Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/2011 RegularCity of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MAY 165 2011 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 16, 2011 at 7:05 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present from Springfield were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, Assistant City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Attorney Bill Van Vactor, Planning Secretary Brenda Jones, and members of the staff. Present from Lane County were Board Chair Stewart and Board Members Leiken, Handy, and Sorenson. Board Member Bozievich was absent (excused). Also present were Interim County Administrator Lianne Richardson and Lane County Legal Counsel Steve Vorhees. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Resolution between the City of Springfield, The City of Springfield Urban Renewal Agency and Board of Higher Education on Behalf of the University of Oregon to Develop Sustainable City Year Program RESOLUTION NO. 11-15 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, THE SPRINGFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/SPRINGFIELD URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY (SEDA) OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON, AND THE STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO DEVELOP A YEAR LONG ENGAGEMENT THROUGH THE SUSTAINABLE CITY YEAR (SCY) PROGRAM OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON'S SUSTAINABLE CITIES INITIATIVE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery presented this item. He acknowledged and thanked the City Council for their hard work and support. The goals they had adopted over the years and the goal setting processes they had gone through had set the foundation for what became a successful application for the Sustainable Cities Initiative (SCI). He introduced Executive Director of Sustainable Cities Initiative Robert Liberty, Associate Director/Associate Professor of Architecture Nico Larco, Associate Director/Associate Professor of Planning, Public Policy and Management Marc Schlossberg, and Program Manager Chris Jones. Director Liberty said they were very pleased and excited about the successful application and were looking forward to a partnership with Springfield. It was a long overdue opportunity for a City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 16,201.1 Page 2 City that shined to show what could be done in Oregon to advance sustainability across many different spectrums. Working with Mr. Towery and Ms. Griesel had been a pleasure. They had been very professional and courteous, and had provided information to the SCI staff about the program. He also acknowledged that Springfield was only the third city to participate in this program. It had become more competitive as other cities saw the advantages to be reaped by this year-long collaboration. On Friday, May 20 from 11:00am to 2:00pm, an event was being held in Salem to wrap up their work with them. All were invited. He thanked them for the opportunity to work with Springfield and congratulated them for this partnership. Mr. Towery acknowledged the hard work put into this application by Courtney Griesel. Ms. Griesel had been the primary architect of the application and would be the project lead over the course of the next academic year. She had been tireless in her meetings with the University, City staff and staff from the other partner agencies. Ms. Griesel was present in the audience. This project would give Springfield several opportunities. It would allow the City to broaden the horizon of ideas and concepts staff brought to projects. We would be looking at what was possible and remarkable. Students and faculty would have the opportunity to give staff advice and guidance on real life projects using cutting edge ideas and innovations. This was a chance to engage with staff, faculty and the citizens of Springfield in being creative in how we redefined the future of some of the projects on our list. Some of the partners involved in this project included Springfield Utility Board, Willamalane, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, United Way, Springfield Schools, and private developers and landowners. There were about fifteen projects that had been identified and tentatively matched. There would be about twenty faculty members, twenty courses, and as many as 400 students engaged in this project over the next year. There would be two universities, ten academic departments including Architecture, Planning and Public Policy, Journalism, Law, Business, Arts Administration, Engineering, Economic, Historic Preservation and possibly others involved. It was an incredible opportunity for the City of Springfield and Council's support was appreciated. An amended resolution was distributed to Council. Section 3 had been changed to reflect the not to exceed amount. It was staff s recommendation that Council approve the resolution with that change. Mayor Lundberg said this was a very exciting opportunity. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 11-15. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. 1. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan: Adoption of Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to Comply with HB3337 (ORS197.304) File Number LRP2009-00014, LRP2009-00012. ORDINANCE NO. 1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (Metro Plan) TO ADOPT THE SPRINGFIELD 2030 REFINEMENT PLAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND HOUSING City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 16, 2011 Page 3 ELEMENT AND TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY PURSUANT TO ORS 197.304. Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented this item. During the April 4, 2011 public hearing, the Lane County HomeBuilders' Association requested that the public hearing remain open until May 165 2011. Attachment 1 of the agenda packet was a briefing memo with a response from staff regarding the two different issues raised during the April 4 public hearing, letters submitted to the City Council, and a request from Willamalane Park and Recreation District. She was available to answer any questions about those responses. Ms. Pauly noted that during the April 4 public hearing, the Lane County HBA requested the continuation of the public hearing in order to review some;inventory data they had requested on April 1. The City had provided the data to Mr. Bill Kloos on April 7 and included that information on a disc that was entered into the record for File No. 2009-00014. The data requested included a list of all tax lots included in the buildable lands inventory. Since the April 4 meeting, the City had conducted two meetings with the Lane County HBA to address the issues raised during their testimony and in Mr. Kloos' letter. On May 4, staff from Planning and the GIS Division, along with Bob Parker from ECO Northwest (the consultants on the analysis) met with representatives from the HBA. The purpose of the meeting was to prepare a list of vacant and semi-vacant tax lots. Having done that, the HBA indicated that they concurred that the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) database was correct. On May 12, staff again met with the HBA to further discuss issues raised by Mr. Kloos in his letter. They provided a response to that by preparing some additions to the ordinance. The updated ordinance was distributed to the elected officials. Ms. Pauly read the revisions which were at the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3: WHEREAS, the City used the 1999 to July 2008 period for the analysis and the record includes: 1) Maps (Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis, April, 2011 Maps 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3) that identify specific lots and parcels that have been determined to be buildable lands (vacant and partially vacant and master planned for residential development) as of July 2008 by applicable residential comprehensive plan map designation, consistent with ORS 197.296 (4)(c) which states: "Except for land that may be used for residential infill or redevelopment, a local government shall create a map or document that may be used to verify and identify specific lots or parcels that have been determined to be buildable lands;" 2) A CD that contains a data base that identifies and verifies the specific residentially- designated tax lots or portions of tax lots included in Springfield's residential land base as of July 2008; 3) A data base of specific tax lots or portions of residentially designated tax lots that are vacant or partially vacant as of July 2008; and WHEREAS, in addition to the aforementioned land base comprised of residential plan designations, the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis also identifies and assumes buildable residential dwelling unit development capacity in three areas designated for Mixed-use Nodal Development that are required to be developed with City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 16, 2011 Page 4 residential uses: 1) Glenwood (Ordinance 6137), 2) RiverBend (Ordinance 6109 and 6241); and Marcola Meadows (Ordinance 6195) as part of Springfield's residential land supply; and WHEREAS, the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis also assumed buildable residential capacity for redevelopment and consistent with ORS 197.296 (4)(c) these areas are not shown in the aforementioned maps or list of tax lots; and WHEREAS, adoption of this ordinance establishes the July 2008 baseline data base to be used for monitoring Springfield's buildable lands inventory by the city's Development Services Department; Ms. Pauly said the. Lane County HBA submitted another data request via email on May 12. This request was for "a copy of the shape file used by the City to map the slope constraint on the BLI maps". The request noted that they would use the data to generate maps using other RLID data. She noted that the slopes constraints were not part of the Regional Land Information Database (RLID), and elevation was not an RLID data set. The BLI constraint maps were not prepared by the City, but by ECONorthwest and a sub consultant. The City had requested the data from ECONorthwest and expected to be able to provide that to the HBA in the next day or two. Ms. Pauly said a phone call was received by staff today from Sandra Johnson. Ms. Johnson requested to add the following information into the record about her property in the north Gateway UGB study area. Mr. Mott would present the information. Planning Manager Greg Mott referred to the letter from Ms. Johnson. When undertaking an analysis of areas the City was required to review regarding UGB expansion, the Johnson property was one of those reviewed. They conducted a telephone interview and received information that appeared as part of the record as document 5 of the April 20, 2010 Planning Commission public meeting. Ms. Johnson reviewed the information on the City Planning Division's website and wanted to correct several items: 1) they did not own 371 acres in the north Gateway Area, but rather 27 acres; 2) the flood listed as occurring in 1954 actually occurred in 1964; 3) a quote stating "there is too much acreage zoned EFU in Lane County" was a subjective statement. It should have read `there was a lot of land zoned EFU in Lane County'; 4) it should have read alluvial soil, instead of alluvium; and 5) the Johnson's never had 800 acres of land that they farmed, but had 500 acres leased throughout the southern Willamette Valley. Those items were corrected in the record. Board Chair Stewart read the title of Ordinance PA 1274: In the Matter of Amending the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Adopt the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element and to Establish a Separate Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Pursuant to ORS 197.304, and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File No. PA09-6018) (Springfield, Lane County) Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. 1. Donna Robinson, 87746 Collins Lane, Springfield, OR. Ms. Robinson said her property was beyond Springfield's urban growth boundary to the east at about the 10 mile marker on McKenzie Highway. Her interest was for the Council to mesh the Metro Plan Boundary with the urban growth boundary. Currently, there were just four parcels in the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan that were adversely affected by the Rural Residential 5 Zoning under,the Metro Plan. Unfortunately, her property was one of City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 16, 2011 Page 5 those. Their 8.7 acres that they purchased to divide between their sons, was now 10 acres which meant they could not divide the property. Amending the Metro Plan boundary would help them and give them back their Rural Residential 2 Zoning which they had in 1982. 2. Steve Tofflemoyer, P.O. Box 197, Springfield, OR. Mr. Tofflemoyer said he was a long time resident of the area and owned a masonry business in town. He owned a piece of property off of 42nd Street which the Dilbeck's had a hearing over several year back to find out what defined the urban growth boundary (UGB). During that hearing, they learned a waterway was to define that UGB, but in the creation of the UGB, they didn't follow that pattern. They were asking the elected officials to look at that and give them some answers. Whenever they asked for answers about which direction they could head or not, they were not getting any answers. There was a mistake made back then, and they would like that corrected. Councilor Wylie asked what the mistake was. Mr. Tofflemoyer said when they drew the UGB, they didn't follow the natural waterway, but came across their property. The hearings official said a mistake was made, but there was nothing he could do about it. He read in the paper where several little mistakes were made and were being corrected, and he felt their mistake was just as valuable as those other mistakes and would like it fixed. Councilor Moore asked which staff had been contacted. Mayor Lundberg chose to have the elected officials ask their questions after all the public testimony. Councilor Pishioneri asked for the location of the property. Mr. Grimaldi said it was noted on the map on Attachment 1-3 of the agenda packet. 3. Roxie Cuellar, Consultant on Behalf of the Lane County HomeBuilders' Association, P.O. Box 668, Yachats, OR. Ms. Cuellar requested that the elected officials keep the record open until May 31. The HBA was putting some additional data together. They were not requesting the hearing remain open, just the record. The issue for the HBA had to do with supply. When HB3337 was being discussed, there were two pieces: the new UGB for Springfield; and the residential lands study. That was because builders and developers in Springfield knew that there wasn't any land available during the good building economy. The Residential Lands Study had been done with a result showing sufficient 20 year supply of residential land. One of the things the HBA was concerned about were areas with slopes over 25%. What they were hearing from DLCD was that lands under 25% up in the hills had to be included in the Buildable Land Supply even if the access to those benches had slopes of 40%. In those situations, streets could not be put in and building couldn't occur. They would like to put information into the record for the elected officials to consider before making their decision, about whether or not those benches in the hills were actually buildable. The elected officials had the option to define buildable. She provided examples. In practical terms, if they couldn't get streets to them (lots), they couldn't build. Former Development Services Director Bill Grile had mentioned this to her several years ago. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 16, 2011 Page 6 When this decision was made by the elected officials, the land supply would not be reviewed again for ten years. Their decision would determine whether or not entry level homes could be built in Springfield. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. Planner Steve Hopkins addressed the elected officials regarding some of the public comments. He referred to Attachment 1-3 of the agenda packet which showed the Tofflemoyer property. The property had good evidence of where the UGB was precisely located. That evidence was contained in five different decisions that incorporated two subdivisions: Filbert Meadows and Redwood Village and an annexation which occurred in 1997. The information was very specific for that tax lot at that time. The City didn't have that specific type of information on the Nagel property (which was one of those Mr. Tofflemoyer referred to), but only the Metro Plan diagram which was not very specific. There was about a 200 foot cushion on the Nagel property and because the barn was located in that cushion, they made the line follow a geographic boundary. Councilor Ralston said he recalled talking about this before and thought it had been resolved. Mr. Tofflemoyer said the hearings official said a mistake had been made, but the official was not able to do anything about it. A mistake had also been made with the barn (Nagel's property). In his business, when he made a mistake, he had to fix it. Mayor Lundberg asked if everyone understood what happened. Yes. Councilor Ralston referred to the HBA request. He agreed with her comments regarding unbuildable land in the hills. Entry level homes could not be built on that type of property. He would be willing to allow a couple of weeks to enter that information into the record, although he was not sure what could be done about it. Ms. Smith spoke regarding the process of determining what buildable land was and was not. The City took the administrative rule that identified buildable land, and included lands that fit the criteria. The rules were very specific regarding the criteria. The rule defined unbuildable land as land that "can't be serviced", instead of land that was "hard to service". Based on-advice from the consultant, ECONorthwest, and their own legal analysis, they went with land that was buildable unless it couldn't be serviced. There was some legal precedent for interpreting that rule differently and looking at other factors such as feasibility. There was a case at the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) where they stated other factors could be considered, but an adequate factual basis was needed based on substantial evidence, and that was a high bar to meet. The City tried to implement through the requirements of HB3337 in the most thorough way possible. If the elected officials wanted to look at the options of benches in other areas, they would need to look at each specific area, which would take a lot of time and resources. That could also open up problems with other stakeholders in this process. Commissioner Leiken said it was important when going through the criteria and setting the UGB, to look at periodic review regarding possible expansion. Normally, that was done for ten years, but he asked if it could be done for five years instead. Mr. Mott said the rule regarding periodic review had changed. It used to be no sooner than four years, or longer than seven years. It was now ten years, but a community could evaluate its inventories at any time. If development trends changed significantly, that inventory could occur. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 16, 2011 Page 7 Also, if new evidence was made available regarding soil stability, they could request staff to go through that evaluation process to determine whether or not the City had an adequate inventory. Commissioner Leiken said he respected what the HBA was looking at in terms of buildable lands. Through this process, the County Board must co-adopt this ordinance, but the big piece was DLCD. Representative Lee Beyer had noted during a previous work session that the amount of.. land was not as much a concern as getting through the DLCD process. They could then come back for periodic review. It was important to work with those that wanted to build in our community, and that they understood the periodic review process. It would be critical to make the case to DLCD to be able to move forward. It could be helpful for the HBA to know that the City had established a periodic review phase after the separate UGB had been set and an expansion considered. There would continue to be questions on the slope issue, and there would be differing views on whether or not they were buildable. Mr. Mott said once all of the documentation was submitted by the HBA on May 31, staff could prepare a response by the next meeting, which would likely be June 20. Staff could also address the question regarding periodic review cycles, what would constitute a legitimate basis for that, or how the City could request the evaluation of our inventory occur at a date certain, such as five years. Commissioner Leiken said the key would be certainty for the development community. If they could provide that through the periodic review phase, it would be helpful. Board Chair Stewart referred to the report which stated there was enough land in the UGB, to create 9018 new dwelling units. The projection for the need over the next twenty years was 5920. He asked if that was correct. The report then went on to say there was a surplus of 272 acres of low-residential (LDR) designated land, and surplus of 18 gross acres of medium-density residential (MDR) land. He would like information on what the HBA was stating in comparison to those surpluses. He recalled there was a deficit in high-density residential (HDR), which would be addressed in Glenwood. Ms. Pauly said Attachment 4-8 in the agenda packet was the summary of reconciling the land need and supply on Table S-5. The surplus in LDR was 378, in MDR was 76, and in HDR a deficit of 28. Councilor Ralston asked if the Tofflemoyer issue could be resolved before this was complete, or if it would be better addressed when looking at expansion. Mr. Grimaldi said because the elected officials would. not be making a decision tonight, staff would have an opportunity to do more research regarding the hearings official decisions and get back to the elected officials with additional information. They could determine at that time what steps to take. Board Chair Stewart said when looking at the attachment for that item and listening to the testimony, it appeared a waterway was the definition of the line. If that waterway would make a direct connection between the red lines (current UGB boundary), it might be something to consider. He asked if there was a waterway that existed in that location. Mr. Hopkins said according to the flood plain maps, there was a flood way and associated flood plain at that location. There was no river. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 16, 2011 Page 8 Board Chair Stewart said he was making some assumptions by the testimony. The line was currently defined by the subdivisions. He asked if there was a way to define a drainage ditch there. Mr. Hopkins said the Jasper Slough followed the southern portion of Filbert Meadows. He hadn't been to the property to know if the rest of it followed the blue line (proposed line) or the red line. Board Chair Stewart said he was trying to give the landowner the benefit of the doubt that his testimony might be different than the lines. Mr. Grimaldi said a site visit would be needed by staff. Mayor Lundberg said more information was needed between now and May 31, to help answer questions and provide clarification. Councilor Pishioneri said there might be other properties affected in that area. He asked that staff notify the other property owners about this so they could provide some input. Councilor Wylie asked Ms. Smith for clarification on determinations made regarding buildable lands. It sounded like if they chose to disqualify one area, they would need to look at all areas that were sloped. Ms. Smith said she would recommend that if they looked at the area referred to by Ms. Cuellar as benches, the City would need to look at every area that fit the criteria, not just those in the inventory. Each would need to be evaluated. Councilor Wylie asked if they could find out which areas were the steepest and switch it out for an equal number of acres of flat land. Ms. Smith said DLCD and LUBA may question how they determined which was the worse, and would likely want a comprehensive look at all of them. Mayor Lundberg said the key was the periodic review. There was a bigger approval process, but there was always opportunity to look at our reviews. There were legitimate issues that needed addressed. She asked if two weeks was enough time to get the information together. Ms. Smith said she believed that would be appropriate. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO KEEP THE RECORD OPEN WITH INFORMATION BROUGHT BACK ON THE HOMEBUILDERS' ASSOCIATION AND TOFFLEMOYER ISSUES RAISED DURING TONIGHT'S _MEETING TO MAY 319 2011. Board Chair Stewart asked for a motion from the Board regarding the 4th and 51' reading, and leaving the record open until May 31, 2011. He asked if the next meeting would be a joint meeting with the City Council. Mr. Vorhees said originally, they were looking at a joint meeting on June 6. If the Board wanted to correspond with the City Council action, they could make such a motion, or they could do a City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 16, 2011 Page 9 motion that addressed the reading of the ordinance and keeping the record open until May 31. The date that would work best for a joint meeting on this topic would be June 20. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. Board Chair Stewart recommended that the Board make a motion leaving the record open until May 31, moving the 4threading and 5th reading to June 20 at 7:00pm in Springfield. IT WAS MOVED BY BOARD MEMBER LEIKEN WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HANDY TO LEAVE THE RECORD OPEN UNTIL MAY 31, AND MOVING THE 4TH READING AND 5TH READING TO JUNE 20 AT 7:00 P.M. IN SPRINGFIELD. THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - BOZIEVICH). ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lundberg adjourned the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Board Chair Stewart adjourned the meeting of the Lane County Board. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:05 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa Gr/? Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: City Redder