Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/2001 Work Session . . . - " i., , MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, HELD ON MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2001 The Springfield City Council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 5, 2001, at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, (arrived at 6:08 p.m.) Lundberg, Ralston and Simmons. Also present ",ere City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Recorder Kim Krebs, City Attorney Tim Harold, Transportation Manager Nick Arnis, Development Services Director Cynthia Pappas, Police Chief Jerry Smith and members of the staff. 1. Continuation of Urban Reserves in the Eugene - Springfield Area. Planning Manager Gregg Mort and Planner III were present for the staff report. Mr. Metzger stated the purpose of this work session was to provide mayor and council with an update and to seek direction from them on two questions as it relates to Urban Reserves in the Eugne - Springfield Area. I - Is the City of Springfield interested in continuing to have Urban reserve areas in the Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan area? 2 - If the Council is interested in continuing to retain urban reserve areas in locations that meet the new OAR requirement, how many years of demand, beyond the 20-year urban growth boundary (UGB), should the urban reserve areas accommodate, 10 years, 20 years or 30 years? Mr. Metzger provided a brief highlight ofthe issue. He said the urban reserves were created in 1982, and at that time they were created based on the idea of cities looking ahead, beyond the UGB, about where they would like to go, and they tried to establish some logical directions in which to grow. The City of Springfield identified an area in East Springfield, in the Thurston area, for our urban reserve, which is currently part of the Metro Plan. There have been some changes at the State level, and some new rules that have been passed. The new rules, which were made retroactive, are specific to what kinds of land cities can declare as urban reserves. The Administrative Rule 660.21 asks cities to look first at those lands, which are within a one-quarter mile area of their existing UGB lands. He said there are some natural constraints, such as flood plains and wetlands, and highlighted them. Mr. Metzger provided a new packet of maps, and highlighted the different lands that are within the one-quarter mile buffer. He said the maps highlight the layer of the subject lands the State wants us to review. There is controversy on whether or not we should build on a flood plain. Wetland information is not sufficient at this time. In the lands outside the UGB there is a sizable amount of wetland area. Councilor Fitch asked how many manpower hours, or FTEs, would it take in order fulfill all of the requirements. Mr. Metzger said we would need an updated master sewer plan, which will be completed within the next six months, and a new comprehensive stormwater plan, which is at least 2 years out. We do have some of the information in hand; however, we are unable to make a good prediction at this time without the above information. ", Springfield City Council Work Session Meeting - March 5, 2001 Page - 2 . Councilor Lundberg asked what the difference is in having them identified rather than having them designated? Mr. Metzger said that in order to identify urban reserves, there are certain steps of analysis that must be done. e Some of those things include looking at lands that aren't priority one or two lands, such as resource lands that have the least potential for agriculture. Councilor Lundberg asked if we don't already have enough information to make an educated guess of where we are going to go. Mr. Metzger replied that they have a lot of information that meets State requirements; but that he didn't think they have the information to know what direction we really want to grow. Ifwe declare urban reserves, we have to go through a certain analysis to satisfy the State. We have to go through the exact same analysis if we choose not to have urban reserves. . Mr. Mott said the purpose of tonight was to strictly identify the sites that meet the first two thresholds for potential designation as urban reserve areas. These areas are outside the UGB, they are bordered by low density residential and there are some physical constraints that limit, such as steep slopes, flood plains, or other jurisdictions, There is nothing beyond the existing UGB that isn't defined in that way, as either flood plain or steep slopes. What is likely is what has occurred in the past 20 years, which has never been an examination of our urban reserve area for UGB expansion. It's been site specific and has nothing to do with the urban reserve area. The amendments for the UGB have been approved. An urban reserve is a much more complex issue, and he doesn't think the circumstances that exist today in terms of the county's resource zoning are going to change. The Planning Directors recommended that the idea of urban reserves is probably not in our best interest to pursue. The State is requiring us to justify and identify what we want to include and keep in. The required amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is to either delete them, keep them or to put new ones on. Under any of those possibilities, the City of Eugene will also have to agree. He said City of Eugene Council has already voted 8~0 to drop urban reserves. Councilor Ballew stated that she was surprised to see LCC on one of the maps. She said 20 years is a long horizon to try to determine what we want to accomplish, but not realistic. Mr. Mott said Region 2050 is looking at some of these issues also. Councilor Fitch recommended we drop the urban reserves from the Comprehensive Plan. Councilor Simmons agreed with Councilor Fitch. He asked whether there was any legal liability for removing the designation where it may impact or affect property values of the purchaser? He said that he would leave that question unanswered, but just asked. . Councilor Ralston asked about the Jasper Hills, and if there is any potential there. Mr. Metzger said it is an area that was looked at but because of the slope issue. Much of Jasper Hills is resource land; forestland that we would have to have an exception process to say that this is why it's more important as urban land. Councilor Hatfield said that after reviewing the staff report, hearing the information this evening, and given the State's constraint, he agrees that it is best to drop the urban reserves. At some point in the future, he recommended that we look at 500-1000 acres, and the first place he recommended is just across Hayden Bridge, up toward the old fish hatchery. . . . . . " Springfield City Council Work Session Meeting - March 5, 2001 Page - 3 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:31 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Heather Underwood A~,. Kim K,ebs, Cit~r