Loading...
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