Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/2003 Work Session . City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JULY 7, 2003. The City of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 7, 2003 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leikenpresiding. 1 ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ballew, Woodrow, Burge, Fitch, and Ralston. Also present were Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Absent: Councilor Malloy (excused) 1. Proposed Springfield Development Code Amendments. . Planner Gary Karp was present for the staff report. Mr. Karp said that the proposed SDC amendments are intended to: · Amend current Article 33 Lot Line Adjustments based upon: o Warfv. Coos County Land Use Board of Appeals Final Opinion and Order No. 2002-087 which gives direction concerning the review of individual and serial (multiple) Property Line Adjustments; and o Bringing the entire Article into compliance with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 92 (These regulations govern land divisions and the relocation of property lines in the State of Oregon). · Add Article 42 Replat Standards to create a consistent review process based upon the regulations in ORS 92 for replatting partitions and subdivisions. · Amend Article 2, Defmitions pertaining to Property Line Adjustments and Replats to comply with ORS 92. · Amend Article 3, Development Approval and Land Use Decision Procedures to update the Pre-Application process and create a new Pre-Submittal Meeting category to help facilitate the review of Partition, Subdivision and Site Plan Review applications. The Pre-Submittal Meeting will allow staff to get together with the applicant, property owner and development team to determine application completeness before an application is formally submitted. The intent is to save the applicant, City staff and the public time and money in the review process, and to provide more certainty to applicants. · Specify that existing land division fees also apply to Replats and create'a fee for the review of Type II serial Property Line Adjustments. . Mr. Karp said that the Springfield Development Code has had provisions concerning Lot Line Adjustments since its adoption in 1986. A Revision to ORS 92 in the early "90's changed the term "Lot Line" to "Property Line" Adjustment, however, staff did not amend the SDC at that time. Staff became aware of the Land Use Board of Appeals Final Opinion and Order No. 2002- 087 from Coos County in March 2003. Discussions with the City Attorney led to the proposed amendments relating to Property Line Adjustments and Replats. Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Midwest Chapter of the Professional Land Surveyors of Oregon on June 10, 2003 and met with Roxie Cuellar of the Lane County Home Builders Association on June 18, 2003. Comments from both groups were favorable. In addition, the City held a meeting with . City of Springfield Council Wark Session Minutes, July 7, 2003 Page 2 developers on May 19,2003 to address concerns about the Planning application review process. One of the items suggested and discussed was the Pre-Submittal Meeting. Staff is proposing the SDC be amended to include this process. These amendments were scheduled for Planning Commission review and recommendation on July 1. If the Planning Commission recommends approval on July 1, the City Council will conduct a public hearing after their work session. If the Planning Commission does not recommend approval on July 1, staff will ask the City Council to open the public hearing and continue it until September. Mr. Karp gave the council a handout showing the changes that were made at the Planning Commission on July 1,2003. He described the pre-application meeting which deals with minor issues the applicant may want to discuss with staff. He also explained the pre-application report which derives from the pre-application meeting. Both the pre-application meeting (now called the Development Consultation) and the pre-application report are voluntary. Mr. Karp said they have added a pre-submittal meeting which will be mandatory. He discussed other terminology that will be updated in the future. Councilor Burge asked if these changes embellish State Statute 92 or parallel them. Mr. Karp said it is now consistent with Oregon State Statutes. Councilor Burge asked if there was a charge for the pre-application report which is voluntary. Mr. Karp said there is a charge for that meeting and there is also a charge for the Development Consultation. These are done out of the loop of application processing. By having these meetings, it gives staff the opportunity to complete the review before the application is submitted instead of after so they are not behind schedule. . Councilor Burge asked what the pre-application report cost. Planning Supervisor Mr. Oberst said it is approximately $1000.00 because it involves bringing all ofthe divisions together, meeting with the applicant and writing a report for them. If they submit an application that is consistent with the report, the City refunds half of that fee back to them as a credit on their site plan. Councilor Burge asked about a charge for the pre-submittal meeting. There is no separate fee for the pre-submittal meeting. It is part of the process. Councilor Burge asked about the cost for the Development Consultation which is voluntary. Mr. Oberst said it costs about $300.00. Councilor Burge asked how the fees are set. Mr. Oberst said they use a rate schedule. To arrive at a fee so it is consistent, they average out the costs. Councilor Burge would like a copy of the rate schedule. Mr. Oberst will provide that for him. Councilor Fitch asked about working on Section 37.020 in the future. She asked if they would also look for other items that are outdated and erase them as needed. . . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 7, 2003 Page 3 Mr. Karp said they do that at times, but not recently. Stafftime has not allowed it. Councilor Fitch said it may be a way to continue to update the terminology in our code. Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas said they had a discussion at a developer meeting in late May. The meeting included folks from the development community and was a chance to discuss what the City is doing right or wrong, what they can fix, and how the City can become more efficient. From that meeting, they received feedback from those attending as to their four priorities for the City to examine. Out of that meeting came the idea of a task force to meet over the next 60 days, to look at ways to make our system more efficient. This task force will include 5-8 people and they will bring back recommendations to council to implement. Councilor Ballew confirmed that they have in the past had a pre-application fee. Mr. Karp said that is correct. Since that time they have added the two additional meetings, some of which are voluntary. Ms. Pappas said that one of the main issues that came from the developer meeting is that staff does not know when the completeness review is done, so it makes more sense to move it to the front ofthe process. 2. Fire and Emergency Response Time Issues and Infrastructure Requirements for the Annexation of Property (Jasper Meadows Phase 3) to the City of Springfield. Journal Number LRP2003-0000l. . Planner Linda Pauly was present for the staff report. Ms. Pauly said the property owners of the subject territory, Crossroads Development L.L.C., have requested annexation in order to develop a 39 lot residential subdivision on the 10.77 acre property located south of Jasper Meadows First Addition (south of South 60th and Granite Street), Assessor's Map Number 18-02-03-00, portion of Tax Lot 507. The applicant has submitted a concurrent application for Subdivision Tentative (Journal Number SUB2003-00004). This urban use is not permitted in the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District, thus annexation is required. Ms. Pauly explained that Springfield Development Code 6.030(2)(a) authorizes the City Council to initiate annexation when the territory in the annexation proposal can be provided with the minimum level of key urban facilities and services, including water, sewer, storm water facilities, streets, electricity, parks, fire/emergency services and schools, as defined in Eugene- Springfield Metro Area General Plan Policy 8, page II-B-4. When demands for development exceed the City's ability to provide services in a timely and efficient manner, the City Council has, in the last several years, supported annexation requests when the request is accompanied by an annexation agreement which ensures that the applicant will provide the necessary urban services. These agreements, which require the developer to provide the services in a reasonable amount of time, protect the City from claims that services are not being provided. . Ms. Pauly said that the annexation and subdivision proposals were submitted to the Development Review Committee (DRC) for analysis. The Fire Marshall found that fire and emergency response times to the property exceed 4 minutes. Public Works staff found that adequate sanitary sewers, storm drainage and transportation systems are not readily available to the site. Circumstances have sufficiently changed since the approvals of Phase 1 (approved 11/8/2000) and Phase 2 (approved 8/1/2002) of Jasper Meadows to the point that the construction ofthe Jasper Road Extension (JRE) is no longer considered imminent. As a result, South 59th Street remains the only assured access to and from Jasper Meadows development area for the . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 7,2003 Page 4 reasonable future. Staff have identified several long-range transportation planning implications and neighborhood traffic impacts which must be addressed in order to provide the minimum level of key urban services. Staff requests direction from Council to determine whether an annexation agreement is the appropriate tool to address these issues. Deputy Chief of Operations Dennis Shew said there was a need for Council to see the areas that are currently outside of our 4 minutes response times which are in city limits. He referenced a map that highlighted those areas. Councilor Burge asked where they reach the 4 minute limit. Mr. Shew said it is at about South 57th Street and Mt. Vernon Road. He said as new roads go in, response times will change accordingly. Discussion was held regarding Mountain Gate development area. Councilor Fitch brought up the Glenwood area and the relocation of the Fifth Street Station, Station #4. She asked what plans there were for other stations to better service the Jasper Natron area. Mr. Shew said they have not worked on a strategic plan to work on that area. He said that in a study in 1994, it was determined that another station would need to be built to adequately serve the area. They are currently looking more at the relocation of Station #4. He added that having Station #3 fully funded would have a positive affect on response time. . Councilor Burge asked what the recommendation was from the State Fire Marshal. Mr. Shew said the State Fire Marshal does not make recommendations as to area, only to having fire stations or not. Insurance services organizations have criteria for rates according to fire response times, mileage, number of firefighters available to fight a fire, etc. Their criteria are to have a fire station every 5 miles and fire hydrants. He explained the ratings based on mileage. Councilor Burge asked how close this property was to City fIre stations. Mr. Shew said it is approximately 2 Y2 to 3 miles. He noted that insurance companies rate the city as a whole and if it would affect the overall response time, the ratings could be affected. The Mayor discussed the additional fire fighters that will be on board and the response time after they are on staff. Mr. Shew said it could raise it to 80-85% from the current 68%. Councilor Ballew said there are more and more marginal properties and we have to determine city services. She suggested having a city group or committee to look at some ofthese situations. Discussion was held regarding the revenue from development versus the cost to citizens. Councilor Fitch said as we look at Phase 3, is there something temporary that could be done with the road to help mitigate the response times. Secondly, will we be able to get the permit to build phase 2 in a timely manner and how do we work with developer when there are so many uncertain issues in the future? . . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 7, 2003 Page 5 Discussion was held regarding response times for different areas and how response times were determined. Councilor Ralston said we realize we will eventually need a future station for this area. He is wondering if there is another quick access on a temporary basis for emergency service vehicles. Councilor Woodrow asked who responds to the mill out Jasper Road. It is covered by Pleasant Hill Fire District. Economic Development Manager John Tamulonis gave an update on the Jasper Road Extension (JRE) project. The agreement has been signed by all owners. He handed out the most current agreement with signatures from the property owners and said he will take the agreement to the County tomorrow. He explained that they were able to get a reduction in the cost to the City. The County has now said that Phase 1 will be a little behind because of an issue with the signalization on Main Street. Councilor Fitch said we do not have a guarantee from ODOT regarding the timeframe. Council thanked Mr. Tamulonis for his work with the property owners to prepare and get signatures on this agreement. Councilor Ballew asked about the timeline for the JRE. . Mr. Tamulonis said Phase 1 would likely be out to bid in September (a delay because of ODOT's need to approve signal modifications from Lane County). Mr. Tamulonis said it could be as early as 18 months to two years to get Phase 2 started with needed permits. The biggest challenges for Phase 2 are the Corps of Engineers approval for required wetlands mitigation and ODOT with the intersection of the JRE at Main Street. There could also be slight adjustments on the location of the actual roadway if the Corps of Engineers needs to make some slight adjustments to protect wetlands. Property owners will get a chance to look at these possible alignment changes before the JRE is dedicated. He said December 2007 is when the Agreement calls for construction of Phase 2 to be in place. Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett was here to give a transportation report on this property. He referenced a map which showed a concept master plan for this area. He outlined the property and phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3. He described the access issues. He discussed the issues regarding Jasper Road Extension not going in as timely as they had hoped. He said that phase 1 is complete and occupied with about 54 homes, and phase 2 is under construction with 2-3 homes occupied. He discussed the concern of some of the neighbors with the street configuration and traffic issues in this development with no secondary access. Councilor Woodrow asked if there were any plans for additional connections to this property. Mr. Barnett outlined the connection being proposed. Councilor Burge asked if that could be a requirement for the developer for this property to go forward. Councilor Woodrow asked if the developer would be agreeable to working on phase 5 before phase 3. . . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 7, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Barnett said that with phase 3 complete there would be approximately 1500 trips a day which he feels is unac.ceptable. He said normal traffic in a neighborhood is below 1000, around 800. Councilor Fitch suggested because this is a complicated issue, we should bring this back on July 14 during the work session. Civil Engineer Ken V ogeney discussed sanitary sewer and storm drainage service. He said they do have short term or interim service available at this time through a pump station. The long term plans to serve this area are using the Jasper Road trunk sewer extension which currently ends at 42nd Street. He said storm drainage services are not available at this time. Staff would work with the developer to manage their storm water drain off within their property, approximately 60 acres. Councilor Woodrow would like someone to ask Springfield Utility Board (SUB) how the existing neighborhood would be affected by future development. He has already noticed a decrease in water pressure at his home since this development began. Councilor Fitch is concerned about the short term and interim. She would like to put a timeline on those and stipulations. At what point is the acreage not enough to handle the storm drainage? She would like to know what would happen with transportation. She would like to know if there is a plan for the Fire District/Fire Department if phase 5 or 6 is built ahead of phase 3. Ms. Pappas said Councilor Ballew was correct and staff will look at clearer policy direction on these types of situations. . Councilor Burge said regarding the recent Region 2050 presentation. Council needs to decide if they want to increase the Urban Growth Boundary, or provide services in the existing UGB. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 pm. '-. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Attest: J;~J1run- City Recorder .