Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/1996 Work Session . City of Springfield Work Session MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD TUESDAY, MAY 28,1996 The Springfield City Council met in Work Session at Springfield City Hall, Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon at 6:07 p.m. with Council President Burge presiding. Present were Council President Burge and Councilor Ballew, Beyer, Dahlquist, Maine and Shaver. Mayor Morrisette was absent (excused). Also present was City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Tim Harold, City Recorder Eileen Stein, Administrative Aide Shari Higgins, Clerk II Sandi Weston, Development Services Director Susan Daluddung, Planning Manager Greg Mott, Maintenance Manager Ed Black, City Engineer Al Peroutka, Traffic Engineer Gary McKenney and members of staff. I. Planning Commission Interviews Councilor Burge announced that applicants Shari Hiatt and Randy Rawson had withdrawn their applications. Councilor Burge stated that Council would proceed with the scheduled interviews of James Burford and Salvatore Collura. Council asked the following interview questions: . I. It is likely that the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Urban Transition (UT) areas will become part of the city in the future. As far as providing equity to both in-city and out-of-city residents, how do you feel the city should base its fees and should the people in the UGB pay the same or higher fees than city residents? 2. What is your opinion or understanding regarding planning on the metropolitan level and metropolitan cooperation? 3. If there was a conflict before the Planning Commission of what property owners want versus the needs of neighborhoods, how would you go about resolving the conflict? What about economic development versus environmental issues? 4. Have you attended a Planning Commission meeting? 5. Can you describe your understanding of the relationship between the Planning Commission and the City Council? 6. What is your understanding of density and the allowable number of units per acre for low density residential and medium density residential. Should more or less units per acre be allowed? 7. Can you attend two Planning Commission meetings per month? . . City of Springfield: Work Session - 5/2~/96 page two 8. Many of the land use laws are State mandated and must be enforced. How would you reconcile your own personal opinions and beliefs regarding personal property owners I rights, when fhey are at odds with State Law? i Council discussed the interviews and the candidates level of experience for serving on the I commission. B~ consensus, Council agreed to appoint James Burford and Salvatore Collura to the Planning Commission to four-year terms. The appointments will be ratified at the next regular Council1meeting. I 2. Pioneer Parkway Extension I I Traffic Engineer Gary McKenney presented the staff report. He stated the Pioneer Parkway I Extension project is further defined in two pertinent planning documents, the Gateway Refinement PlaJ and the McKenzie-Gateway Conceptual Development Plan. He stated the extension begins at Pioneer Parkway and Harlow Road, and proceeds North, connecting to the I end of Beltline Road. I . Mr. McKenney introduced Mr. Jim West, Project Manager of Kimley-Horn & Associates, who provided an engineering technical analysis of a more precise route alignment for the extension project. Mr. McKenney stated the extension project is currently in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, by an amendment in 1992. Mr. West stated he reviewed the transportation study for the newly constructed Sony Disc Manufacturing Facility, other recent transportation studies, and aerial photography of what is developed and what is undeveloped. He gathered information prior to the project walk held on August 21, 1995. Mr. West explained how he and city staff listened to the concerns of affected property owners and sought information regarding their preferences for the proposed extension. On the project walk, they also identified structures, trees and fences which are currently placed in the right-of-way and the topography of the land with the impact of natural tree stands and alignment constraints. Mr. West explained how he worked with the Lane Council of Governments regarding the traffic forecast, which would be 20,000 to 24,000 vehicles per day using a fully improved parkway. After review of all of the information, Mr. West described the need for a four-lane road, to achieve project consistency and adequate spacing of intersections. He felt that the design of a four-lane parkway would operate well and meet the service levels as defined in the TransPlan. . Mr. West discussed the analysis he conducted on the use of a sound wall, due to the number of trucks that would be using the parkway and the anticipated traffic level. His recommendation was there should be a sound wall with no pedestrian or foot traffic, unless other alternatives could be explored. Mr. McKenney stated that the subject of a sound wall should be thoroughly discussed by the Council, as part of the extension project. \' . City of Springfield Work Session - 5/28/96 page three Councilor Burge asked why this project would be considered for a sound wall when others on Main Street, Beltline, etc., do not have walls and the streets have higher speed limits. Mr. West replied that the City has some obligation for an extension, as development is already in place and would impact the existing neighborhood. The development would need a buffer from the increased noise level created by an additional 20,000 vehicles. Mr. McKenney added that if the City will be using federal funding for the extension, that a sound barrier or wall would be a project requirement. Councilor Shaver asked about proposed curb cuts in the extension project. Mr. McKenney stated there would be no driveways allowed in the project. Councilor Shaver stated he would need to see the proposed cross streets clearly demonstrated before he could support approval, but the lack of driveways into Pioneer Parkway argues in favor of approval. . Councilor Shaver inquired about who placed the utility poles and when. Planning Manager Greg Mott replied that the poles were placed by the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) in 1992, after a Hearings Official Meeting was held regarding the poles located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) ajoint Planning Commission Meeting was held for the poles located inside the city limits. He stated the placement was a compromise, due to electro magnetic frequency (EMF). Mr. Kelly added that SUB worked closely with the City on placement ofthe new poles. Mr. McKenney stated that the center placement does allow for future road expansion and provides flexibility. Councilor Burge asked if this design concept supports the McKenzie-Gateway Conceptual Development Plan. Development Services Director Susan Daluddung replied yes, citing the adoption of the plans in order of approval, first the Gateway Refinement Plan, second the McKenzie-Gateway Conceptual Development Plan and now the Kimley-Horn technical transportation study. All the documents support the same transportation concepts. In closing, Mr. McKenney thanked Mr. West for his presentation and engineering expertise. Mr. McKenney stated staff would like to allow 60 days for the community to review the technical engineering information and then proceed with the public hearings necessary to adopt the preferred route alignment. Mr. Kelly commented that no decision regarding the project alignment or extension was required at this time. He stated the Planning Commission, City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners would all hold public hearings on the topic in the future. Councilor Burge suggested staff prepare an outline for the adoption process, including the County's public hearing process. Councilor Shaver asked when the Council would be provided with responses to their questions regarding cross street placement, extension alignment, and the benefit of using a sound wall. Mr. McKenney suggested staff wait until the 60 day public comment period was over and then responses to all questions would be compiled at one time. . Councilor Burge asked that staff identify in their response to Council where the precise alignment would lie and show no restrictions to development in the Gateway area. . ,. . . . City of Springfield Work Session - 5/28/96 page four 3. Springfield Comprehensive Urbanization Study Issues/Cost of Services Analysis Ms. Daluddung explained she was available to answer questions. She stated she did not have any new information to add to the last Council discussion of this item on May 20, 1996. Ms. Daluddung informed Council that land use fees for city residents would be presented in ordinance form at their June 3, 1996, regular meeting. The Council began it's review of urban services with the Library. Library Director Bob Russell explained that the current fees (for out-of-city residents only) are assessed per household, per year, based on the average property tax. He suggested Council raise the fee to the study recommended amount of $51 per year. Mr. Russell stated the increase would be closer to the actual cost recovery for a non-resident of Springfield. Councilor Burge spoke in support of the increase, but said he did not want the increase to preclude children from being able to access the library and seek educational materials. Mr. Russell replied that anyone wishing to visit the library and seek educational materials is welcome, but that only card holders could check out materials. Councilor Shaver stated he supported the increase and agreed with the formula presented, which is a closer representation of actual costs. He mentioned that the Library also assists low-income families by providing a scholarship program, which would also apply to non-city residents. By consensus, Council agreed to establish a $51 fee for library cards for out-of-city residents. It was clarified that this item would be adopted, along with other city-wide fee increases, at an upcoming Council meeting. Mr. Mott addressed the Council regarding the UGB or Urban Transition (UT) area and planning related fees. He explained the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 21, and recommended approval of an increase in planning fees to a 60% cost recovery for city residents. He stated that the Planning Commission also recommended that Council adopt planning fees for land use applications in the UT based on 60% cost recovery where UT and City land use application processes are identical, and 100% cost recovery for any aspect of a UT land use application that is solely the result of the property being outside, rather than inside, the city limits. Mr. Mott explained that the charges for a Hearings Official, for example, would be billed to the applicant at 100% because only UT applications require the services of a Hearings Official. He said this could be accomplished by requiring the applicant to submit a separate deposit along with the application. This is similar to the requirements for an expedited land division wherein the application includes a $600 deposit for the Hearings Official. Mr. Mott suggested the same process and deposit amount could be applied to Type III applications in the UT. The deposit balance would be returned to the applicant if the charges were less than $600, and the applicant would be billed for any Hearings Official costs in excess of $600. ~ ,\..."" . . . City of Springfield Work Session - 5/28/96 page five The Council asked for a copy of the minutes of the May 21, 1996 Planning Commission public hearing regarding land use fees. Council discussed the UT intergovernmental agreement with Lane County and current city land use standards which are comparable to Lane County. Mr. Mott provided Council with information regarding the process used by Lane County to process land use applications versus the City's process. He discussed the City's internal Development Review Committee (DRC) and explained how the committee expedites Type II land use applications. By consensus, Council agreed to adopt 60% cost recovery for any aspect of processing land use applications for areas in the UT that did not differ from City applications, and 100% cost recovery for any aspect of an application that is necessary solely because the application is in the UT. Council asked that the fee increase be placed on the next regular meeting agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Shari Higgins ~g ATTEST: ~ City Recorder