Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/1997 Regular ... , '. ." .,/ f MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 21,1997 The city of Springfield city council met in Regular Session in the Springfield City Council Chamber Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, January 21, 1997, at 7: 10 p.m., with Mayor Morrisette presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Morrisette, Councilors Ballew, Beyer, Burge, Dahlquist, Maine and Shaver. Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Eileen Stein, Administrative Aide Julie Wilson and members of the staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Morrisette. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Rev. Jeff Savage, First Baptist Church. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. City Attorney Joe Leahy administered the oath of office to Mayor Morrisette, Councilors Ballew, Burge and Maine. 2. Mayor Morrisette and Dennis Murphy recognized Stan Boogie for his active participation in saving the life of a Springfield citizen. 3. City Manager Mike Kelly recognized Michael Fredrickson, Fire and Life Safety, for 20 years of service to the city of Springfield. 4. City Manager Mike Kelly recognized of Gregory Mott, Development Services, for 20 Years of service to the city of Springfield. 5. Mayor Morrisette declared January, 1997 as School Board Recognition Month. CONSENT CALENDAR IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR BURGE, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR SHAVER, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR.. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 1. Claims a. November 1996, Disbursements for Approval. b. December 1996, Disbursements for Approval. .. ' f . . . Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 2 2. Minutes a. December 16, 1996 - Work Session. b. December 16, 1996 - Regular Session. 3. Resolutions a. RESOLUTION NO. 97-1 - A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PERMIT PROJECT 3-950: WYATT MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. 1 ST ADDITION. b. RESOLUTION NO. 97-2 - A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PERMIT PROJECT 3-990: WYATT MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. 2ND ADDITION. 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters a. Endorsement ofOLCC Liquor License for Circle K Stores, Inc., Located at 3520 Gateway Street. b. Endorsement of OLCC Liquor License for Prime Time Sports Bar and Grill, 1360 Mohawk Blvd. c. Approval of the December 1996, Quarterly Updated Financial Reports. d. Approve Bid Award to Egge Sand & Gravel, L.L.C., for Project 2-017: Storm Sewer Extension at 171 South 41st Street, and Vicinity, in the Amount of$19,751. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Establishing Metro Plan Diagram Designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the 65th and Main Street Area (Jo. No. 96-11-236, Roy C. Gray, Appellant). The Planning Commission established a site specific delineation of the Metro Plan MDR designation in the area bounded by 59th, 66th, A and Main Streets on November 5, 1996. The Appellant owns property in this area and requested rezoning to MDR. The Planning Commission action on the Plan diagram designation resulted in a denial of the Appellant's zone change request. The Appellant appealed both Planning Commission decisions. In addition to the two appeals filed by the Appellant, the Appellant has filed an Alternative Writ of Mandamus in Circuit Court requesting judicial approval of the zone change. The basis alleged in the Mandamus is failure to make a final decision within 120 days as required by ORS 227.178(1). The hearing on the Writ of Mandamus is February 4, 1997. The council is requested to proceed in good faith with the two appeal hearings even though the outcome of the February 4th Circuit Court hearing may remove the council's decision. Additional .. j , . . . Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 3 information concerning the mandamus process or the specific allegations in this filing can be obtained from the office of the City Attorney. Mayor Morrisette explained the order of proceedings for the hearing. Mayor Morrisette requested the council to declare any ex parte contact or conflict of interest in participating in this hearing. Councilor Shaver attended neighborhood meeting prior to this item coming before PC. As well as Blake Hastings and other staff members in attendance. Councilor Dahlquist declared no ex parte contact. Councilor Ballew declared no ex parte contact other than she read an article. Mayor Morrisette was contacted by Lyle Minor. Mr. Minor asked questions and he recently telephoned Mayor Morrisette and asked him questions. He also had contact with him in association with the Mayor's Housing Task Force meeting. Mr. Hastings was also in attendance at that meeting but they only had general conversation. Councilor Burge had no conflict with any parties involved. Councilor Beyer had no ex parte contact. Councilor Maine had contact with neighbors in the area and also had asked Councilor Shaver to attend some meetings for her when she was out of town. She said she was able to be fair and impartial and can participate in discussion and decision. Mayor Morrisette said that no new evidence would be accepted. He further explained that after the public hearing was closed, council could hold a discussion and would be asked to affirm, modify or reverse the Planning Commission decision. Mr. Leahy eXplained in detail the procedural rules regarding this public hearing. Mr. Leahy emphasis the point that this matter is on record and that council would not be provided with any new ,information. Information present in the record is available for interpretation by any parties and can provide testimony on the basis of information contained on the record. A map could be provided for review of how it relates to this issue, but no new information could be provided. It was clear that if someone had a new traffic study, appraisal or analysis, the new information would not be permitted into the record. Testimony should be based on information already on the record. The city of Springfield was the applicant. Mr. Mott would represent the city when addressing the council. Mr. Mott explained that all information, including additional information provided prior to the Planning Commission meeting was part of the record (appeal application ). '!lo ~ Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 4 . Mayor Morrisette opened the public hearing. The appellant had 30 minutes for testimony. Paul Vaughan requested to reserve five minutes at the end of the public hearing for rebuttal. Paul Vaughan, 180 East 11 th Avenue, Eugene, Attorney representing Roy Gray, testified. He provided council with handouts of exhibits. He explained they were excerpts from statutes, codes, plans and administrative rules. He explained he would be referring to these his testimony. He clarified that the documents are either legal arguments or documents that are already contained in the public record. There was no new evidence. He said the Planning Commission erred in a number of respects in attempting to do what it did. He viewed this as not being an interpretation but instead being an effort to call something an interpretation which is really either the adoption of a Refinement Plan or for a six block area or a plan diagram amendment. He said the city cannot use the interpretation procedures to accomplish that type of result. . Mr. Vaughan referenced the document titled Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on Jo. No. 96-11-234. Metro Plan Diagram Interpretation. Exhibits for Presentation of Appellant's Counsel. He said page one provided background information regarding the August 20, 1996, Planning Commission meeting and the request that all zone change requests in the Thurston area be postponed until a refinement plan for that area was prepared and adopted. On that evening, the Planning Commission directed staff to initiate a Plan diagram interpretation for the area between 59th, 66th, Main and A Streets in lieu of undertaking a refinement plan for the entire Thurston area. He said the question needed to be asked was if this was a legal use of the interpretation process. He said reasons for that were clear by reviewing the definitions in the Code. He referred to page two of this same document and recited Article I, General Provisions, 1.010, Title. He also referenced the definition of the Metro Plan/Metropolitan Area General Plan on page three. He stated that this was the Eugene/Springfield/Lane County comprehensive plan defined. He stated that this was not the same as the Code. Mr. Vaughan said the procedure used by the Planning Commission for its authority to do this refinement plan, through the interpretation procedure, was Article 4, Interpretation, Section 4.010, General, Subsection 1. He recited the section that the Planning Commission shall have the authority and responsibility to interpret all terms, provisions and requirements of this Code. He clarified that this was the Springfield Development Code, not the Eugene/Springfield compressive plan. It did not say the Metro Plan, it stated Code. Mr. Vaughan also referenced Article 4, Interpretation, Section 4.020, Review, Subsection 1, a request for a formal interpretation of this Code shall be reviewed under Type III procedure. He again referenced the word Code. He stated a Type III procedure was used to interpret the Code, except, they went beyond the Code and interpreted the Metro Plan Diagram. That was the issue. How was this property designated in the compressive plan. Mr. Vaughan said his position was that if the city wanted to adjust the inventories in those areas designated in the Plan, a refinement plan process needed to be followed. . Mr. Vaughan then referenced Section 4.030, Criteria, Subsection 1, the purpose and intent of the particular section of the Code. .. J i Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 5 . Mr. Vaughan referenced Section 4.030, Criteria, Subsection 4 (a-c) regarding traffic generation, impact, hours, etc. He stated that those various criteria were addressed to interpretation of zoning districts, not plan designations. Mr. Vaughan again stated his position was that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to do this type of interpretation and it was reversible error for them to do that. Mr. Vaughan referenced Section 3.090, Development Approval Review - Type III Procedure and formal interpretation of the Springfield Development Code. Mr. Vaughan then referred to Article 7 of the Springfield Development Code, Section 7.010, Metro Plan Amendment - Purpose. He then referenced Section 7.030, Metro Plan Amendment - Definitions, and stated the amendment was to or change in the text of the Metro Plan, refinement plan, or functional plan, the diagram of the Metro Plan, refinement plan or functional plan. He stated that if you are amending that diagram, you are under the Metro Plan Amendment procedures. He also felt the Metro Plan had regional impact. . Mr. Vaughan said there was a diagram that showed that about eight and one-fourth acres were removed from the Lane Council of Governments map showing the inventory and what property was submitted in connection with the acknowledgment of the comprehensive plan. Through this action you remove eight and one-fourth acres of the property that was designated in the plan for medium density residential development. By doing that, because you are talking about developing it to its maximum, you are talking about 10 dwelling units per acre, or 85 dwelling units. That is what this plan amendment potentially does that has been done through an interpretation process. The significance of that is that when you change inventory of medium density residential so dramatically, the significance of that is that you are making a regional impact. The Planning Commission responded by saying significant is not really defined. Mr. Vaughan referenced Article 2, Definitions, Section 2.010, Meaning of Common Words, Subsection 10, stating that where words are not defined in the Article, and the word significant is not, then it states that a number of sources can be consulted. He stated that a dictionary of common usage can be consulted. Mr. Vaughan referenced page 10 of the handout and read the definition of the word significant. Mr. Vaughan referenced page 10 A ofthe map. This showed what the Planning Commission's decision did, removing all the property out from the western boundary of tax lot 4400, out to 66th. Council was provided with a Springfield Street Map, Scale 1" - 2000'. . Joseph Boziwick, 310 North 5th Street, representing Branch Engineering, retained by Roy Gray for engineering and survey services, reviewed a large scale map with the council. He explained the first map was a ward map from 1980, prepared by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. The map showed the areas designated to develop inventories submitted to the state to back up the Metro Plan, so it could be approved by the state. He felt the work map clearly showed the MDR designation to 66th Street. .. ., '- . . . Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 6 The second map Mr. Boziwick reviewed displayed an enlargement of the Metro Plan diagram. He stated it was recently done by computer to enlarge it. He explained there was a street map overlay from the city GIS system, which was also to scale. He felt that this demonstrated that there was no unclarity pending on that diagram of where the line was. He said you could line up the Community Commercial on Thurston Road, next to 66th Street and drop a line down 66th Street and it would come right to the end of the orange section, which is drawn into square that perfectly fits into A Street. This matched up with the 1980 work map, which had been approved by the state of Oregon. A third map was also provided and the MDR designation was discussed. Mr. Vaughan discussed going through the refinement plan process to adjust boundaries. He discussed requirements for this process. He also discussed the Metro Plan and Development Code text and interpretation. He also discussed various jurisdictions involved in the process. He also discussed reduction in the MDR. He further discussed process, state law and LCDC. He also discussed housing and residential use of lands. He also discussed the geographic data base and L-Cog's involvement in producing the map. He also discussed maintenance and interpretation of the map and boundaries. He also reviewed criteria related to zone changes. Jim Branch, 310 North 5th, representing Branch Engineering, discussed the traffic report, findings of fact, and traffic flow issues. He also discussed McKenzie Highway access. Blake Hastings, 880 South 57th Street, representing Roy Gray, applicant, discussed multi- housing units and that they were affordable. He also discussed land use issues and increasing of density. Testimony in support of the Planning Commission was received. Dan Bedore, Planning Commission Chair, 648 Woodcrest Drive, provided a summary of the Planning Commission decision, discussed the Metro Plan and density issues. He also discussed traffic count issues. Elaine Lessar, 6355 C Street, Thurston Neighborhood Association, discussed the Metro Plan, designation and policies. Mitch Averill, 6588 A Street, representing Northwest Thurston Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of the Planning Commission decision. He discussed land use issues, the Metro Plan, boundary issues and traffic count findings. Patti Hoover, 6540 B Street, spoke in support of the Planning Commission decision. She also discussed issues related to single family residential density, the Metro Plan, and low density Issues. Mr. Mott spoke on behalf of the city of Springfield. He explained that the public record was available for review and present at the meeting. The cassette tapes of the meeting were the only item not present. Mr. Mott discussed boundaries and the maps. He also discussed the .. ., t . . . Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 7 GIS system and L-COG's involvement in the process. He also discussed boundary issues and application of the Metro Plan. He felt the process followed was a fair process for people involved on both sides. Paul Regalia, 6531 North A Street spoke in support of the Planning Commission decision. The appellant was allowed time to rebut. Paul Vaughan. 180 East 11 th Avenue felt the referenced scale map was not a blob but very clear. He discussed zoning, the Metro Plan and medium density issues. He also discussed the urban growth. Mr. Branch reiterated he disagreed with the Planning Commission decision related to the traffic impact. Mr. Mott answered questions regarding boundary interpretation in the plan text. He also responded to comments regarding land use activities, zone changes and the plan diagram. Mr. Mott also responded to questions regarding the interpretation of the body of the map and specific boundaries. He discussed practice during the mid-1980s and changes after the Metro Plan was updated and adopted in 1987. He also discussed Planning Commission authority. Mr. Mott also discussed acreage within the Metro Plan designation. Councilor Burge discussed the Metro Plan and site specific issues, boundaries, interpretation, and designation. He and Councilor Shaver also discussed policy and interpretation and land use approval. Councilor Maine discussed L-COG and the limits of their authority related to computer assistance. Councilor Shaver provided background regarding L-COG and their assistance in maintaining geographic data on the system. He also discussed zone changes and the authority of the Planning Commission and the council. Councilor Burge commented that there was approximately 260 pages of data on this issue and he had no questio~s on this matter. Councilor Maine felt the Planning Commission did a good job of hearing testimony and she had no compelling reason to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission unless someone could give her reason. Councilor Shaver discussed the appeal process. He would uphold the Planning Commission decision. . ..1 ~ Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21,1997 Page 8 . Councilor Beyer saw the referenced area within the MDR as a blob. She disagreed with the decision of the Planning Commission. She discussed Metro Plan issues and traffic corridor Issues. Mayor Morrisette closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR BURGE. WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MAINE, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IN THIS MATTER BASED ON CONSIDERATION OF THROUGH REVIEW OF FACTS. DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF. THE APPELLANT AND ALL ITS REPRESENTATIVES. AND AGREE THAT IT CONTAINS. WITHOUT BEING SPECIFIC. COMPELLING ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY TO MAKE THIS DECISION BASED ON THOSE FACTS AND THOSE ISSUES THA T HAVE BEEN PRESENTED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. NUMEROUS ONES ARE INCLUDED AND TO IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC BASIS FOR THAT CONCLUSION WOULD BE DIFFICULT WITHOUT LITTLE ADVANCE TIME TO GO THROUGH AND SPECIFICALLY PULL THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES OUT. . THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE FOUR ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL HA VE BEEN DEMONSTRATED. THAT THEY HAVE DISCUSSED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT ERROR BY INCORRECTLY INTERPRETING BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT IS WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION THAT THE INTERPRETATION DID NOT AMOUNT TO A UNILATERAL MAJOR METRO PLAN AMENDMENT WITH REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT PROCESS AND SIGNIFICANCE THERE. THAT IT WAS NOT CONTRARY TO FINDINGS ESTABLISHED IN PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE WAS NOT INCORRECTLY APPLIED. AGAIN. BECAUSE OF THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 1 AGAINST (BEYER). TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. Council recessed at 9:05 p.m. Council reconvened at 9: 15 p.m. 2. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Denying a Zone Change Request From Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) for a 1.73 Acre Parcel Located Between McKenzie Highway and A Street, South of 65th Street (Jo. No. 96-12-243, Roy C. Gray, Appellant). City Planner Lauren Lezell was available to answer questions from council. The Planning Commission established a site specific delineation of the Metro Plan MDR designation in the area bounded by 59th, 66th, A and Main Streets on November 5, 1996. The Planning Commission action on the Plan diagram designation resulted in a denial of the Appellant's zone change request. . In addition to the two appeals filed by the appellant, the appellant has filed an Alternative, Writ of Mandamus in Circuit Court requesting judicial approval of the zone change. The ~ , . . . Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 9 basis alleged in the Mandamus is failure to make a final deacons within 120 days as required by ORS 227 .178( 1). The hearing on the Writ of Mandamus is February 4, 1997. The council is requested to proceed in good faith with the two appeals hearings even though the outcome of the February 4th Circuit Court hearing may remove the council's decision. Additional information concerning the mandamus process or the specific allegations in this filing can be obtained from the Office of the City Attorney. City Attorney Joe Leahy provided instruction to the council on process and procedure for this public hearing and emphasized that no new testimony could be submitted. He emphasis the point that this matter is on record and that council would not be provided with any new information. Information present in the record is available for interpretation by any parties and can provide testimony on the basis of information contained on the record and that no new information could be provided. Testimony should be based on information already on the record. Mayor Morrisette requested the council to declare any ex parte contact or conflict of interest in participating in this hearing. Council requested that their comments regarding ex parte contact be carried forward from public hearing number 1. Councilor Shaver attended neighborhood meeting prior to this item coming before PC. As well as Blake Hastings and other staff members in attendance. Councilor Dahlquist declared no ex parte contact. Councilor Ballew declared no ex parte contact other than she read an article. Mayor Morrisette was contacted by Lyle Minor. Mr. Minor asked questions and he recently telephoned Mayor Morrisette and asked him questions. He also had contact with him in association with the Mayor's Housing Task Force meeting. Mr. Hastings was also in attendance at that meeting but they only had general conversation. Councilor Burge had no conflict with any parties involved. Councilor Beyer had no ex parte contact. Councilor Maine Maureen has had contact with neighbors in the area and had also asked Councilor Shaver to attend some meetings for her when she was out of town. She stated that she was able to be fair and impartial and can participate in discussion and decision Mayor Morrisette opened the public hearing. Blake Hastings, 880 South 57th Street, representing appellant Roy Gray provided council with a handout. This was the December 2, 1996 letter. He discussed zone changes and the process. He also discussed MDR designation. He also referenced a letter he received from Greg Mott regarding an opinion on MDR designation. He discussed the process he followed prior to purchasing the property. He also referenced a May 31, 1995 Planning Commission" decision regarding the Travis decision. He also referenced the findings and conclusions ~ " iT . . . Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 10 regarding this same issue. He also discussed the GIS system and ordinance number 5759. He discussed land use issues and monitoring of the Metro Plan. He also discussed the L-COG geographic data base. He discussed a residential land study. He also discussed interpretation Issues. Mr. Vaughn representing Roy Gray, requested that his comments be carried over from the previous testimony, as well as comments made by Mr. Hastings and Jim Branch. Mr. Vaughn provided handouts to council. He eXplained that he was providing an additional copy of the documents handed out during the previous hearing. He would like these also entered into the public record. Jim Branch, 310 North 5th Street, representing Branch Engineering, spoke regarding traffic count data and projection information. He explained that the count conducted by the city was higher than the projections submitted by Branch Engineering. Joseph Bozicvich, 310 5th Street, representing Branch Engineering, requested that his previous comments made during the previous testimony be incorporated into this record. He also discussed criteria and deadline policy. Testimony was received for those in support of the Planning Commission decision. Paula Mudder, 6302 B Street, discussed traffic and safety issues. She explained that North A Street was a dead-end street. This summer, the street was converted to a through street from 62nd Place to 66th Street. She felt this could account for the difference in traffic count information. She provided specific information regarding the traffic count. Ava Dunks, 186 North 65th Street, Representing NW Thurston Neighborhood Association. She discussed zone change information. She explained that the Planning Commission must adopt findings that all criteria be addressed. One issue was consistency and the transportation element did not fall consistent with the regulations. Patti Hoover, 6540 B Street, requested that her previous testimony be brought forward from public hearing number one. The applicant addressed council at this time. Dan Bedore, Planning Commissioner, 648 Woodcrest Drive, stated that the Planning Commission decision was based on being consistent with the decision made in the first case. He explained that there was a plan zone conflict and the determination needed to be made in terms of designation for that property in terms of the Metropolitan Plan. Once this was done, to be consistent, the zone change was denied. The proper use for that property was low density residential. Planning Manager Greg Mott pointed out that the entire public hearing record, except for the cassettes were present. He explained what was included in the staff report and responses to allegations of error for the Planning Commission decision on the zone change. He stated for the record that in response to Mr. Hasting's presentation regarding actions occurred prior to ..., ., <I . . . Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 11 the purchase of the property and so forth, he recalled that the staff report on the Travis request, which followed the June 3 letter, the Travis zone change request was supported. Based on facts staff had at that time, Mr. Mott saw no reason to depart from the same kind of information provided to Mr. Branch one year earlier. He said he did not think that when he spoke with Mr. Hastings that he was aware of the type of neighborhood concern that was present. Even considering that, at that time, he was not aware of some of the evidence that was entered into the public record for the two hearings. He was comfortable providing Mr. Hastings with the same kind of information provided to Mr. Branch. Knowing, as always, in land use matters elevated to a quasi judicial level, and that has divergent opinions, there is no way of predicting the outcome of that hearing. He stated that in response to Mr. Vaughn's citation of section 227, having an applicant be able to rely upon the standards that were in place at the time the application was submitted, he did not believe the Planning Commission action in any way altered the standards that the applicant was subject to. The criteria was not changed in Article 12, that remained the same, in conformance with the Metro Plan Text and Diagram. The same criteria was applied when this zone change was heard. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR MAINE, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR SHAVER, THAT THE MEETING BE EXTENDED PAST 10:00 P.M. COUNCIL AGREED. Paul Vaughan, 180 East 11th Avenue, Eugene, responded to issues raised during testimony. He discussed the traffic counts and MDR designation issues. He discussed the zone change decision made and boundaries on the map. Mr. Mott provided clarification to questions asked by council, including issues regarding land use, urban transition areas and the refinement plan process. Councilor Maine raised the issue of working with neighbors, flexibility of the number of proposed units, optional designs. Mr. Hastings responded that it comes down to the scale of the project and profit amounts. He also discussed parking issues and buffered boundaries and landscaping. Mayor Morrisette closed the public hearing. Councilor Shaver reviewed the issues (allegation of error) raised on appeal, item numbers one through four. Councilor Shaver acknowledged the frustration of going through the process and coming out on the side not favored. He discussed item number one stating the zone change request is in conformance with Section 12.030 of the Springfield Development Code and also referenced the Metro Plan Diagram. He said from that point it is inconstant. You can have a reasonable assurance until it is on a cusp like this one, it was clearly then that it was inconsistent with the Metro Plan. The Planning Commission had earlier determined where the MDR was, and it did not include the referenced property. As soon as they did that, his request was no longer consistent with that criteria so that allegation of error needs to be dismissed. ~ tt " . . . Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 12 The second issue raised was the statement that the decision denying the zone change was inconsistent with findings established in the previous Planning Commission decisions. There was a previous Planning Commission decision. A number of Planning Commission decisions may find that if there is a site developing on a cusp where that plan boundary is, if it is inclusive with the zone change, conflict in favor of the plaintiff, that has been consistent. If an appeal deferred to the decision of the Planning Commission to the decision to the property adjacent to the property again that decision was made at that time made on circumstances further to the west which could be argued Councilor Shaver referenced item number three in reference to denying the zone change. was inconsistent with established Metro Plan MDR boundary and text. He stated to reference item number one. No, because we can interpret the boundary based on the map and we did interpret that boundary and once the boundary was interpreted, the zone denial was consistent with that interpretation. Councilor Shaver referenced item number four which stated decision denying the zone change reduces regional MDR inventory and is therefore of regional significance. He stated that just because it adds or reduces, does not by fact alone make that a significant impact. He stated that if you refer to a percentage level of all of the residential or MDR, 1.7 acres, it can be well argued, is an insignificant amount, when taking a look at it on a regional level. not that it does not have significance to everyone on the project or at a local level, but it does not meet the level of significance when taken on a regional level in effecting the Metro Plan. Because of the above reasons stated, Councilor Shaver stated he would uphold the Planning Commission decision for those reasons. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR SHAVER, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MAINE, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY THE ZONE CHANGE FOR REASONS STATED PREVIOUSLY. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 1 AGAINST (BEYER). Councilor Beyer said from what she read and saw on the map, she felt this was consistent, and even felt staff, in their original report, believed they were within the property. She did not agree with the Planning Commission decision. Mayor Morrisette said that the Planning Commission disregarded staff recommendation, for that reason, he paid particular attention to it and asked questions and tried to get the justification of why. It would be simple to say yes, lets approve it, but it was a much harder decision to go against the recommendation of staff and with what he felt were justifiable reasons. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. W.G. Willie Combs, 334 Scotts Glenn Drive, recognized staff for quick response to Ballot Measure 47. He suggested staff establish a telephone survey to come up with ways to get things done. '" .;. <I . . . Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 13 2. Ryan Killion, 6172 Thurston Road, was cited f?r a violation of the nuisance ordinance. He said he would not be able to conform by the required deadline. He requested an extension. He wanted time to list and sell his property. He said he was first notified about problems in 1992. He also explained that the ordinance was~revised in 1994. Councilor Burge suggested he be given on week to submit a copy of a written agreement listing the property for sale. Councilor Maine said his vehicles would still need to be moved to prepare the property for sale. Councilor Burge said if he showed good faith in his efforts, the council may consider a three-week extension. He agreed with comments made by Councilor Maine and said Mr. Killion would need to clean up the property and move cars to make the property more marketable. While council was discussing this issue, Mr. Killion left the Council Chamber Room and no formal direction was provided to grant an extension. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. Correspondence From Eugene Mayor Ruth Bascom, 777 Pearl Street, Room 105, Eugene, Expressing Agreement with Mayor Morrisette's Suggestion that Work on the Jurisdictional Boundary Study for Glenwood be Deferred for Six Months. 2. Correspondence From Paul Regalia, President, Northwest Thurston Neighborhood Association, Regarding Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision Concerning Metropolitan Plan Diagram Determination, Appellant, Mr. Roy C. Gray (10. No. 96-11-234). 3. Correspondence From Paul Regalia, President, Northwest Thurston Neighborhood Association, Regarding Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Zone Change (10. No. 96-07-149) From Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) for a 1.73 Parcel, Tax Lot 4400 on Assessor's Map 17-02-34-32. 4. Correspondence From Mrs. M. J. Higgins, 5660 Daisy Street, #8, Regarding System Development Charges (SDCs). IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR BURGE, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MAINE, TO ACCEPT CORRESPONDENCE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH FOUR FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BIDS 1. Bid Award for Project 1-960: Trunk Sanitary Sewer Public Improvement in South 32nd Street/Jasper Road Corridor. City Engineer Al Peroutka presented the staff report on this issue. Project 1-960 consists of the construction of approximately 500 linear feet of 30-inch diameter concrete sewer and, 6,160 linear feet of 27-inch diameter PVC sewer for a total of 6,660 linear feet with lateral . . . ,,,- ~ Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 14 service lines. The average depth of cover on the trunk sewer will be approximately 14.5 feet. The trunk sewer will begin just south of the railroad tracks on South 32nd Street and extend to the South 42nd Street and Jasper Road intersection. The sanitary sewer line is called for in the city's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. There are no anticipated immediate hook-ups, but the sewer must be put in place prior to the improvement of South 32nd and Jasper Road this spring. The sewer will prepare areas along Jasper Road for development and eventually will be extended to eliminate some sewage pumping in southeast Springfield and to provide gravity sewer service to the southeast UGB line, including the Natron site. Six bids were received and opened in the Finance Department on January 6, 1997: Valley Pacific Construction, Inc. Egge Sand and Gravel L.L.C. Meza Construction, Inc. H & J Construction, Inc. Eugene Sand and Gravel, Inc. Wildish Construction Co. $1,033,481. 1,327,310. 1,557,524. 1,674,588. 1,818,992. 1,943,840. Sufficient funds are budgeted in the Sewer Capital Projects Fund Account to allow award of this contract. This item was discussed during an executive session earlier this evening. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR MAINE, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR SHAVER, TO ALLOW THE LOW BIDDER, VALLEY PACIFIC, TO WITHDRAW FROM THE BID DUE TO A NON-JUDGMENTAL ERROR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 1 AGAINST 1 (BURGE). IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR MAINE, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR SHAVER, TO A WARD PROJECT 1-960 TO EGGE SAND AND GRAVEL L.L.C.. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FORAND 0 AGAINST. ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments a. Budget Committee Appointments. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR BURGE, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MAINE, TO RATIFY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE FOLLOWING TO BUDGET COMMITTEE POSITIONS: CHRISTINE L. LUNDBERG, WARD 1, TERM EXPIRATION 12/31/98, VIRGINIA LAURITSEN, WARD 3, TERM EXPIRATION 12/31/99, AND JOHN ERICKSON, WARD 4, TERM EXPIRATION 12/31/99. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ..\, .{'...J.. ('" . . . Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 15 b. Police Planning Task Force Appointments. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR MAINE, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BURGE, TO APPOINT JEANETTE BRASHNYK AS THE BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE AND RONALD BYERS AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT-LARGE REPRESENTATIVE. IT WAS ALSO AGREED THAT SEAN WILSON WOULD BE APPOINTED TO THE NEXT A V AILABLE NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION, EITHER BY RESIGNATION OR TERM EXPIRATION OF AN EXISTING MEMBER. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports b. Other Business 1. Appointment of Council President. Councilor Maine thanked Councilor Burge on behalf of the council for serving as Council president the past three years. Councilor Burgeresponded that he appreciated the opportunity to serve. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR MAINE, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BURGE, TO APPOINT COUNCILOR SHAVER AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT; THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Review of Council Board, Committee and Commission Assignments. Mayor Morrisette asked if any council member would like to modify their committee appointments. Councilor Burge commented that per council policy, the council president should serve as liaison to the Metro Partnership and Metro Policy Committee (MPC). It was agreed that Councilor Shaver would serve asa representative on both committees. Councilor Maine would continue to serve as the alternate to the MPC. . BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Establishment of the East Alton Baker Neighborhood Association. Planning Manager Gregory Mott presented the staff report on this issue. The residents of the East Alton Baker Park area have elected officers and adopted bylaws for the formation of a neighborhood association. Pursuant to the city's Citizen Involvement Program the council must officially recognize this group's application for neighborhood association formation. On December 17, 1996, the Committee for Citizen Involvement found that the application for neighborhood association formation satisfied all necessary requirements of the city's Citizen Involvement Program (the physical boundaries of a neighborhood association are limited only to the prohibition of overlap with another neighborhood association or Eugene city limits). ;.; .(""";"i << . . . Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 16 The CCI unanimously approved recommendation to request city council recognition of the East Alton Baker Neighborhood Association with the following change to bylaw number six, Elections: Insert "An officer shall not hold any other office for more than three consecutive terms" between the third and fourth sentences. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR BURGE, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MAINE, TO OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE THE EAST ALTON BAKER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Review of Draft Chapter 5 "Public Protection" Springfield City Code Recodification. City Recorder Eileen Stein presented the staff report on this issue. A revised draft of Chapter 5 "Public Protection" of the Springfield City Code has been prepared as part of the recodification project. The proposed draft makes a number of changes which are highlighted in the summary of changes. The most basic change is that the new draft combines the existing Chapter 5 (Offenses) and the existing Chapter 7 (Public Protection) into a new Chapter 5 (Public Protection). Within the body of the chapter is the article "Offenses" which provides the authority to prosecute misdemeanors and violations contained in the state criminal statutes; Otherwise, most changes either codify existing ordinances, make code provisions consistent with state law or delete sections which are superseded by state law. Ms. Stein said there was one more chapter for council to review and then the review process would be complete. She also noted that the old section five and seven would be combined into one section. City Attorney Joe Leahy explained that the police and prosecutor agreed to adopt all the same definitions of state crimes by reference. He explained that this would provide a savings of both money and time. Councilor Shaver questioned where in the code the reference to pigs and snakes was made. He also said there was a deletion of language which prohibited fences to be in condition of disrepair. It was explained this language would be placed in the Development Code. A comment was made that under the social gaming section, a reference was made to "dogs ...during public hours." Staff would follow-up and clarify this language. 3. 1997/99 State and Federal Legislative Agendas. City Recorder Eileen Stein presented the staff report on this issue. At its meeting of January 3, 1997, the Legislative Committee reviewed and approved the 1997-99 State Legislative Policies document. The Legislative Committee also approved the proposed 1997 Federal Legislative Agenda. City council approval of the State and Federal Legislative Agendas is now requested. During the past few years, at the beginning of each biennial session of the Oregon Legislature, staff has prepared and the city council approved a statement of legislative -). ...\ c: . Regular Session Meeting Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 17 policies to guide the city's monitoring and lobbying effort in Salem. The legislative policies document prepared for this session again reflects those issues which may be addressed by the Legislature which would be a high priority for the city of Springfield. A new feature of this document is the addition of an introduction section and a statement of general legislative policies. This statement will be used as a basis to support lobbying efforts in areas that may fall outside the specific legislative priorities. However, it may also serve to guide the council's discussion and deliberation on matters such as taking public positions on statewide or local ballot measures. The federal agenda will again be included in the United Front lobbying effort of government agencies in the metropolitan area. This year's United Front lobbying effort in Washington D.C. is scheduled for February 11-12, 1997. This effort will provide an opportunity for the city's representatives to present the I-5/Beltline Interchange project to federal officials as well as meet the many new members of the Oregon Congressional delegation. After council discussion, it was agreed that the state agenda portion would be scheduled for an upcoming work session. City Manager Mike Kelly said he was neutral on the issue of Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi or a staff member attending the United Front trip in Washington D.C. Mayor Morrisette and Councilor Ballew said it was important that Mr. Grimaldi attend. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR BALLEW, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MAINE, TO ADOPT THE 1997 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 4. Other Business BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11: 12 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson ~ ffrJ1Jmlvd ~f Morri~ Mayor Attest: ~~~ . ~~ CityRecorder