Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/1998 Work Session (2) . . . t:.' " MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL AND THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD MONDAY, APRIL 13,1998 The Springfield City Council met in Joint Work Session with the Springfield Planning Commissio,n at Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room, City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday April 13, 1998, at 6:05 p.m. with Mayor Morrisette presiding. INTRODUCTIONS Present were Mayor Morrisette and Councilors Ballew, Beyer, Burge, Dahlquist, Maine, and Shaver. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manger Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Trudeau, Senior Management Analyst Rosie Pryor, Administrative Aide Shari Higgins, Development Services Director Susan Daluddung, Planning Manager Greg Mott, Senior Management Analyst Len Goodwin, Planner II Robin Johnson, Planner III Mark Metzler and members of staff. Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Lyle Hatfield and Commissioners Burford, Cole, Hovet, Lutes and Ralston. Commissioner Collura resigned in March. 1. Joint City Council- Planning Commission Work Session. Development Services Director Susan Daluddung said this is the annual work session scheduled between the City Council and the Planning Commission. Issues on the agenda for discussion were Glenwood jurisdictional transfer; design standards for higher density and mixed use development; Periodic Review implementation; and the status of the Commercial Lands Study. Ms. Daluddung said each topic referenced above had a briefing memorandum included in the Agenda Item Summary. Ms. Daluddung said Councilor Burge has been the leader of the Glenwood Task Force with Don Lutes representing the Planning Commission. She explained what information was provided to the City Council on February 9, during a work session pertaining to Glenwood. Ms. Daluddung provided background information on the Glenwood survey, process, which had a 12 percent response rate. The city received 68 yes responses, 26 noresponses,..five said they had no opinion, and one resident said probably. Ms. Daluddung reported the city then asked Glenwood residents to become part of a focus group session which was held on March 19. Twelve citizens evenly split on the topic were asked to attend, but additional community members visited and all were asked to participate. Ms. Daluddung said on March 30 the city sponsored an open house that 61 people attended. She explained the details of the open house and what information was available for Glenwood residents to obtain about the potential jurisdiction change. Springfield and Eugene Councilors, the Mayor, and Lane County Commissioner Weeldreyer were joined by staff from Springfield, Lane County, the City of Eugene, Willamalane Park and Recreation District, Eugene Water and Electric Board, Springfield Utility Board, Glenwood Water District and the Lane County Boundary Commission. Ms. Daluddung said staff will continue to review comments made at both the focus group and the open house to define greater detail to the City Council for future consideration. . . . " " City of Springfield Joint Work Session - 4/13/98 Page 2 LaDeane Pryor of Mar%Stat Market Research, presented information regarding the Attitudes and Opinions of Citizens of Springfield concerning Jurisdiction of Glenwood, conducted April 1998. She outlined the public input process from Springfield residents regarding the jurisdictional transfer. Copies ofthe survey were provided to members of the audience. Mr. Kelly spoke of meetings conducted with Councilor Burge and major property owners in the Glenwood area. Mr. Kelly said the major property owners were asking questions and most are either neutral or supportive of the transfer. One property owner was in opposition. Mr. Kelly explained the city received a petition which was submitted from 58 small to mid- size business owners in Glenwood. He said all the business owners will be contacted and asked to attend a meeting and share with staff why they are opposed to the transfer. The city hoped many would come to the open house and share their views, but since they apparently did not, they will be contacted. An audience member asked that the meeting be held during hours that working people could attend. It was clarified evening hours would be the best. Ms. Daluddung referenced the revised Glenwood Process document and copies were provided to members of the audience. Ms. Daluddung asked council and commission members to comment on the process timelines. Councilor Maine asked how the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) felt about the process or if any statements had been made to date. Councilor Shaver said the topic was an informational item only and no concerns were shared.. The chronology was discussed and comments were made to continue the'timeline..Councilor Shaver stated his preference for moving forward with the process. Commissioner Lutes said it makes geological and land-use sense for Glenwood to become a part of Springfield's jurisdiction. Mayor Morrisette spoke on the city's annexation policy, which is to annex by citizen request only, even for areas which are currently islands within the city limits. Councilor Dahlquist said he had spoken with acquaintances who were opposed to the transfer, as they feel the City of Eugene will be able to provide sewers to Glenwood in a more timely manner than Springfield can. Commissioner Hatfield said the next step in the process will inform Glenwood and Springfield residents versus collecting data and providing research on the transfer. He favored continuation of the process. An audience member said Glenwood residents are concerned over the 51 % majority needed for annexation. They felt if the 51 % majority was state law, that the city would begin to gather signatures for annexation at an early date. Ms. Daluddung explained the state law regarding annexations and how it was changed to registered voters and property owners versus just property owners who must consent and that the annexation must occur on a specific geographical area, not the entire jurisdiction of Glenwood as a whole. Another audience member commended the City of Springfield for allowing public comments and asked that the comment period continue throughout the process. Councilor Shaver asked if any of the Planning Commission members were in opposition of continuing with the Glenwood process or timelines. None of the members replied yes. Mr. City of Springfield Joint Work Session - 4/13/98 Page 3 . Kelly and Senior Management Analyst Rosie Pryor met with Glenwood representatives in the lobby of City Hall to answer any additional questions. Development Services Director Susan Daluddung said the next topic for joint review was Periodic Review, which consisted of three items: 1) the Residential Lands Study; 2) the Commercial Lands Study; and 3) TransPlan. The residential and commercial studies should have plans adopted by the end of 1998, and with much luck the TransPlan would follow soon. Planning Manager Greg Mott addressed the Residential Lands Study. He provided a hand-out on the proposed policies which would require code amendments for both the TransPlan and Residential Lands Study. If things proceed favorably in the late fall or winter of 1998 the TransPlan and Residential Lands Study amendments would occur. He explained the public hearing dates for Periodic Review, including MPC review, with the record being left open untilJune 5, 1998. Mr. Mott spoke of council preference for implementation, as no timelines have been discussed, a priority had not been determined, and Citizen Involvement Committees (CAC's) must create processes for items which overlap in the studies. Mr. Mott said dovetailing has occurred on the Residential Lands Study and the TransPlan intentionally, as staff did not. want the processes crossing each other, or creating a duplicate work load. . Mr. Mott asked if three separate CAC's could be developed and then define how each impacts the other, or if one CAC should be developed to handle the processes for multiple studies. Mr. Mott asked for input from the council and commission on how to develop such a citizen involvement process. Mr. Mott said Planner II Robin Johnson had been working with the state on multi-family design standards. Ms. Johnson explained progress made to date and how the multi-family issues weave into the other components of Periodic Review. Councilor Ballew felt a combination ofCAC's would be helpful and suggested combining members from both the Residential Lands Study and TransPlan. The group could deal with more than a single issue, as the studies do have areas which overlap. Ms. Johnson spoke briefly about a grant under the Transportation Growth Management Program (TGM) called SMART Development Code Assistance. The funding totaling $46,000 comes to the city in the form of consulting assistance, which will assist staff in the development of specific code language, to revise the development code to include design standards for multi-family housing. In addition, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) is considering providing assistance through their non-competitive Technical Assistance Grant Program to assist Springfield in the development of an ordinance for mixed use development, which would also include design elements. . Mr. Mott said the CAC would be appointed by the Springfield Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson provided information on the type of membership the city would solicit, including a . . . .., City of Springfield Joint Work Session - 4/13/98 Page 4 Planning Commission member and a City Council member. Commissioner Hatfield agreed that a larger committee combining Residential Lands Study, TransPlan, and multi-family housing needs would be beneficial. There was a discussion over the affect a CAC would have on the policy and implementation of development code amendments, which do differ. Mr. Mott discussed the issue of mixed use and said mixed use was encouraged under certain circumstances and when appropriate. Design standards for residential areas was discussed. Mr. Mott again said mixed use could encompass many different things. The design standards are for multi family residential. He also discussed low density residential areas and other types of mixed use. The group discussed land use issues, policies, and various densities of housing. The group discussed moving ahead fairly independently of the mixed use. It was suggested that it be taken in sequence rather than simultaneously. It was suggested to pursue higher density residential and then bring in mixed use as appropriate. ) Commissioner Lutes said with residential policies, the city is dealing with issues which have been dealt with before, yet cautioned city officials to move carefully when setting policy for mixed use densities. By consensus, it was agreed the city should move forward with a CAC that has a combination of membership. Commissioner Cole asked the city to move forward with the Commercial Lands Study, as it has been placed on hold for quite a long time. Councilor Burge felt the Commercial Lands Study process had been very inconsistent and shared his concern that visions become lost \ when the process continually starts over. Discussions over the length of the process, the loss of momentum and loss of participants may result in a skewed process. . Ms. Daluddung explained staffing issue which have plagued the group and said the process would soon resume. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Shari Higgins Edfl~ Bill Morrisette, Mayor