fiveyear plan what what does that look like so that's a piece as like I feel like that's important um and then while I was talking about that I forgot what my other piece was so I'm gonna turn it over and see if it comes back to me all right anybody else all right so Jill thank you mayor no I appreciate I think it's actually put together well Nate thank you um and to me I think that looks like a a good path for us to follow and easily

3:08 followed I Believe by a committee and um I think the uh I wouldn't necessarily want them to think that we want to look at a plan that is you know long strategic plan I think the a plan that they can come up with or suggestions they can come up with uh sooner rather than later just because of the timing of our current levies so but otherwise I think it looks great appreciate it thank you I remembered what my other piece was um one of the things that I don't again don't think it needs to be in the charge but just as they get together because I won't be there or a lot of we won't be here is to look at

3:53 other cities and not necessar like we always are like well what is Eugene doing but I would be really interested if there's time to dig into like what are some other cities in other areas how are they looking at this because I know this is a conversation across the state and so it would be helpful to just get some different ideas outside of our region because there might be something that fits Springfield that maybe clim with Falls or atoria or some place is doing so if there's any way to set them up to kind of look at that and not necessarily be like what exactly is going on next door and just to respond to that um you know what we put together we will will tailor to be uniquely Springfield um but you're correct in that other cities are dealing with the same um challenges um Eugene has a task

4:38 force that started back in December and I think is still active right now just looking at the revenue side of things and then Salem also did a similar uh task force and so I'll be looking at both what those communities have done and for ideas to kind of inform our process as well Victoria um thanks so much for putting this together my question is um has to do with how you're choosing the people that are going to be on this um committee and that's my department um sorry goe and was that finish so um the invites are going out in probably mid November we're going to send out the folks that uh that are a letter um um work I'm planning on sending out 12 of them thinking that we're going to get seven

5:23 and nine people that are going to commit to this um when we have so right now we've got uh from an expertise perspective we've got somebody from the budget committee somebody from the banking industry somebody from the timber industry somebody from the healthcare industry somebody from the chamber somebody from one of the local unions um and trying to think if I miss somebody there but a broad swath so if you have more suggestions for people definitely interested in hearing them yeah no I was just curious how that list was compiled because we didn't hear anything about it and so it sounds like you just sort of came up with that or you and the council

6:08 president or yeah so that from a from a um from a committee perspective right like we were doing it as a task force so I frankly like I get to choose who gets to be on there the reason why we we did it that way was to sort of speed how fast we can get to this thing started um and then as I've come up with names you know I've talked to several folks that were on on the council to just basically solicit feedback so there is an opportunity and excuse me there is an opportunity for us to you know look for additional folks if that's what needed to get a get a well-rounded uh view from from the community basically the thing I'm looking for is technical

6:55 skills right to really understand the conversation people who are bought into this Community um that have you know have a desire for this community to succeed and then you know just basically a broad swath from the community all right Nancy I wanted to go back and address councel Radley's question regarding what are other cities doing um I'm aware that currently the league of Oregon cities is looking at this issue as well so that would be another resource that we would want to reach out to um because they've done some preliminary work in that

7:40 regard anybody else have comments okay so from a timing perspective the the couple of things that I had was the invites are going out in November so we'll have a final list of what the committee is looking like probably late November early December keep me honest here Nate I would think the first meeting's probably going to be after the first the year that's the current plan and then the question for where the council could weigh in would be how much report back or would be helpful you know go ahead well first of all are these going to be like noticed in public meetings yes it is a public meeting so people can watch it or they might take testimony and things like that which should be maybe helpful no it's not uh

8:27 required that they have the ability to take or provide people have the ability to provide testimony but it would be open to the public to observe okay um because that's helpful because then if I wanted to lurk about and watch I could um I think for me when you say how much report back this is going to go through June so it would be helpful just to have something like pre-budget because we do our budget in May so I wouldn't need to know every month what's happening but like a here's where we're at going into the budget discussions maybe yeah like uh yeah just a a flyby if you will about some sort of update in between before we start the budget conversation okay go ahead

9:12 Joe I think you either failed to mention or will suggest somebody from the hospitality industry that's who I forgot thank you yes somebody from the hospitality industry um okay Nate did we get everything covered believe so um I guess the one thing I would note that was be in the charge is the only thing that is listed as out of scope is as the fire govern governance conversation which I think you know when yeah yeah exactly but I going into this everything is going to be on the table all right and just for one point of clarification uh to what counil rley asked for um we can provide a report back in terms of just progress and maybe

9:59 some of the kind of uh early ideas that are being put forward um but we're approaching this on a parallel um sort of track along with putting together the fiscal year 26 budget we're going to be starting that in December we'll pretty much have that wrapped up by February um because it'll then take time for us to put together the document that comes to you for the budget committee so we're not looking to this task force to come up with any solutions that we're going to use to um balance our fiscal year 26 it's it's really looking in those outer years that we hope to get some uh outcomes can I hop in yeah and I I understand that I think it's just we we always go in we we always start to like Spiral a little bit when we're talking about that the um the structural

10:46 imbalances and it might be just interesting to just be like okay we're looking at Revenue in this ways or whatever because we do when we go through the budget process we do look out and you know you do your forecast it always just makes us all want to cry um so it might be helpful to just have a little bit of that but I understand that it won't be necessarily informing this year's budget or 26 budget Michelle just to clarify um as it relates to both updates and kind of um where council is going to be asked to weigh in on the the discussion or the recommendations what is your kind of what is your expectation there so whatever the the the whatever comes out of this

11:31 committee right is going to come directly to council as the starting point for our conversation so we will get both you know a a report that comes out of it and we'll probably invite the I would imagine we would invite the committee here to sort of talk to us about what did they talk about why what is their thinking etc etc once we get that report then we're going to talk through whatever that means and decide what goes forward what doesn't what we want to direct the city manager to implement so we would get their body of work get to talk to them and then get to decide how we want to act as a as a body so just just getting we don't necessarily want Council to influence that conversation before the end of the time frame right we want to make sure that that committee gets its opportunity

12:16 to to digest and discuss and and get to the end of that with recommend I think it would be best if you know because the goal coming into this committee is to get uh everything on the table give citizens a chance to just weigh in is to do as little as possible about you until we see the work product and then we'll have a lot of time to kind of weigh in and decide what we want to do go ahead Victoria and just another thing I'm just curious it does it's not on here but are they going to be looking at anything like Citywide procedural ways of of cutting costs are they not looking at the city's like structure of how they have the planning and public works together and that type of thing that for cost savings you know we're going we don't

13:03 have any predetermined outcomes at the onset so that's kind of thing one I think it's important that this committee understands that this is a very open process so those kinds of discussions could come up based on where the conversation goes um we will be providing them information to help give them context and background uh similar to what Nathan does for you all at when we start the budget process to to talk about uh the history of funding with the city and the things that we have done in the in the past and then we will you know so they'll get some background materials that will help lay the groundwork uh for their discussion um and then if they want to have you know depart like say they have a question about a department and want to have somebody come and present to them then

13:49 you know we we can talk to them about that and and and give them the tools they need in their decision-making process and just to clarify so this um committee will come to us sometime in June with their findings to present to us is that correct before recess is that yes um it's a plan right now you know leaving it open to the possibility that when the committee comes together they may have an idea of what type of timeline that they'd like to give in terms of their time but as it's uh currently scheduled you know we're looking at meetings scheduled from January uh through May uh providing staff with some time to put together report for the committee to U roof that report and then get something to you before you go on your summer

14:38 recess all right I think we're good thank you Nate thank you all right next item is temporary RV occupancy update with Katie good evening everybody um Katie car housing analyst for the city here to give you an update on the city's temporary allowance for occupying RVs on private property and to get some direction on how the council would like to move forward um we also have Charlie Kent here from code enforcement to help answer any questions yall may have from their perspective am I okay oh

15:24 sorry you would think I hadn't been here before um okay perfect so first some background in October of 2020 the council adopted a resolution um that suspended temporarily suspended enforcement of development and Municipal Code Provisions that otherwise would not allow someone to occupy an RV on private property with in the urban growth boundary and so what that allowed for was for RVs to be used as temporary housing when they're parked on private property and in compliance with a set of guidelines the council adopted that cover topics like citing trash um sanitation facilities those sorts of topics this does not apply to RVS that are located in the rideway in manufactured dwelling parks in

16:10 campgrounds or that are participating in the overnight parking program and the council originally adopted this to respond to displacement from the holiday Farm fire to the covid pandemic and to the regional shortage of housing in May of 2022 the council uh checked in on the program and directed staff to continue it for another year and asked to have staff bring back an estimate of how many RVs were being used in this way so staff came back in September of 2022 um with some options for collecting that data the most feasible um seemed to be the registration system just based on capacity um and so Council directed staff to put that in place so to that

16:57 end in December of 22 the council adopted an updated resolution um with the guidelines now requiring folks to register with the city to host an RV and then um Council asked staff to come back and report back in Fall of 2023 so staff provided um a communication packet with updated information on the registration so registration data and then also um results of a survey that we put together as part of that registration so um when someone registers to host an RV we collect information for the RV occupant and send that survey out um so we were able to report on that fall of last year at that time we did not have

17:43 updated code enforcement data uh due to um a staffing shortage in the program and a resulting a backlog of complaints so talking a little bit about the data that we have um the city collects three three kinds of data related to RV occupancy on private property so code enforcement complaints property owner registrations and then those occupant surveys um there are limitations to this data that I'll highlight briefly um that are also outlined in the memo so kind of the big takeaway with that is that um we're Limited in terms of Staff capacity and other City priorities so it's we don't really have the data um that would give a more complete picture of how many

18:28 RVs are being occupied in this way and whether or not all those RVs are in compliance with the guidelines um but we do know anecdotally that there are more RVs being used in this way than what's being captured by this data so looking first at code enforcement complaints um this number the 37 complaints is from December of 2022 when we started that registration requirement through the end of September of this year and what this captures is any complaint where in the summary so like the what the complaint is it talks about an occupied RV um and at at the time of the complaint

19:13 only one of these addresses was registered with the city to host an RV so what that tells us is that we're not getting complaints about RVs that are in compliance with the guidelines because we only had one of those that was registered um something I do want to point out is that complaints are not the same thing as violations so a violation is determined when code enforcement actually goes out um and looks at an issue and determines whether or not the RV would be in compliance with the guidelines and that information about violations is basically just really prohibitive for us to be able to collect um given the staff time it would take to pull that data out um additionally something I think that's important about this particular

19:58 data is that code enforcement is prioritizing its response to the most egregious complaints that deal with health or safety issues so often complaints about RVs do not sort of rise to that health or safety concern um so they're being addressed as resources allow um some good news about all of that though we are getting um new code enforcement software I think the council maybe's been briefed on this in the past um and once that's put into place we'll be able to um drill into some of that code enforcement data um more precisely moving forward so being able to see violations not just code complaints um but again that will be forward-looking data not looking backwards so the second type of data

20:45 that we collect are these property owner registrations um so this registration system is available both for people that are currently hosting an RV or for people that are interested in doing it and just want to kind of cross their team um so since December of 2022 when we started that registration system we've had 33 addresses register with the city 24 of those indicating that they were currently hosting an RV on their property and then finally these occupant surveys so every time someone that registers saying they're hosting an RV says that I'm currently hosting one we collect um contact information for the RV occupant and send out this survey it's also a ailable on the website though so there may not be kind of a

21:31 precise matchup between registrations and survey responses um we've received 20 of those survey responses so far um the full results of those are attachment to in your packet and there is um an open-ended response there I think we have about 10 open-ended responses if you're interested in looking at those um kind of big highlights of that is most people that responded to the survey said they were not displaced by the holiday Farm fire um so where that might had been something that was happening more when the council first put this in place um not as many people still being impacted by that um most people responded that they do have access to water electricity sanitation facilities and garbage on the property um and then responses about whether or not folks

22:17 were paying rent was more divided about half people said they weren't and about half said that they were or sometimes were paying rent so then turning to some options so the reason that I'm before you with some options is in the past the council had indicated that it wanted to gather some more information and then revisit its options for moving forward with this temporary allowance so I'm going to present sort of a range of options and then some considerations with each of those um this first option would just be to continue as is um which would be this resolution that suspends enforcement of Provisions that otherwise wouldn't allow RV occupant um code enforcement doesn't really have

23:02 any suggested changes to the guidelines um if Council wants to go this direction however County staff has reached out and said it would be helpful to clarify that an RV can't be parked over a septic system because that can cause damage so if Council wants to move forward with this option we would just bring back um amended guidelines with that addition for your consideration um this system is a little bit more challenging for code enforcement to do its work with because they don't have any code Provisions that they can site to um so if it's an issue that's covered somewhere else in the code like maybe excess trash outside of the RV code enforcement's able to address that but if it's something like this registration requirement that isn't in the code um there's nothing for them

23:48 to site to and subsequently defend in court if they were to need to um and this just creates more of a black and white path way of enforcement so rather than focusing on bringing people into compliance it creates this more um like occupancy of the RV can't be allowed um okay so then option two would be to allow RV occupancy by ordinance um so this would be folding this into the municipal code um there are a few different ways this could be done so staff would schedule a subsequent work session with Council if it wanted to explore um this option further and kind of weigh the different

24:34 ways that we could do this um what I do know at this point is that the guidelines could be folded into the code or they could still be adopted separately via resolution which would make them easier for Council to amend and then either way um the council could put a sunset provision into this if it wanted to explore putting this into the code um if Council went direction we would need to talk with Lane County about how to manage this in the urbaniza area um because the city cannot enforce municipal code in the urbaniza area without an intergovernmental agreement with the county um and then this would be easier for code enforcement to do its work because there would be language that

25:20 they could site to in the code um however it doesn't impact the capacity of the code enforcement team so that's still a limiting factor there and then finally the third option would be to end the temporary RV occupancy allowance so uh code enforcement would just resume enforcing the code Provisions that we already have in place that would mean that this um isn't an allowed use um if the council wants to go this direction staff is suggesting at least six months to Sunset the allowance to give us time to reach out and um let property owners that have registered know and just do some wider Community noticing um there is potential with this option that um the city could

26:05 see increase code enforcement calls as people learn that this isn't un allowed use anymore um and it may also push some folks into the right of way which would then become the jurisdiction of the police department to address um and so that is what I had for you all happy to take any questions and move towards this Joe uh thank you Sean mayor sorry um so just to for to put it in context most everybody a lot of folks in this room were not here when this was was crafted and it was crafted specifically addressing the fire the fires um that we

26:50 were experienced in September of that year and coupled with Co and that's correct it was a it was basically a crisis is saying the co was was an answer to many businesses shutting down and people getting laid off and jobs uh folks were just losing their jobs and people were scrambling to be able to find places to live and unable to pay rents Etc so it was put together in regards to as an an emergent response uh for a crisis and it I believe it actually worked quite well and it served its purpose for that uh that being said um and I I think you know I agree um I agree I agree with you Katie and when it

27:36 comes to uh your suspicions or at least it's my suspicions as well that the responses to the survey um were indeed that the uh influenced by the conditions that have changed more currently as opposed to when they were first when it was first brought up the allowances were allowed so I think that the the the weather system is completely different um and I and I so I don't think the survey shows uh relative information or information that would be directly relative for the reason for the the allowance was placed in the first place so I uh I support ending the allowance it was a temporary allowance in fact it was only supposed to go year but conditions changed so we we extended it

28:22 Kick the Can down the road um but we're we're past that now I don't see the emerg need it's not supposed to be a permanent fix to housing um so I would recommend that we end it and go with the six month Sunset and move forward from there and reset the clock on on on our current or ordinances without this variance yeah I'm just I'm just curious to this if if this was to um go with we we um agreed upon it going away is does the city have any other kind of policy or ordinance that allows for some type of special use permit in the case of like a caretaker or someone's house

29:08 burns down maybe it's notop holiday fire but some instance is there anything that's so there's a medical hardship allowance in the code that I think Sandy would be better able to address specific reasons but there I do know one component of that is someone needs to have a doctor's note from a medical Prof professional as part of it so it's it's a higher bar to reach for that but it does involve I believe a registration Mark never mind Mark's coming up come up Mark please because I think more of us have that same question great um basically K Katie answered your question I think quite

29:53 well that is true that there is an existing provision in the code to allow for medical hardship RV use that pre-existed it was always the case prior to this exemption being in place so somebody can apply I don't I'd have to look at the code for sure I don't think it's a a discretionary use permit it's actually fairly straightforward process but they do have to provide that documentation and I think there's a small fee I don't think it's very large all right anybody else Victoria so I know I wasn't here when this was put in place and I understand what the reasoning was for it but I do think we also have to consider

30:39 that the economy and things have also changed and we we are dealing with some issues where um multiple families are living together and um I found it interesting that only one of the complaints in it in the uh um information that you gave us was actually one of the ones that was registered I would be more um inclined to lean towards option two making this making it codified and allowing people um and not pushing them out to the street um and allowing people on their own property and City Limits that want to house um family or whoever um to be able to do so um but to have guidelines and to have it codified so that we have a means by which to um actually have

31:26 code to refer to in terms terms of um violations so that is just my feeling on it thanks um so I think that um and I I was like where do where do I enter this conversation uh I think that recently um because I was looking at like what would it look like in terms of you know coordinating with Lane County and I think that Lane County finally Rec L um and if I'm lying somebody can tell me I'm lying um has had passed an ordinance or an order or whatever they do so that people could have RVs on property in the county areas and it took a while to get there um you know I agree

32:13 with councelor Doyle I think that maybe the conversation has changed in terms of at first it felt like this immediate reaction to the um the fires however we get to see these like the numbers of um and the the the work that's coming down from the state from the governor to try to get people into transitional housing um get roofs over people head get people sheltered and and expanding that know there's conversations about how do we expand the car camping just what what does it look like to make sure that people are not on the streets and I think if we're going to do that responsibly moving it to into ordinance makes sense because then we're getting better data and we have rules and it's

32:58 less Loosey Goosey um and and I'm totally open to having a sunset provision or we come back and revisit it provision um because hopefully we're going to you know make a dent in some of the the unhoused and be able to not have this be an ongoing thing but I'm would like to lean towards to Victoria yeah I don't even think this is I mean maybe some of it is the unhoused but I think that we also are just seeing that people aren't making enough money and that families are having to combine that you know kids are having to stay at home and parents are having to move in with their kids and things like that so I don't think this is necessarily all about homelessness I think it's also just about the family Dynamic and the cost of living today and trying to buy a home and that you know

33:43 we are blessed in Springfield to have larger Lots than they do in Eugene um and so um I just want to look at it from that point as well that it's not just about the homeless Michelle okay just a just a few things after kind of hearing what people's thoughts are um so either way no matter what we do it sounds to me like it's a strain on Code Enforcement based on staffing issues so it doesn't really matter which option we pick in that regard right it's it's an issue no matter what um I appreciate councelor pisser's comment that this was not intended to be a solution to the housing crisis um but the reality is to councelor Doyle's point we do have

34:28 families that are struggling right and people I I I have a hard time pushing more people out onto the street if we can find a way to not do that I would prefer to do that but I do want to make sure that we're you know we're not causing our neighbors um frustrations and and concerns and you know I mean we need to definitely keep some some um guard rails around that and and set some expectations for people to to fall our you know our our expectations on how how things work and how they how they behave and be good neighbors and all of those

35:13 things I just wanted to ask a question because I wrote a note if we went with number two and we went through the process of creating an ordinance is there a public hearing that goes along with that got that far if we got that far okay yeah you could um it's probably not required by the charter or statute but if um it would certainly be done at an open meeting it would require the two readings so there would be business from the audience opportunities for sure and then um leadership could direct us to have a public hearing as well okay thank you Joe thank you I appreciate what's being said and I'm not ignorant to that condition and those type of circumstances that people are suffering I I do understand and I do uh sympathize

36:00 with that um however I'm looking at the the data and we've got we had a total of 33 registrations Citywide so we already know I I can say confidently that we've got more than 33 RVs sitting on private properties number one so we got we don't have compliance there number two is that we have almost half of them are being charged rent which is counter to what we put in place they're not allowed to charge rent but yet people are getting charged rent and then I'm looking from the code enforcement perspective and it is it is almost impossible for them to do anything about it um as far as enforcement is concerned it's it's it's from the eyes of enforcement it's either

36:46 they should be allowed or not allowed and if they're allowed then I start looking from the neighborhood perspective in regards to people that are next doors to a place that has an RV parked there and got their sewer hooked up and electrical and water Etc and then you have neighborhoods that believe that anything is okay and now they're faced with looking at RVs in their neighborhood and they may not even be registered or they not even they may not even be in compliance so to me it's it's we either have it or we don't and if we have it I don't know how you're going to construct it or put it together to where it's going to be easily managed so so far there's been hardly any compliance whatsoever and good luck on that so I I

37:34 need to we need to look at from a higher perspective as as opposed to you know the other people that's affected by what we are allowing so that's again that's why I oppose that I'm looking at property values everything it's it's it's it's got a lot of different waves out there or triple effect to the neighborhoods too Victor um RVs are allowed to be parked next on a person's RV pad aren't they whether they're being used or not yeah I are there limits I'm sure they limits they can't be in the front yard setback they would have to be tucked back basically behind the front of the house so like on the RV pad on the side of a house that's right okay and didn't you

38:19 say that the reason one of the most difficult things about code enforcement was that there isn't a mechanism for them to ver ver ify the registration right there isn't something to them to call to yeah I mean that what happens is and I can be correct if I'm wrong here but that they send out a letter and says hey you need to register for this but beyond that if someone didn't register there's not really anything to go back and have teeth with that but there would be if we it was codified and they had something to yeah I think that's something we could explore that we've talked about some and if I could just add to that and Charlie's here if we need his backup for code enforcement but um part of the issue even if we do have an ordinance in place to rely on it's a priority prioritization issue sure as

39:04 councilor pisher referred to just priority wise in terms of all the different code enforcement complaints we get um they would likely a lot of them would fall to the bottom of the priority list so it still be difficult to get to them all to address them all okay I was just trying to I was trying to figure out if people are complaining about somebody having an RV on their RV pad that whether it's occupied or not I mean I don't it sounds like there was 33 in the last 2 years um and I don't know what those complaints specifically were on but I'm just I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around how that's different like one of the things we see with occupied RVs is an RV is not built or intended to be lived in as a dwelling and they they break down quicker with that intense level of use they're built

39:51 and meant for recreational occupancy so when somebody lives in them fulltime they deteriorate all right um I think there's enough support among Council here to to schedule actual work session to have a further discussion that's that that's pretty clear about it here's my um when I read the packet I had a couple of concerns that jumped out one of them was that the RVs really are not intended to be permanent shelter for folks and I recognize that we are in a in a housing crisis and that we've got you know and I I thought the council did a very good job of describing what different families go through and trying to and I'm listening for that sort of balance that said okay this isn't this isn't

40:37 this was really intended to be an emergency uh response to a situation versus you know a a permanent situation where we're we're adding permanent housing so that's one thing I'm I'm kind of looking for I think the other question that would be helpful and recognizing that that you're talking about people's homes and you're talking about private here but if we could get in couple of examples if you know a picture of something what that um that we're actually sort of seen in neighborhoods and how this is actually being executed I think that would be probably helpful for this discussion um and then yeah I mean I I think we we want to start with those couple of you know couple of questions um and then the other piece that I'm thinking about is

41:23 if we codify the program right is that how much what is our tolerance for having you know more RVs out there there's 35 registered today and if you know if we codify the program are we talking about a thousand out there are we talking about 1500 out there right like what is what what is our tolerance through our neighborhoods to sort of address that that broader issue and I don't know how we work through it but I think you work through that conversation in in a work session um and um and I think lastly would be more information from PD from the information we have today it does not sound like or I guess it would be code enforcement since it's on private property it does not sound like we're act we've actually responded to any um

42:10 code complaint specific to something that had permit to work did I read that right a permit there was like registered with with with the program yeah I mean there have been a few that subsequently someone registered um so yeah but there's just the one that had been registered at the time okay I'm I'm seeing a head nod from code enforcement in the back so I think that's the signal that we got it right um yeah like if we can and then I'm sure you you're going to have a set of questions that we would have to discuss to come up with a if it was going to turn into a program and just give us a little it sounds like we just need a

42:55 little bit more space to run at this a little bit and figure out where we where we want to land all right that sounds good thank you all right thank you that was the last item so we are adjourned until 7 o'clock until 7 o'clock I'm going to call the Springfield City Council Reg session to order with a roll call Mayor Van Gordon here councelor Weber here councelor Mo here councelor rodley here councelor Blackwell here councel Doyle here and councelor pisher here please showing me in the pledge

44:06 there are two times designated for public testimony this evening under public hearings and business from the audience if you are attending in person please complete the request to speak card located at the front council chambers and turn them into the city recorder if you're joining us with tablet smart phone or computer and wish to speak at either of those times please use the raise hander hand feature in Zoom the order of public testimonies is as follows anyone in the council chambers and then anyone with a raised virtual hand first item please mayor the first item is the consent calendar like to make a motion to approve the consent calend no could call a vote please yes councelor Weber yes councelor Mo yes councelor rodley yes councelor Blackwell

44:52 yes councelor Doyle I and councelor pisher yes motion pass six yeses zero NOS next item please next item is public hearings you have two public hearings this evening public hearing number one is annexation of territory to the City of Springfield Annex at 22t wide by approximately 1,220 ft long linear Panhandle driveway located at 5353 Ivy Street that's map 18- 02- 04- 0000 and portion of tax slot 307 this is ordinance number one an ordinance annexing certain territor vacant Panhandle extension of property formerly addressed as 5353 Ivy Street and identified as assessors map 18- 02-

45:37 04- and portion of taxlot 307 to the City of Springfield andam Lane Park and Recreation District withdrawing the same territory from the Willakenzie rural Fire Protection District adopting a severability clause and providing an effective date this is a first reading no action this evening and Andy limbert is here for this item thank you Neil um because the staff person who's responsible for the PowerPoint didn't get it to Allison in time I'm going to get her to assist me with a uh map Spring View of the property that's uh proposed for annexation this is a 22 foot wide strip of land that was essentially on the border between the previous Pinehurst Subdivision on the East which is fully

46:22 developed and the developing Woodland Ridge Neighborhood on the west counselors may be asking why are we here why haven't we've seen this annexation of this area before um unfortunately the time that the bulk of the Woodland Ridge property was annexed it was under a different ownership and the owner did not wish to participate in annexation at that time since the main body of the Woodland Ridge Neighborhood to the West has been annexed the developer of that neighborhood has acquired the property uh the portion that contains or contained an existing residential dwelling was already annexed so it's just the driveway essentially um 1,220 ft long approximately that is a gap

47:09 between the two neighborhoods the one that's developed and one that's developing it is necessary to Annex this property for a couple of reasons firstly the extension of Pinehurst Street and Holly Street are necessary to complete the transportation infrastructure for Woodland Ridge there are utilities that are stubbed out in the Pinehurst neighborhood necessary to be extended Westward to serve the future development phases of Woodland Ridge and it's not desirable to have a 22ft gap that is essentially kind of a No Man's Land uh between development phases so this allows the area to be incorporated within the subdivision area for Woodland

47:54 Ridge staff did post the site uh there was notification provided to the neighborhood um undoubtedly the neighborhood is familiar with a number of the development applications that have been um submitted recently so there was no response provided um either written comments or any telephone calls um I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have but uh this will essentially complete the uh development framework for uh Woodland Ridge to allow these public streets to be extended and there's a a map um showing this linear area uh that will be incorporated into future development phases of Woodland rich neighborhood go Joe thank you mayor uh Andy the this driveway of course it's

48:39 a north south driveway and then the residents at the if you can move the map down just a little bit or somebody can the uh the re thank you that residence that's on a island or appearance of an island to the north that one yes so I as far as access and future access it's a rather large piece of property it looks like it may potentially could be subdividable because of the square footage of that property um access that property is that that the North or is that that West East block on the North End of the of 54th South 54th that they will have access to that property or at least enough access to uh get into that land if it's gets subdivided

49:26 sure um you are correct uh councelor pisher the property that you're pointing out um is going to be incorporated within um I believe it is Phase seven of Woodland Ridge it will be subdivided into Lots uh South 54th Street will be extended northward and Arc Westward to join up with uh what is referred to as um Cedar View Drive which is extending from the West to the east so that will complete a transportation link uh within kind of the southwest corner of that property um the the the house will not be retained on the site um so um the the lot will be further subdivided or or

50:11 divided up uh into residential development Lots counselors may be familiar with a land exchange um that was brought forward um a couple weeks ago several weeks ago now by the city surveyor um there's a rectangular piece of property at the North Northern end of uh South 54th Street um that's right away uh Council agreed I believe agreed to uh disposition of that to allow for uh future extension of Holly Street and Pinehurst Street and that area would be um eligible for incorporation into the development area so 1254 Street will be extended northward and then and then curve Westward um in this area okay thanks and I figured some of

50:56 the would be addressing that for sure but I just hate to have to come back to this down the road and still have to do more work to it so thanks appreciate it you're welcome yeah you it's a good thing to point out this the staff and the developer didn't want to leave any um potentially developable portions um isolated or orphaned in this and that essentially completes the picture uh for that for that area of of Springfield once it's all developed all right any other questions all right then I think we're ready for the public hearing I'm going to open the public hearing I don't have any cards for this item Neil do we have anybody online I don't see any hands for this item okay I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing this is first

51:42 reading only no action tonight next item please next item is public hearing number two is Springfield development code Amendment annexations um this is ordinance number two an ordinance amending the Springfield development code related to annexation adopting a severability clause and a and a um savings clause and providing an effective date this is a first reading in no action Haley Campbell is here for this item good evening councilors and mayor um as Neil mentioned this is the first reading for this uh code amendment project but I came to you uh last month to for a work session so first public hearing let's get

52:33 started so why is Springfield amending the annexation section of the development code this project would amend the annexation section of the Springfield development code in an effort to enable efficient timely review that aligns with state law the Amendments will clarify the application and initiation types it amends Springfield development code 5.7.1 125 for initiation method requirements and application requirements to clarify what documents are required for the various annexation applications it improves efficiency and timeliness for staff and officials to process applications and make a decision changes to Springfield development code 5.7.1 15 provide an option where an

53:19 annexation does not require but may go to a public hearing it removes redundant terms in Springfield velopment code 5.7.1 3 and addresses appropriate processes in Springfield development code 5.7.5 what is annexation annexation is the process by which properties outside the city limits become incorporated into the City and thus can receive city services the Springfield City Council makes the decision whether to approve an annexation request as we heard from Andy this evening if approved the uf1 or urbaniza Fringe overlay zoning District no longer applies for example if your

54:04 property is currently zoned R1 uf1 once annexed it will be zoned R1 some service providers also change upon annexation for example if the annexation area is within a water supply District or rural fir District the city will process a request to withdraw the annexing territory from the Water District or fire district if the property is not already within Maman Park and Recreation District service boundary it will be annexed into the district at the same time the property is annexed to the city the first topic we're going to talk about tonight clarifies the three main types of initiation methods for

54:49 annexation they are owner consent triple majority and double majority in the code to understand the differences between the types consider that an owner consent annexation is when all of the owners and not less than half of the electors consent to an annexation a triple majority is when more than half the owners who also own more than half the land in the contiguous territory and represent more than half of the assessed value of the property consent to the annexation a double majority is when a majority of the electors and owners of more than half the land can sent to the annexation note that city council May initiate annexation of public rideway or other public land contiguous to the city

55:40 limits topic two covers Springfield development code 5.7.5 review this section was amended by adding three types of owner consent annexations which do not require a public hearing unless Council chooses to defer action until after holding a public hearing it includes a review process for double majority and triple majority annexation applications and for consistency and Clarity we move the recommendation to city council and appeals process to this section as they are part of the review process following the city council work session on September 16th 2024 the proposed code amendments Incorporated the council's recommendation which include a few options where no public

56:26 hearing is required for owner consent annexations as you see on the screen the first option A is when the territory is a single lot or parcel zoned R1 and designated ldr that is less than 10,000 square ft or B for territory that is served by a failing septic system or C when the territory does not include the hillside overlay District flood plane overlay District or contain a water quality limited water cour locally significant Wetland or riparian area however the exception to a public hearing for a single Lotter parcel under 10,000 square ft in the R1 district and designated ldr or for territory with a

57:11 failing septic still applies regardless of if the property contains a natural resource or natural hazard in that case no public hearing is required most an ations include withdrawal from a Special Service District such as rural Fire Protection District or a water district that are subject to the public hearing requirements in OS 22252 withdrawal can be done concurrently with an annexation that is adopted after a public hearing or any time after the annexation under the process in OS 22252 the withdrawal has notice requirements similar to an annexation public hearing for newspaper notice and

57:56 posted notice Springfield development code 5.7.1 160 withdrawal from special service districts has been simplified and clarified to distinguish the types of withdrawals from Special Service District options to clarify the review procedures that apply to withdrawal of territory from Special Districts and to provide public hearing notice requirements topic three is about Springfield development code 5.7.1 125 annexation initiation and application submitt the section was amended by breaking down the initiation method and application requirements by application

58:41 type pursuant to either owner consent double majority or triple majority again following the city council work session on September 16th 2024 the proposed code amendments shown in attachment to in your packet tonight Incorporated the council's recommendation that notice is given to owners and occupants within 100 ft of the perimeter of the property to be annexed the requirements in the existing code is that notice of a public hearing is mailed to owners and occupants of properties located within 300 ft of the perimeter of the property to be annexed the minimum requirement in state law according to OS 197 .

59:27 7972 for a local quasi judicial land use hearing requires that notice of the hearing is provided to the applicant and to owners of property within 100 ft of the subject property to be annexed where the property is wholly or in part within the urban growth boundary you may be asking what standards were not changed with these code amendments the first is the criteria for approval in Springfield development code 5.7 .40 the second is the zoning section in 5.7.1 15 unincorporated land within the ugb is distinguished from Land within the city limits by the addition of the Urban Fringe overlay District or uf1 the uf1 overlay district will continue to

1:00:14 cease to apply and the current zoning will apply when annexation approval is granted and the third is that annexation is voluntary the amendment to the Springfield development code are subject to a set of approval criteria noted on the screen based on the staff report and findings the code amendments are in conformance with the metro plan and Springfield comprehensive plan are consistent with applicable State statutes and are consistent with applicable Statewide planning goals and administrative rules thus the applicable approval criteria are met next steps this request is reviewed as is a type four legislative Amendment to the Springfield development code

1:00:59 which requires review and a recommendation by the Planning Commission and Adoption of ordinance by city council the Springfield Planning Commission issued a recommendation on August 6 2024 the next step is this public hearing Council may decide if they should continue the public hearing to allow for additional public comment or close the public hearing if Council decides to close the public hearing staff requests that they begin deliberations to determine if there are any desired changes to the recommended amendments the city's council is scheduled to hold a second reading for adoption on November

1:01:44 4th are there any questions before I open the hearing all right I'm going to go ahe and open the public hearing I have one card um for this item it's a leyah hey there um aliia ABA uh 3120 Oriol Street um so I am here same thing I've been here for since uh around June uh to ask for um more consideration instead of less when it comes to annexation code changes um I will say I'm a little surprised to hear that after the work session um it was dropped back from 300 to 100 because during the Planning Commission meeting um there were quite a

1:02:30 few neighbors here there were quite a few comments people were not in support of that so I'm kind of surprised to see that it changed I don't think anyone thought it was going to change after the uh Planning Commission meeting so you may not get a lot of feedback on that because people weren't aware that that had changed since the Planning Commission meeting um overall I think everyone knows what happened with The Game Farm Road annexation uh um looking at that as an example uh it was a pretty hot topic for a lot of people um people are upset you have a lot of people in that neighborhood now who are considering selling their homes and moving out of Springfield because of what happened with that um and what they are likely going to have in their

1:03:15 backyards coming to that um to those meetings we learned a lot we learned a lot about annexation we learned a lot about what was allowed what wasn't allowed we were told that can't be part of the discussion okay that's part of the annexation criteria got to got to bring it to that uh table so imagine our surprise we see annexation code changes we were super stoked we're like okay Now's the Time we can't undo what happened with Game Farm Road but we can maybe talk more about different kinds of considerations concrete considerations not just I don't want this in my backyard I'm against anything being built anywhere but more concrete kind of considerations um and what we learned through that was that no there needs to

1:04:00 be a change to uh the comprehensive plan so can't ask for it through this Avenue um we inquired about what it takes to make a change to the comprehensive plan and then their Statewide planning goals um it is extremely expensive uh that is not accessible to the people of Springfield our commissioners aren't involved so I'm here to ask you to please consider taking that up if not a part of of these changes using your general powers to take up a looking at what can be added to the annexation criteria concrete things like previous use of the property toxicity uh traffic impacts a nearby neighborhood concrete things not just hey we don't want this done um

1:04:46 asking or requiring people in your community to have to have thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars and have to have almost what would be a second mortgage on a house to say hey can we look at these comprehensive plans and make more changes to the annexation code is really it's just not accessible to us um and we are not representative and your community members are feeling down trotted and defeated and people want to move and I don't think we want that for our community so thank you thank you I have no other cards Neil do we have anybody online uh no hands online for this item all right I'm going to go and close the public hearing and see if anybody has any questions all right this is first

1:05:33 reading no action tonight next item please mayor the next item is business from the audience I have two cards for business from the audience the first one is David Willis and then Jason profit thank you for allowing me to speak this is really a followup to the uh pairs that I gave several weeks ago and uh our schedules were not able to come together so this is the testimony I wanted to give that night uh my name is David Willis and I reside in Springfield I'm here as the volunteer Springfield communications director excuse me of the

1:06:18 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints these small gift boxes of pairs are representative of 1.5 million pounds of pears harvested by hand taking 12,000 volunteer hours by volunteers over two to three weeks in late Summer from one of our church welfare Farms our Paar Farm is located in Medford and it has 20,000 trees and 55 Acres 100,000 pounds of paars are distributed to food pantries in Ashland Medford WIA Grant Pass cous Bay Portland rosburg and clth Falls the rest of the pairs are shipped to Idaho where they are canned and the cans are distributed for free to communities families and people in need all over the world addressing needs such as food insecurity Mal nutrition and

1:07:04 disaster relief hopefully these pairs can convey to you our thanks and acknowledgement for you your paid and also non-paid staff and Volunteers in everything that you do we also want to thank you for encouraging honoring and protecting the freedom of religion on our community we also are excited to extend an invitation to you to the open house and DED dedication of the wamit valley Temple located in the Gateway area hopefully by the end of next year the monies for this important building come from voluntary donations of tithing and fast offerings from our church members all over the world even those from the most humble circumstances we believe that strong families and diverse religious communities and values have been the cement that solidifies society and are

1:07:49 also the Bedrock of principles that guide people of all ages I have found that people of Faith try to con consistently follow this admonition we believe in being honest true chaste benevolent virtuous and in doing good to all men and women indeed we may say that we follow the admonition of the Apostle Paul We believe all things we hope all things we have endured many things and hope to be able to endure all things if there is anything virtuous lovely or of good report or praiseworthy we seek after these things myself and others have seen people change including ourselves in marvelous ways we do believe that through through the atonement and Grace of Christ all humankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ these pairs are just a small token of our

1:08:35 appreciation for your service and the many hours you give to our community we hope you know how much you are appreciated thank you thank you Jason profet oh Jason Propet end of Cory Road so first I'm going to start on six in South a you're going to see some railroad workers camping over there in Old Rail Yard those guys are just here to work they're not going to be not going to be any issues so I'm going to start with I got deterred on 10th office Centennial during some police activity on 5ifth at 3:00 that's a that road is not

1:09:22 adequate for all the cars picking the kids up over there it's it's not it's not meant to be that busy the second I called in a fire over at the rail yard and after talking to Eugene uh they won't put out warming fires they won't put out cooking fires everything I work for is on that South Hill I'll put the fires out myself the Ducks had a pretty good football game here two weeks ago listen to the police scanner there was four calls behind in the queue I'm glad I wasn't the fifth waiting on

1:10:07 that I called C well called the police department for Cahoots uh since you guys pushed the campers over on the on the uh Booth Kelly now and I asked for police and she said take a number and get in line so right here we have for and the queue on the for the fire department and get in line for a police I'm not going to sit around and wait the city's not doesn't have the structure to grow and provide services I seen contractors pulling weeds at the booth Kelly Mill I'm not paying taxes for contractors I'm paying taxes for Union City workers

1:10:58 and I think that's that's all I got all right thank you I don't have any other cards you have anybody online no hands for this item all right next item please uh next next item is resolutions resolution number one is the square one land acquisition and Katy Carol is here for this item all right hi again uh Katie Carol housing analyst here to talk about an application that the city received for um funding for land acquisition from Square One Villages so as you may recall

1:11:45 back in July the council adopted a resolution authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute forgivable loans with developers to purchase land to build income qualified housing serving households with low incomes and when we say low incomes we're talking 80% and Below of the area median income um the funding for those forgivable loans comes from one-time arpa funds that the city received through an intergovernmental agreement with Lane County and the council adopted a set of guidelines for uh staff to use in reviewing requests for land acquisition and awarding those funds on a first come first serve basis the city then received an application from Square 1 villages on August 1st to purchase two a 2 acre

1:12:31 property north of Main Street between 33rd and 35th Streets uh the site plan shown on the screen is what Square 1's proposing um it's an approximately 40 unit Cottage cluster that's a mix of one and two bedroom units um that would all be for that 80% or below area median income level and would be available for home ownership through a limited Equity Co-op and a Community Land Trust model um to ensure affordability over an extended period of time and that's the model that um Square One used at the C Street Co-op in Springfield and peace Village in Eugene there's more information um in your memo and also in their application materials which are attachment for about that um limited

1:13:17 Equity Co-op Community Land Trust model so per the guidelines that Council adopted a committee of staff from multiple teams and departments reviewed and scored Square one's application against a set of six criteria and found that the application met the city's requirements for being recommended for funding to the city manager um the reason that this is coming before you all is that in the development issues meeting the city held with square one for its proposal um staff raised concerns about connectivity needs of the neighborhood where this property is located so the uh squ one property shown here on the screen highlighted blue um it is the only undeveloped property in

1:14:02 this neighborhood and it has rideway stubbed out to 33rd on its Western Edge and then 34th Street that's the North End of the property um currently 35th Street is the only access out of the neighborhood neighborhood for over a 100 homes um mainly off 34th and 35th Street uh secondary vehicle access is important for emergency services to provide residents a different way to get out of the neighborhood should 35th Street at Main get blocked um it also would be helpful to have this connection to improve long-term connectivity of the neighborhood um by allowing Neighbors from 32nd through 35th Street to access each other's homes on local streets especially by bike or on

1:14:47 foot um Tyson Park is also in this neighborhood it's north of the property it's at kind of the top of the screen um that would be the only other option for making a secondary connection for this neighborhood would be through the park um William recently received a grant and is Master planning updates to the park in the um early plan that City staff has seen there are planned Park facilities in the way of both potential connections so going extending 34th Street and extending 35th Street um willine also shared that it learned through its engagement for those Park updates that neighbors along 32nd and 33rd Street would like a more direct way to get to the park um because right now they have to go all the way down to Main Street or

1:15:33 all the way up to um I think it's commercial AB which is even more north than that picture and that's about a hundred homes off those two streets that are impacted by that so despite the community need for better connectivity with the proposed middle housing Cottage cluster the city cannot require a road connection through the development approval process um the city can require what is needed to meet fire code which in this case does not appear to require dedicating a public road and a little bit of background on why this is so the transportation system plan or the tsp uh there's a policy in it that calls for the approximate location of planned local streets to be shown on a conceptual street map um but

1:16:20 when the city adopted the tsp in 2020 the council at that ch chose not to include the conceptual street map um and instead to rely on language in the development code to make those local Street connections as development occurred subsequent to that the state passed its middle housing rules and the city folded those into the code and that prevents the city from requiring those connections to be made unless a subdivision is being proposed which it's not here um the development code does allow the city to Res reserve space for future rideway through the special Street setback Provisions which basically mean um that someone can't build in the location of a future Street however that

1:17:06 um does not require dedication of RightWay or construction of a street um and there's also no mechanism in the code for requiring a public access easement um in this circumstance so that's kind of the code side of it um in terms of these funding guidelines the funding guidelines and the resolution did not give the city manager or staff um the authority to consider this question of connectivity and determining whether or not to award These funds um so that's why we're bringing it back to you because council could choose to put a condition on the funding award um to address connectivity for the neighborhood so with that in

1:17:51 mind um have come up with different options for for the council to consider in how it would like to address this question so the first option would be to put a condition on the funding um that would require square one to dedicate right of way um to connect 33rd and 34th Street through the site um this would preserve the city's ability to build a public street through the site in the future but the city would not immediately do so um this is the only one of the options I'll present that provides a reasonable opportunity to create a secondary vehicular connection um for the homes off 34th and 35th

1:18:36 Street through this site um however square one when we talked to them about this shared that um if this is a condition of the funding that they will um not be moving forward with the project and their reasoning for this is they're really focused on creating pedestrian oriented develop ments they like to put parking on the side so having a road go through it is sort of counter to that goal um and they did also share some concerns about safety if there were to be a road bisecting the site so that's option one option two would be to condition the funding on a reserv on the reservation of a public access easement through the site so in contrast with option one this

1:19:22 would only require square one to allow for pedestrian bicycle and emergency access through the site it would help to address um what will amain heard about neighbors wanting to have better access to the local park um however it would not address the concerns for a vehicular secondary access uh for the homes off 34th and 35th Street square one has shed that they are um amenable to this option and then the third option would be to not put any additional conditions on this funding um if Council wanted to go this direction you could just make a motion to send um the application back to the city manager for a decision um

1:20:07 and then that would be in ny's purview um to make the decision with the staff recommendation to fund it and there would not the city would just if this came through in development we would just process it under the development requirements which would mean there would not be um any right of way or public access easement required and that's what I have happy to answer questions chill uh thank you mayor so um thank you very much for that um Katie so to me okay option one to me is not an option because we got to have that project and and it's kind of ironic that just a few minutes ago or an hour ago we're talking

1:20:52 about allowing uh provisioning vehicles that aren't even made to have long-term housing and allowing them throughout the city and then turn right around and and uh create a condition in which this project would move forward so to me option one is is not is not even uh worth considering um option two I think is worth considering um except for with the caveat that um well I'll add waman you mentioned that that there was some engagement with waman and I'm not sure how far that went um and what they're whether they are willing to talk about this issue that the other neighborhoods have talking about but I kind of looking at that is that that's a l Lane thing and not a city thing and that they

1:21:38 should and I would recommend at least we can encourage them to try to find an amicable solution to that part of the issue but we're really not in the drive receipt for that and I don't even think the developer is as well um so I'm looking at at potentially uh option two and the way it's written is that it's just simply States here let's see if I can get it right before I mess that up here um so option two is basically says to negotiate or have the city manager negotiate and execute a forgivable loan agreement with square one Villages but it's kind of open-ended by it says to includes a reservation for Public Access easement but it doesn't seem to have

1:22:25 guard rails on those on that particular motion or that particular consideration and I think that it's been said that the developer is is amicable but I think they're amicable to no more than 20 feet because their design as you said earlier their design is is stressing uh bicycle pedestrian uh movement throughout that area throughout the development and of course allow 20 ft would also allow for EMS access so I think that I would I would encourage option two which will give us that access and uh allow for that that project to move forward and then option three with no dedication or Public Access easement still to me is is

1:23:11 still leaves it open-ended but I think we need to know that that needs to be known that a regular developer would not be subjected to these types of conditions under the middle housing code am I correct because different monies correct so just clarifying one piece of that that I think had been unclear to square one until today but we were finally able to connect with them so this special Street setback um is a requirement no matter if they're pursuing the funds or not and would require that they cannot build within a 57t setback back for the right of way

1:23:57 area um it sounds like from talking to current planning they could apply for a variance to reduce that down but um that space would still be wider than the 20 ft that they would need for the um emergency access if that makes sense so even if they didn't dedicate they couldn't build in it so so you're saying if they requested a variance the variance if they requ EST it would still require greater than 20 ft yes and how how

1:24:42 up it's my presenting partner today councelor is Mark Rust for the record current planning manager so I did have some email Communications back and forth as well as trading messages with Andrew the uh assistant director I think with square one today the what the code allow what the code requires is what KD said it's a 57 foot wide Corridor that would include not only the rideway but the setback from that rideway that could not be built in through a type uh one or minor variance they can ask for a uh 30% reduction of that which would get it down to right about 40 foot wide and that's a fairly straightforward type of variance there we do have a major variance that would be much more difficult ult and would go through a public hearings process through the Planning Commission the

1:25:28 minor variance is much more straightforward it's a staff decision and that 30% reduction down to 40 feet is so from my perspective unless they really wanted to reach further and try and go through a major variance the likely outcome is reducing it to a 40 foot width Corridor so you talk to the potential uh well to St Vincent and the developer is if that 40 foot if it's allowed is that going to be a deal killer or would they still be able to move forward so as of the latest email exchange it sounds like with the assuming the 40 feet were achievable that um they're thinking they would not

1:26:13 lose units they could do some minor rearranging and still reach that 40 unit count okay so they're so they're they're solid with that everybody's clear on that that they can that's just project could move forward and you folks will provide them guidance on how to make that happen with the various that correct yes okay and that would that would that would fall into the parameters under the uh second option yes and then just to clarify on the third option I I might have just misunderstood what you were saying but the third option wouldn't be any public access easement or right of way dedication to clarify that's what option three is oh so we could we could say we're not going to require any public a access or

1:26:59 easement and the project could move forward without that correct but they would still be subject to that special Street setback and they would still be subject to meeting fire code um which could be done by providing the 20 foot easement through the site for emergency access so we would be able to do I'm just trying to find out what would be the best uh motion and allow for the project to move forward and make it amicable for the developer it sounds now then based on what you just said that option three with no dedication or Public Access easement would be probably the best route for them and for us is that am I reading that correctly and CH

1:27:46 we're gonna the City attorney queuing up to get in here oh please yeah please uh councelor pisher I just wanted to um clarify that the Motions tonight are really about whether the city uh Council agrees to award the loan to to do the funding for this project either with the dedication of Public Access easement or as the existing guidelines some of the things you're talking about are important to that decision but they would be resolved later um the way the program works is um the funding is awarded the developer goes about making a plan and within three years they come in with an updated development plan some of those details you're talking about in terms of the width the variance those

1:28:33 items would be addressed at that time but we purposely kept the decision uh now for the council to be high level in terms of do you want to have something specific in this loan that allows for this connectivity or do you just want it to be under the existing guidelines oh I see okay I I I appreciate that guidance and it looks though that option three correct me if I'm wrong Mary B that um if we went with option three that would be uh providing the greatest amount of flexibility for both the city and the plan and the developer correct I think I would agree with that in terms of for the developer but I think the city perspective is more up to the council and weighing its policy

1:29:19 priorities okay so before I open this up because I think we're going to have a ton of questions so can you walk walk me through again so if we go with the RightWay uh dedication option how wide's the stream well okay it's it's more complicated than that how how how wide of how wi's the rideway at that point because I think I heard you guys say two two things so I'll just chime in here and um probably under option one the the minimum rideway width and I'll look to Michael is this it's still 60 ft with a 41t wide

1:30:11 street so I'll just try and repeat basically minimum RightWay width of 41 feet okay under option one and there's lost units in option one I have to defer to the developer or to to defer to themo but based on what they said about the public access easement which would also be that approximately 40 ft they in the email today he agreed that leaving a 40 foot wide clear width would allow them to do the project with not no loss of units and that could be either basically under option one or option two okay so the issue and then I'll let the rest of the council jump in is that if we went with option one it would be a public Street

1:30:56 eventually someday and their issue is from a vision perspective they they really don't want to separate their development that way okay got it anybody else go ahead Victoria okay um the problem with option one and with doing that is that we know the likelihood of getting that street is going to be slim to none let's let let's all just be open about that okay we do irrevocable petitions all the time for for improvements and we don't get them um I find it interesting that we're doing a a forgivable loan for someone that and for a development which I appreciate that we're getting housing um but we're this lot was set up with the

1:31:42 intention of that connecting if you look at it that's that neighborhood needs a connection and that's why we do that and so it's frustrating to me that we're in a world where middle housing um has come down from the state and they just completely disregard infrastructure and things that we need in our communities and they allow housing and then these are things that we're going to deal with 10 and 20 and 30 years down the road so I'll just say that to begin with but the truth is is that I don't see why we would do that on option one when we know we're not going to actually build the road I would be more open to option two because at least we would get that pet access at least we would get the the fire um the fire right away that they need and we would be tying those together and then and then you guys can deal with how you want to make them do that but it would fit into their thing

1:32:28 typically with housing we don't look at whether or not they're going to lose Lots or whether they're going to lose a house that's unfortunate but we do that with with storm water and everything else if you're building a subdivision you have to do infrastructure and if that means you lose a lot unfortunately that's what happens when you're trying to better your community um so I'm okay with number two I'm definitely not okay with number three because then that's doing nothing so Cory thank you um I have a little bit of a different spin on it but I'm landing in the same place and um as many of you know you know The marola Meadows development is in ward 3 and I go by there all of the time and they have a lot of Street connectivity and there are so many cars on that um that I think it's actually

1:33:15 challenging for emergency vehicles to get through so one of the things that I appreciate about option two is that it isn't for for cars so it will actually probably be quicker and more efficient if you need to get a firet trck or emergency vehicle onto something that doesn't have a bunch of cars parked on it or on it so and and I'm I'm also like I I agree with councelor doy that you know because of choices that were made in the past possibly we didn't do the things but this is going to we're going to see more and more of this because we don't have a whole lot of land in Springfield and we really want to encourage this creative kind building and so I'm open to seeing what does a neighborhood like this look like where we lean into to to their vision and make

1:34:02 sure that the emergency vehicles can get into it so I'm landing it too for a few other reasons but that's where I'm at too all right anybody else Michelle I appreciate all of the conversation and the the Insight from folks that really understand how this all works um and before that I was Landing kind of in in number two but I definitely now I'm more solid on on number two yeah I I agree as well um number two was the one that stuck out in my mind initially and I was glad to hear the comments and the questions um revolving around it um just to give that uh pedestrian bike and emergency access um and the more connectivity through the neighborhood so I'm I'm definitely

1:34:47 number two and I believe two is the best option for everybody involved the city the developer and the public and Public Safety yeah and I think my take here is that especially in this neighborhood connectivity is really challenging like this is this is one of those areas that as we develop land and we give away you know and address address land issues they we're going to continue to look for places to go hey you should have more than one way to get out of your neighborhood um so I was a little disappointed that the uh that you know one is not a plausible option but I think Victoria may be right that even if that we settled on that one that Street's probably never getting built so

1:35:32 I I will be happy with too Joe I we ready for motion if you're ready to um just very quickly after this quick comment is that U this is not a normal development it is not a matter of losing something for money type thing it's a matter of maximizing how many people people be able to live on this property and so that's that's the angle in which I'm coming from if if I if this was a for-profit developer for me I wouldn't even be having this conversation and I would totally agree with what Victoria is saying as regard as hey a Street's a street we need to have access and fully build it out that's the way it is that's what developers have to pay for but this is very unique and I think that we need to

1:36:17 do everything we can to make it happen um I I don't think that they'll move forward if they end up having to save 40 feet I don't I think it'll kill the project but I'll go ahead and make the motion and we'll see how this project develops if if it does so I'd like to make a motion to uh move to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute a forgivable loan agreement with square one Villages for the purpose for the purchase of property located south of C Street and between 33rd and 35th Streets map number 17-02 - 31-31 tax lot 2200 for the purposes of developing income qualified housing that includes the reservation of

1:37:02 a public access easement second can you call the vote please yes councelor Weber yes councelor Mo yes councel rodley yes councel Blackwell yes councelor Doyle I and councilor pisher yes motion passes six yeses zero NOS next item please thank you thank you next item is any business from the council I think we're good next item please any business from the city manager no business thank you any business from the city attorney just one quick item to note um today I got to meet Lily KZ who is Christina's daughter hey who is H one month old today and back up at her fighting weight at her birth weight so um anyway Christina's

1:37:48 doing well and she'll be out uh through most of November but uh Things Are going well and Lily is doing all the things the little babies do she looks great so she's studying for the she's H yeah she's doing a lot of legal work already yeah Christina our best I will all right jar thank you