Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/2001 Regular .f . . . .. MINUTES OF THE EMERGENCY REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 200 I The Springfield City Council met in an Emergency Regular Meeting at Springfield City Hall, Council Meeting Room, Pursuant to ORS 1 92.640(3)(c), on Thursday, August 2,2001, at 5:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. AITENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Lundberg, R~lston (arrived at 5:03p.m.), and Councilor Simmons. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Recorder Kim Krebs, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Meg Kieran, and members of the staff. 1. MasterPlan entitled "MountainGate, A proposed residential development" dated 1995, Revised Spring 1997. City Attorney Joe Leahy said the property known as MountainGate was purchased by the McDougal Brothers, or entities associated with the McDougal Brothers. He said they were proceeding with what staff thought was a development plan for MountainGate. He said MountainG~te is subject to a master plan under the Springfield Development Code, which is a proposed residential development dated 1995, and revised in the Spring of 1997. Staff with conditions approved this; He said that Lane County Hearing Official Gary Darnell subsequently approved approval, and that MountainGate development master plan was added to the record title of MountainGate. This would ~ean that anyone who purchased MountainGate would be bound . by that development plan, or master plan. He said when the McDougal brothers purchased the property, they became subject to this plan, and staff did not think there would be an issue with respect to foliowing the requirements of the development. Mr. Leahy said the developer is currently seeking approval on the property for Phase I. He said the McDougal's are working with staff in relation to Phase I on a subdivision, hillside development, land and drainage alteration, and tree felling. He said there are a number of things going on with respect to this first. He said these issues are being handled concurrently with an annex~tion request for Phase I. He said at the time staff forwarded this to the City Council for' their review of the annexation request, staff understood that the property was subject to the master plan, and would be developed in a manner which provided for public improvements and public infrastructure that made sense to the City of Springfield. He said that is why staff recommended to the City Council that they endorse the annexation, and why the City Council forwarded a recommendation onto the Boundary Commission that the annexation occur. He said subsequent to the Council recommendation to the Boundary Commissioner, it has come to the attention of staff that there has been significant tree cutting, and land excavation alteration on the entire site, not just limited to this first phase. Mr. Leahy said staffs believe based on a review of the circumstances, and a review of the master plan, that the significant tree cutting and land alteration is inconsistent with the requirements of the master plan, it goes beyond Phase I, and it was done without seeking the appropriate tree felling permits, or land drainage and alteration permits from the City of Springfield, and without obtaining approval for those permits. r Minutes of the Springfield City Council Emergency Regular Meeting - August 2, 200 I Page - 2 Mr. Leahy said when this was brought to the attention of staff, they have had a number of meetings with representatives of land owner over the past several days, and it is the position of the developer and the land owner that there has been a miscommunication with the staff about what they could do in the absence of a permit He said that miscommunication has centered on whether they had the authority or the ability to go in and do some clearing for roads beyond Phase I, and whether they had the need to do some clearing related to the elimination of fire suppression hazards. He said staff does not necessarily agree that there was a communication breakdown. He said he believes staff has been very clear about the issue. . Mr. Leahy said this is a developer and landowner that will have a ten-year build-out for a master plan for MountainGate, and staff has tried to arrive at a mechanism, which would satisfy the concerns of the City. He said they have arrived at a solution, and recommend for council's approval, that staff be allowed to attend the Boundary Commission meeting tonight, and request that this issue be taken off the agenda, and continued for 60 days. He said in essence what staff is attempting to take is a "time-out", that would allow the developer and the land owner time to get back on the track and allow them time to recognize that need to follow the City of Springfield requirements. He said what would happen during the 60 day period is that the developer will go present a plan that will describe how they propose to take care of the land alteration that has been done. He said that information would be submitted to the staff for their review. . Mr. Leahy said they considered and prepared a Complaint for Injunctive Relief, and considered filing that Complaint He said after much discussion with staff and the City Manager's Office, they concluded that litigation was not a good way to begin a long-term relationship with a major landowner, particularly if the same results could be achieved. He said the work has stopped on the property in question, and there will not be any further land alteration or tree cutting, without the specific approval of the City. He said he anticipates that will occur in the context of approvals for a land alteration or tree cutting permit. He said additionally, they would be required under City supervision and probably the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) supervision to take necessary steps to remedy any potential drainage or run off problems that may occur with the next 30 - 60 days. He said if this doesn't occur during that time, and they fail to work with the staff, while observing what needs to be done to work in Springfield responsibly, and develop in Springfield responsibly, then staff will return to Council to allow them to make a decision at that time whether they perceive they want to go forward at that time with the recommendation again of annexation, or whether they don't. This would probably be determined by the conduct of the developer and landowner has been such that there has been a demonstration that there won't be compliance with the master plan approval. He said in the absence of the showing of good faith and compliance, maybe we don't want to annex this property into the City until there are assurances. . City Attorney Meg Kieran said she was present at the meeting that staff held with the developers yesterday. She said prior to that meeting, the City Attorney's office was prepared to file in Circuit Court to get Injunctive Relief, and to immediately file for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop all activity at the property. She said at the meeting, the developer indicated he has stopped all the activity on the property, and staffhas confirmed this to be true. She said in analyzing the merits of going forward with a delay of the annexation, and an agreement signed by the developer that brings the property into conformance with the Cities codes and ordinances, she believes the City would have more control on the outcome on the property at this time by going forward with their signature on an agreement and with our recommendation tonight to the Boundary Commission to delay a decision of the annexation. She said the agreement that the developer will sign would give the City what a TRO will do. It will include a provision that ., r Minutes of the Springfield City Council Emergency Regular Meeting - August 2, 2001 Page - 3 . states in addition to staff oversight to select the geotechnical engineer, and the City could approve an erosion control specialist who will develop a plan, with conditions by August 30. It would also include open access to the property during this time period in order to monitor the progress of implementation of the plan, the agreement to be signed would allow the city to go onto the property beginning October 1st if the implementation isn't progressing along at the rate and with the precautions that the City staff believes is necessary to control erosion over the rainy season, and then charge the developer the cost to implement the approved plan. She continued by saying' if at any time during the implementation of this agreement, the City believes that the developer who has promised to use this time period to demonstrate their intention to act and deal with the city and it's staff in good faith, and fair dealing. She said if there is any indication this is not being followed by the developer, she has the paperwork ready to file, to obtain Court over site of implementation of an erosion control plan on the property. Councilor Simmons said it is clear that we have had the control, and have lost it in the process, He said he would be remiss to remind everyone about Potato Hill where there was a similar problem. He said he would propose that they grant the City Manager and the City Attorney the authority to seek that injunctive relief, if they feel it is appropriate and necessary to do so. CounCilor Lundberg asked for an explanation from staff what exactly has occurred. Planning Supervisor Mel Oberst responded. He said the developer has worked outside of the master plan. He explained the process that was taken in order to get the master plan approved. He explained in detail what exactly has occurred at the property. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR SIMMONS, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW, THAT THE CITY MANAGER BE GRANTED THE AUTHORITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEEK IMMEDIATE INJUNCTIVE. RELIEF, IF THEY FEEL IT IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE TASK AT HAND IN PROPERLY MANAGING THE MOUNTAINGATE DEVELOMENT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. Councilor Fitch said she would support the motion made by Councilor Simmons, as long as council will also consider requesting the delay at the Boundary Commission. She asked if in the agreement was there something that would cover the extra monetary cost that the City is going to incur by having to do this extra work, that would have been avoided if they had waited for the correct permits. Ms. Kieran said she did not include a provision that addresses administrative costs. Councilor Fitch said given the tight budget constraints the City is currently facing, she would recommend this be included. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LETTER REQUESTING THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION DELAY CONSIDERATION OF THE ANNEXATION APPLICATION. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. . City Manager Mike Kelly said what staff had planned to do is take the administrative letter along with the developers letter to the staff at the hearing tonight to indicate that there has been a "'I . . . Minutes of the Springfield City Council Emergency Regular Meeting - August 2, 200 I Page - 4 request by the City Manager and the developer to delay the consideration for 60 days. If in fact the Boundary Commission decides that this has been advertised and go forward with the hearing, during the hearing staff would then presentthe Mayor's letter.' Councilor Hatfield restated the motion as follows: IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LETTER IN THE FORM AS DATED AUGUST 2, 2001, REQUESTING THAT THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION TO DELAY CONSIDERATON OF THE ANNEXATION APLICATION. AND IN CASE THEY CHOOSE NOT TO DELAY THE APPLICATION THAT WE REQUEST THAT THE ANNEXATION REQUEST BE DENIED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:27 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Kim Krebs