HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/1998 Work Session
.
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING
OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1998
The City of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 9, 1998, at 6:03 p.m. with Council President Shaver
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
~
Present were Council President Shaver and Councilors Ballew, Beyer, Burge, Dahlquist (6:06),
and Maine. Mayor Morrisette was absent (excused). Also present were City Manager Mike
Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, Senior Management
Analyst Rosie Pryor, Administrative Aide Shari Higgins, Public Works Director Dan Brown,
City Engineer Al Peroutka, Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett, Transportation Planning Engineer
Masood Mirza, Management Analyst Eileen Stein, Development Services Director Susan
Daluddung, Senior Management Analyst Len Goodwin, Maintenance Supervisor Ed Black and
members of staff.
1. Gateway Area Traffic Issues.
.
City Engineer Al Peroutka provided a brief introduction of the topic. He said the City
Council needed to have a policy discussion regarding the Game Farm sewer extension and
traffic issues in the Gateway area. Mr. Peroutka said the streets in the Gateway and Beltline
Road area are nearing capacity. Traffic growth trends indicate a very near term capacity
constraint which may soon impact approval of development projects. He said council is
requested to discuss the preferred method of dealing with the future traffic capacity problem.
Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett said a current development request to extend sewer to the
Sycan B and Banfield Properties has also added to staff concern over traffic issues. Staff is
in the process of reviewing how the sewer project would tie in with the level of service and
traffic capacity issues in the GatewayIBeltline area. Mr. Barnett asked if the city should
limit development approval to those within the city limits only, or open it up to others' who
may want to pursue development in the urban growth area. Mr. Barnett provided a replace-
ment sheet for Attachment B of the staff report.
Mr. Barnett said currently, the area of GatewayIBeltline have acceptable levels of
service, but with the sewer extension request and other traffic concerns, the
intersection is nearing capacity. He added the Pioneer Parkway Extension project
would have an impact on the intersection also, and although it would help the Harlow
Road service levels, it would not off-set Gateway issues.
Mr. Barnett said the city could stop issuing development permits in the GatewayIBeltline
area from this point on, or the state could deny future development applications without the
reconstruction of the Gateway/Beltline intersection.
.
Councilor Burge asked about specific zone changes and how many employee's per square
foot, the city might allow under future development restrictions, if necessary.
City of Springfield
Work Session Minutes - 2/9/98
Page 2
.
Mr. Mirza replied he calculated the employee levels based on acreage, not square feet. He
provided level of service information for zonings, depending on if the Pioneer Parkway
Extension is completed.
Councilor Burge stated if future growth is predicated on the states construction at the
Gateway/Beltline interchange, then the city will be greatly limited on any future development.
He felt the city needs to find ways to make traffic capacity issues work, and not ways to defer
to restriction on future development. Mr. Peroutka said he hoped in the state's traffic
refinement plan, that phasing elements will occur. He clarified the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) is currently entering into their own traffic refinement plan process.
Mr. Barnett said ODOT asked the city to identify traffic service levels for the zonings
of Special Light Industrial (SLI), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and Low Density
Residential (LDR). Mr. Barnett said the analysis information (provided on a wall chart)
includes the entire Gateway area, not just the area defined by the blue boundary.
Councilor Maine said the city under no circumstances should reserve land. She referenced
item #7, Implement Demand Management rules for new commercial and industrial
development, Attachment A, of the staff report. Mr. Barnett said demand management rules
would consist of things such as car pooling, having a traffic coordinator for large Gateway
businesses, scheduling SLI shift changes to not occur during peak traffic times, etc. He added
that with residential development, this type of management system would not be applicable.
.
Councilor Burge asked if the city should review MountainGate and other developments
occurring in the east and south parts of Springfield, as ultimately, all development will have a
an impact on the city's traffic flow. He suggested the council not only target
GatewaylBeltline traffic service levels, but review levels in all parts of the city.
Councilor Maine asked what the violation is if the level of service is lower than city policy.
Councilor Dahlquist asked if this is a peak time study, then what are service levels during the
balance of the day.
Mr. Barnett said peak time services levels were the topic of the study. He said service levels
are typically studies during peak hours. Councilor Burge suggested the city's standards are
not applicable any longer, due to the growth ofthecommunityandthe citizens who need to
transport themselves at all hours, on all days.
Councilor Beyer asked if the traffic policies being discussed are Springfield policies or
metropolitan area'policies. Mr. Barnett replied they are components of the TransPlan.
There was a discussion on whether other members of the metropolitan area follow traffic
policies. Councilor Ballew addressed the shift changes of Sony and commended their attempt
to assist with traffic levels at peak times.
.
City Manager Mike Kelly said this discussion is timely now, so council can place their
recommended preference for service levels on the record. Staff wants to ensure that they
do not miss any opportunities to discuss the traffic growth and capacity issues facing the
GatewaylBeltline area.
City of Springfield
Work Session Minutes - 2/9/98
Page 3
.
Mr. Kelly said Springfield's view may be to favor changes in service levels and then do their
best job in management of those levels. He said staff concerns lie in current service levels
(D) and what will happen when future developments occur and the city becomes out of
complial}ce with their traffic policies. This type of situation might be in the form of a Land
Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) filing.
There was a discussion regarding the state's responsibility to take care of Springfield's needs
with regard to the Gateway/Beltline interchange reconstruction. Mr. Kelly said the state does
have an obligation to assist local governments, but their main focus is for traffic service
levels on the freeway, not on the interchanges and intersections. The city is hoping through
the state's refinement process, that they can become partners with the state in this effort.
Councilor Dahlquist cautioned the city in lowering their standards. He felt if the city did,
then ODOT may also. Mr. Kelly said the city is hopeful the Gateway/Beltline
reconstruction project will occur within the next 10 years. Councilor Burge said there would
be a long delay between the design and construction phases of the project. He shared his
concern over undeveloped land in the Gateway/Beltline area that the city has development
responsibility for.
.
Councilor Shaver said council will need more information to make this decision. He asked
staff to report back on the ramifications which would occur if the city's traffic levels are
increased. The overall solution may take more input than just from Springfield, as the city
will also need state and federal funding to complete the project. Councilor Shaver said the
city needs to work closely with the City of Eugene to lobby collectively for the transportation.
needs of the metropolitan area. He felt council did not want to deter development, but wants
to work with the state to manage this issue to the best extent.
Councilor Maine said council would also need information from the Residential Lands Study
to help with traffic service levels. This service level dilemma also has an impact from future
residential development. Mr. Mott said the Planning Commissions from the metropolitan
area will be conducting a public hearing on the residential study soon.. He felt the study
information may be available to the council by the first part of April.
The meeting recessed at 6:55 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:05 p.m.
2. Update on Draft Glenwood Jurisdictional Study and Recommendations of the Glenwood
Task Force.
Staff is seeking direction on a final public information process prior to entering into formal
discussions with the City of Eugene and Lane County concerning the transfer of urban
jurisdiction of Glenwood. Management Analyst Len Goodwin asked council to review and
discuss the revised draft jurisdictional study and time line proposed by the Glenwood Task
Force.
.
City of Springfield
Work Session Minutes - 2/9/98
Page 4
)
.
Mr. Goodwin said this is council's first view of the Glenwoodjurisdictional study and
introduced task force members Stu Burge, Don Lutes, and Steve Moe. Mr. Goodwin said this
transfer of jurisdictional regulation was discussed by the task force, but at no time was
annexation discussed.
Mr. Goodwin explained following the November 1996 election, council requested the
consideration of a jurisdictional transfer for some portion or all of Glenwood be deferred so
the timing impact of Ballot Measures 47 and 50 could be incorporated into the staff
analysis that had been completed.
Mr. Goodwin reported staff has now incorporated the impact of those measures and
reviewed the revised draft jurisdictional study report with members of the Glenwood
Task Force. Following that review, the task force recommended council seek a transfer
of jurisdiction of all of Glenwood, and recommended a time line for accomplishing
such a transfer. Ms. Daluddung explained public input options, including: a survey of citizen
preference, public meetings or informal hearings, newsletters, focus groups, or discussions
with other boards or bodies active in Glenwood.
Mr. Goodwin provided information about incorporated properties and unincorporated
properties and what services they currently receive and from whom. The staff report
provided to council, detailed all of the larger issues, both fiscally and non-fiscally significant.
.
Mr. Goodwin referred toa wall chart titled Glenwood Jurisdictional Study Work Program.
Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Burge spoke about thetimelines for the, proposed work program and
answered questions from council members. Mr. Goodwin also referred to a wall chart titled
Summary of Major Assumptions.
Mr. Goodwin reviewed the above study assumptions. He said the task force drafted the
Glenwood Jurisdictional Study after receving input from Glenwood residents, survey
responses, and a meeting with elected officials. Development Services Director Susan
Daluddung suggested the city use a focus group to assist with additional public input.
Mr. Goodwin said Attachment C lists the Glenwood Process recommended timelines. The.
staff report to council contains no recommendations and staff is seeking council consensus.
Mr. Goodwin said the recommended timelines are extremely aggressive and if council deems
so, then the process would occur on a fast track. To delay this decision any longer would lose
any momentum that has been gathered to date.
Councilor Burge said as a committee representative, consensus on the task force was
that they were all comfortable in recommending council move forward on the jurisdictional
transfer process. He felt community members would have many comments on this issue
and the public process would encompass their wishes to be heard.
Councilor Ballew said she felt Glenwood is a good neighbor and she would certainly like to
see them in our UGB.
.
Councilor Shaver asked how the transfer would accommodate the differences in zonings
which currently exist.
.
.
.
J _,,'_.
City of Springfield
Work Session Minutes - 2/9/98
Page 5
Ms. Daluddung said she felt the city would need to change some zonings in Glenwood to
match the closet compatible zoning in the Springfield Development Code (SDC). She said
it would cost approximately $30,000 to change the SDC and include zonings which currently
exist in Glenwood.
Councilors commented it would be very important to give the public of Glenwood and
Springfield too, the opportunity for public input. It would either keep the process
momentum moving or not. It was felt without citizen support, the process would
not continue. It was also agreed that any time during the work program, either the timelines
or process could be changed, if necessary.
Ms. Daluddung suggested a variety of mechanisms for public input, including but not
limited to: surveying, a newsletter with a tear off response portion, a focus group, holding
public meetings at the Lane Transit District facility, etc.
An audience member asked how the citizens of Glenwood will get to follow the public input
process as it unfolds. He felt they do not have all the information and it is not being provided
to them. He asked council to mail the survey results separate from just mailing the survey.
The people of Glenwood would like to have all of the information, and not just have itbe '
given or sought out by a select few, even though it is public record.
By consensus, council agreed to proceed with the first steps of the work plan process.
Councilor Ballew reminded staff to seekpublic input from Springfield residents during the
public input process. Councilor Dahlquist suggested holding a public hearing after the survey
results are returned from Glenwood residents, and also placing a display ad in the
Springfield News.
Mr. Kelly said the city's information process would include the citizens of Glenwood. Mr.
Kelly felt Springfield residents know the city's rules and regulations, but community
members in Glenwood may be concerned over livability issues. Councilor Burge cautioned
the city not to rush the public process, and to include Glenwood residents in every component
of the process. Mr. Lutes offered his view that education to both Glenwood and Springfield
residents would be important and helpful in terms of framing the questions and issues
concerning a transfer of jurisdiction.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Shari Higgins
~~
ATTEST:
~ 1.&2~
JulIe Ilson, CIty Recorder