HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/1994 Work Session
.
.
.
v
City of Springfield
Joint Dinner Meeting
MINUTES OF THE JOINT DINNER MEETING
OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL
AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 1994
The City of Springfield Council met at a Joint Dinner Meeting with the
Springfield Planning Commission in Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, January 24, 1994 at 6:10 p.m. with Mayor
Morrisette presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present for the Council were Mayor Morrisette and Councilors Burge, Schanz,
Walters, Shaver and Beyer. Councilor Maine was absent (excused).
Present for the Planning Commission were commissioners Siegle, Raybould,
Lutes, Cole, Tinsley and Harvey (7:35). Commissioner Hiatt was absent.
Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino
Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Eileen Stein, Development
Services Director Susan Daluddung and members of staff.
Mayor Morrisette called the meeting to order and ask the members of the
Council, Planning Commission and staff present to introduce themselves.
1. 1994 Planninq Commission Goals
Ms. Daluddung explained the Planning Commission held their goal setting
session on January 11, 1994, and their goals are within the frame of the
Development Services Department (DSD) work program and the City Council's
1993 goals.
Ms. Daluddung said the Sony Corporation locating in Springfield will be
added to the DSD work program and will take the place of some current goals
and work program items.
Commissioner Siegle spoke of the Gateway Conceptual Development Plan (CDP)
process which spanned two years at the Planning Commission and City Council
level, with intense citizen involvement.
Ms. Daluddung reviewed the 1994 Planning Commission goals highlighting the
topics of economic development, annexations, housing and the periodic
review process. She reported the Planning Commission would like to be
represented on the Mayor's Comprehensive Housing Policy Task Force,
consistent with their housing goal.
There was a discussion between members of the Planning Commission and the
Mayor regarding the status of the task force and the Mayor agreed the
Planning Commission should be represented.
.
.
.
City of Springfield
Joint Dinner Meeting
Page two
Councilor Schanz suggested the Metropolitan United Front group lobby to
change federal tax laws the capital gains exemption. He felt if these laws
were changed, more people would be motivated to sell older lower cost
housing which would help the shortage. Councilor Shaver agreed. Councilor
Burge suggested more home owners take advantage of the one-time exemption
program to counter act capital gains taxes.
Councilor Shaver asked if the Planning Commission goals are prioritized by
the order presented. Ms. Daluddung replied no, all the goals are top
priority for the commission.
The Council and Planning Commission discussed alternate housing for
low-income citizens in Springfield.
2. Periodic Review of the Metropolitan Plan
Ms. Daluddung reviewed the six items regarding periodic review from the
Planning Commission 1994 goals.
Councilor Burge questioned the timing of periodic review with regards to
the current negotiation process for changes to the Metro Plan amendment
process. The Council and Planning Commission discussed the negotiation
process and proposed changes.
Mr. Leahy explained the Planning Commission was not making a recommendation
regarding the negotiation process, just seeking back-up alternatives if
negotiations with Eugene and Lane County do not proceed as planned.
Commissioner Raybould suggested wording of the Planning Commission goals
regarding the Metro Plan process be changed to reflect Mr. Leahy's
comments.
Councilor Burge stated he is concerned over the amount of time, money and
energy that is and will be spent to focus on the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB). Planner III Susie Smith replied the city is required to update
employment and census data, being as objective as possible for the update
process.
There was a discussion regarding land use inventories that are completed
and not completed. Ms. Daluddung told the Council and Planning Commission
the industrial inventory is completed, the residential inventory is old,
and there is currently no commercial inventory. By consensus, all agreed
the city should complete a commercial inventory study.
Ms. Daluddung stated the Sony Corporation was very impressed with the
Oregon Land Use Laws, the Gateway Refinement Plan, and coordination between
State and local governments.
There was a discussion regarding Urban Service Agreements with Special
District required pursuant to SB122, adopted by the 1993 legislature. Ms.
Daluddung said the willamalane Parks and Recreation District agreement was
almost completed. The Council talked about School District 19 and problems
they face regarding land use planning issues.
.
.
.
City of Springfield
Joint Dinner Meeting
Page Three
Mr. Kelly explained a joint meeting between the Council, willamalane Parks
and Recreation District and School District 19 has been scheduled for
March. He stated many of the special district issues will be discussed at
the meeting.
Ms. Daluddung introduced Ms. Smith who is the Springfield staff coordinator
for the periodic review process. Ms. Smith gave the members of the Council
and Planning Commission an update of the periodic review process.
Ms. Smith explained background information on the adoption of the current
Metro Plan and Administrative Rules regarding periodic review updates. She
explained the Metro Plan must be updated every seven years. Councilor
Burge questioned why the figure of seven years was chosen. Staff responded
they would contact the Department of Land Conservation and Development and
respond to Councilor Burge's question.
Ms. Smith said the jurisdictions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County are
currently in Phase I of the periodic review process. She explained the
process, ending with review by the Joint Planning Commission Committee
(JPCC) and the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) , and dialogue review of
Phase I by DLCD.
Ms. Smith stated there will be upcoming meetings with both the Planning
Commission and Council to analyze the evaluations from Phase I. Ms. Smith
briefly explained the processes for Phase II and III of the update process.
Ms. Smith spoke of possible grant dollars available to assist the
jurisdictions in the periodic review process. She stated the three main
areas of focus for Springfield were: 1) commercial inventory review, 2)
wellhead delineation and analysis, and 3) wetland issues.
Councilor Walters asked Ms. Smith (as her role and a Eugene Water and
Electric Board (EWEB) member) to comment on the erosion of the property
where the Oregon Rivers Museum site is expected to locate. He wanted to
know if EWEB had plans to further assist with the site. Ms. Smith replied
EWEB has been active in participating with the restoration. Mayor
Morrisette suggested the topic should be handled personally outside of the
joint meeting discussion.
THE MEETING RECESSED AT 7:20 P.M.
THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 7:40 P.M.
3. Sprinqfield Annexation Strateqy
MS. Daluddung explained in 1991, annexation was a goal of the Planning
Commission, and in 1992, the annexation strategy was identified as a goal
by the City Council. Ms. Daluddung reported a comprehensive annexation
analysis has been completed and she reviewed key issues involved with the
annexation strategy, including sewer extensions and delayed annexations.
cfty of Springfield
Joint Dinner Meeting
Page Four
.
Ms. Daluddung told the Council and Planning Commission no action is sought
at this time, but she would like a recommendation on how to proceed with
annexations. She proposed the Council examine three different options with
regard to annexation strategy: 1) accept and respond to annexations
requests as is done currently, 2) seek areas to annex and become more
pro-active in annexation using traditional annexation methods and 3)
develop a comprehensive annexation plan for submittal to the voters. Ms.
Daluddung explained the third type of annexation strategy is a new State
law and has not yet been done by any city in Oregon.
Commissioner Siegle asked what part of the UGB is in the 100 year flood
plain. Planner III Mel Oberst replied very little, as the UGB boundary
line conforms closely to the 100 year flood plain.
Mr. Oberst gave a detailed overview of the city's current annexation
policy of working with each individual property owner seeking annexation to
review the ability to annex based on available services.
Mayor Morrisette discussed the North Springfield area and why the city must
require sewer extension. There was a discussion regarding septic tanks
versus sewer extension.
Commissioner Siegle asked what the population of the UGB area is. Mr.
Oberst replied currently 8,000 to 9,000. Ms. Daluddung explained other
states are also working on annexation of UGB areas.
.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the pockets of un-incorporated
areas, the responsiveness of service providers and increasing the city's
tax base.
Ms. Daluddung introduced Carol Heinkel of Lane Council of Governments, who
prepared the Springfield Comprehensive Urbanization Study and Analysis
(SCUSA) Report. Ms. Heinkel reviewed the major areas of focus of the
study, which were: 1) to divide the study area into 14 sub-areas for
review, 2) to generate data on demographics, population, land use and
services available, 3) to develop criteria for evaluation, and 4) to
compile components of an annexation plan.
Ms. Heinkel discussed the components of the annexation plan and what
implementation steps would follow if the plan was approved.
Commissioners Siegle and Tinsley commented on the current annexation
process not allowing for Springfield to grow systematically. They also
spoke about the city being cautious as to the timing of an annexation plan
and not rushing the issue.
Commissioner Lutes spoke about how to balance the Gateway area with
industrial and residential uses. He suggested finding a balance, without
ignoring economic considerations.
.
Mr. Kelly reviewed the options explained by Ms. Daluddung and said staff
needs direction as to which option the Council and Planning Commission
favor. Ms. Daluddung reported grant dollars are available for a limited
time period to help designate neighborhoods and seek needed services
(education and involvement) .
.
.
.
. .city of Springfield
Joint Dinner Meeting
Page Five
Councilor Burge stated too much money is spent in Springfield on land use
planning and he would like to see a conclusion to certain processes.
There was a discussion of timing for the annexation plan. An example of
the Menlo Park area was used.
Ms. Daluddung introduced Jim Carlson of Lane Council of Governments who
worked on the fiscal analysis element of the SCUSA report. He told the
Council and Planning Commission he looked at what effect annexation would
have on revenue and service costs for Springfield.
Mr. Carlson reported in general, residential development areas would pay
for general fund operating costs by capturing additional property tax. He
explained undeveloped areas would cost more to annex than the revenues
generated, but in the public works area would increase over time, due to
System Development Charges, sewer fee's, etc.
Mr. Carlson explained how the tax base increases through annexation and
delayed annexation can help increase a tax base if the delayed date is
calculated with actual development.
Councilor Walters suggested annexing pocket areas that are already
developed. Commissioner Siegle stated the Planning Commission supports
Councilor Walters proposal, with a more defined plan. Commissioner Harvey
suggested an extended timeline be factored into the annexation plan to
assist both the city and citizens with the financial burden.
Ms. Heinkel cautioned the city must make service available if an annexation
plan is adopted. Councilor Walters stated the city must promote services
and educate citizens on the advantages of annexation.
Councilor Beyer said the city needs a formal annexation plan. She stated
she fears the city's current annexation agreements will not hold up in the
future. Councilor Schanz said he supports option #2, of seeking areas to
annex and becoming more pro-active.
Commissioner Lutes talked about the East Springfield annexation and how
difficult the process was. He explained the city had completed planning
for the area, but it was the decision of the property owners whether to
annex. Commissioner Lutes stated he favored a method that will give the
city more control over the process.
Mayor Morrisette and Commissioner Siegle stated it was the consensus of the
Council and Planning Commission to do an analysis to identify and plan for
sub areas that are cost effective to annex to the city. Consensus was for
Ms. Daluddung to seek grant dollars to assist with the process.
Ms. Daluddung stated staff will move forward with a modified annexation
plan approach and will send information to the Council at their February 7
meeting and the Planning Commission in their next packet.
Councilor Walters asked for a matrix with acreage and site information for
the UGB in descending order.
.
.
.
,ci'ty of Springfield
Joint Dinner Meeting
Page Six
4. Glenwood Annexation Fiscal Analysis
Ms. Daluddung reported Mr. Carlson is currently in the process of
finalizing the analysis and a report will be done by mid-February, possibly
in time for the Council's Goal Setting session on February 6.
Planninq Commission Items of Discussion
Commissioner Siegle suggested a neighborhood mediation process could assist
the city's land use regulations. He said the Planning Commission supports
such a process, especially in their role as the city's Committee for
Citizen Involvement.
Commissioner Siegle mentioned the city's current notification process and
issues which have recently arose involving the Springfield Development Code
and state laws. Mr. Kelly replied he will work with staff to resolve the
issues. There was no further discussion.
City Council Items of Discussion
Councilor Burge spoke of a recent Planning Commission meeting he attended,
He explained public officials should be careful not to bring personal
opinions into public meetings and should instead focus on adopted policy.
Councilor Burge stated Springfield is the public service provider of choice
in the metro area and should be cautious of perceptions by both staff and
the public. He explained everyone is on the same team and as elected
officials, both the Council and the Planning Commission need to be team
players.
ADJOURNMENT
The Joint Dinner meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Shari Higgins
Pdf~iJ
Mayor '
ATTEST:
~v~
City Recordet
#3475