Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/14/2003 Work Session <I' . City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JULY 14,2003. The City of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 14,2003 at 5:50 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ballew, Woodrow, Burge, Fitch, Malloy, and Ralston. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Meg Kieran, Planning Secretary Brenda Jones and members of the staff. 1. Land Use Fees Study Follow-up. Senior Management Analyst Bob Brew was present for the staff report. Mr. Brew said the purpose of this work session is to review and discuss opportunities to increase development- processing fees and to implement a new consultation fee in order to: 1) Improve service to development community; and 2) Generate revenues assumed in the FY04 Budget consistent with prior Council direction. . Mr. Brew said that as was discussed in an initial Council Work Session on May 12,2003, the City's land use fees are such that they recover only a small portion of City costs; therefore, these costs are subsidized from other funding sources. Staffing has not kept pace with the volume and complexity of processing land use and development applications. Councilor Ballew said that sometime ago we were at 50% recovery and we were trying to work towards getting better cost recovery. Did something go wrong? Finance Director Bob Duey said that when we did that study it was in 1997. Each employee who processed applications was asked to estimate their costs for each application. There was no regard to the overall budget of the department. Since that time applications have become more complicated and the procedure takes more time. Adjustments have been made annually for cost of living, but the cost of processing the applications has also increased so we have continued to get farther behind. Mr. Duey said that Mr. Brew was asked to look at a different type of study, looking at the amount of money being spent in a particular area, such as planning applications, and working backwards to decide where it will go. This is more of a cost of service being broken down rather than how much time it took. It more accurately reflects the more difficult applications and the total cost for the department. Mr. Brew eXplained how he approached this study from the top down. This gives a more accurate account of the time spent on the applications. Councilor Woodrow asked about the Land and Drainage Alteration Permits originally. . Mr. Peroutka said he believes it was estimated in a similar way as the applications were originally estimated, by time spent on each one. These have also become more complicated. . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 14,2003 Page 2 Councilor Woodrow pointed out the costs for site plan review according to Attachment E, page 2 and asked if it took three and a half weeks to complete. Mr. Brew said that it took 130 hours of actual time to work on the reviews, plus an additional 10% for answering phone calls and assisting at the counter, etc. Councilor Woodrow said it would seem that the amount of staff hours would be about the same for an LDAP as a site plan review. Planner Ken V ogeney said for the site plan review more staff are needed from other departments. Site plan review includes staff from transportation division, fire and life safety, etc. Councilor Woodrow asked if it would be reasonable to charge $75 for the site plan review as is charged for the LDAP, if they went to an hourly rate. Mr. Brew said that staff chose $75/per hour for the consultation fee because it was on par with the private sector. The actual cost was about $68/per hour. He said staff chose the $75/per hour because they were directed to keep their fees equal to or above private consultants. Councilor Woodrow suggests that the proposed fee should be based on the $75/per hour figure. Ifwe wait three years to get to 100% recovery, we will never get there. He suggests using this higher fee to get to 100% recovery sooner. . Councilor Burge said this is a difficult issue. He feels that before we increase fees, we need to look at how efficiently staffis doing the work. He accepts the number of hours they have stated for processing, but does not accept that the number of hours it takes is being efficient. He asked what the impact would be if we moved the time to process applications from 75 days to 90 days. He feels citizens should have access to some information without being charged extra for it. He mentioned the Development Services Task Force which begins on July 23. They will be evaluating the Development Services Department. He feels they have a good group on the committee; a good cross-section. He feels that taking any action now might be premature and we should wait until the Task Force has made their findings and conclusions, which may impact this decision. He said these are large increases. He said that he was here in 1'997 and remembers that they had a certain methodology at that time. He would like to review this process before a decision is made. There may be another way to process and he would like to err on the side of caution. Councilor Malloy agrees with Councilor Burge. He feels that the development community will not accept these charges favorably. He doesn't know about the time it takes to process these; ifit does take this amount of time, or this is just the amount of time it takes the City. He feels this issue does need evaluation before increasing these fees. Councilor Ballew said fees should recover the cost of doing services. She feels one of the problems could be the efficiency of staff, but also the fact that we are short staffed. If we don't have the money to hire the staff to take care of the developer's needs in a timely fashion, the developer's will most likely be willing to pay a fee to expedite the processing. We can't drag our feet too long. We need to start bringing in some money. We are still not serving our customers as well as we could if they paid us more. Do we have a process where they could expedite the process if they wanted to pay extra? . Councilor Ralston said there are two issues; 1) improve service by adding people, and 2) recovering cost of service. He feels we should be recovering the cost of service and if that . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 14,2003 Page 3 means raising fees, than we need to do that. He agrees with Councilor Ballew that we can't wait too long because we are already getting further behind. Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas reminded Council that one of the things addressed at the developer's meeting in May with the local developers, was to have a more robust, LDAP inspection stat, so they could get moving with their project. If that is one Council would like to act on, it is listed separately and Council can act on that item alone. In response to Councilor Ballew's question, she said we do have an expedited application fee right now. Some folks have chosen to use that. The difficulty in that is that it is using the same staffthat is being pulled from one thing to expedite the other. Councilor Burge asked that if we pull staff to address the applications that have an expedited fee attached, what happens to the applications that are already on the desk. They get moved down and that is not right. He feels that things have changed a lot in the last five years. Councilor Fitch agrees that we have a process to allow Councilor Burge and the committee to review these. She suggests that perhaps the LDAP fee could be one of the first issues discussed at the Development Services Task Force meeting so it could be ready to come back to take action on that issue in September. Councilor Burge feels that would be one of their priorities. He feels that the group has a lot of positive energy and will work hard to find answers. He feels that although this group is meeting during the council's recess, he feels it is good timing. He is hopeful there will be great results. He said we have great staff and will get good feedback from the committee. . Councilor Ballew said she feels this is a good process to break it down to each issue at a time. Councilor Burge said if the City Manager, department heads and Council feel this has been a constructive process, maybe this same group could be reassembled three or four times a year to continue discussions on this issue. Discussion was held regarding the dates of meetings and what could be brought back to Council when they return from recess. . Mayor Leiken said we need to quit comparing ourselves to other communities. He said a decade ago this city had one of the greatest reputations as far as development goes. He said we are not broken, but bruised. He feels this committee is worthwhile and will be productive. He also thinks the council should look at this as they go into their goal setting session. He said we are at a point where city government is not everything to all people and cannot be. Weare in a position where we need to look at what we do best and this process is a beginning to look at one area as a first step. We need to continue with this process in all areas. He thanked Councilor Burge for chairing this committee. Councilor Burge said they will be working with staff on this project. It is important to continually look to see how you can be more efficient. Councilor Fitch said she is supportive because it is a re-evaluation and a short term process. It is a good check and balance. We need to figure out where we need to be in the end and how we can get there easier. . Councilor Ballew referenced the table on attachment E, page 2. She asked what the fee percentage increase of 253% represents. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 14,2003 Page 4 . Mr. Brew responded to her question. 2. Agreement for Financing of Stormwater Facilities for Mountaingate Subdivision. City Engineer Al Peroutka was present for the staff report. Mr. Peroutka referenced the map to show the subject property - Mountaingate. He said they are trying to avoid the wetlands. Mr. Peroutka said the purpose of this work session is to review the proposed agreement and direct staff on any changes desired by the Council prior to bringing it back to the Council for formal approval on July 21,2003. He said the proposed agreement calls for 50% City financing of the proposed improvement which will require a $150,000 increase in the City's capital budget. Council's approval is required prior to the City Manager signing the agreement. Mr. Peroutka said in order to allow development of Phases I and II and allow annexation of additional phases ofthe Mountaingate development, a 36 inch diameter storm sewer must be extended from its current termination point on Aster Street just west of 63rd Street to approximately 2,500 feet west on Aster Street near its intersection with 58th Street. This storm sewer is a project in the City's Master Plan for stormwater service not only to Mountaingate but a larger service area along Main Street and South 67th Street. Councilor Ballew asked where the storm sewer eventually ends up. .. Mr. V ogeney said it goes into the Daisy Street system that goes to 48th Street and comes out at Weyerhaeuser. There is also in that vicinity a splitter so some of the flow can go up Highway 126 if the other system backs up. It all goes into the McKenzie River at Weyerhaeuser. . , Mr. Peroutka said that on July 29, 2002, Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the developers of Mountaingate which guaranteed that the developers would install the storm sewer by October, 2005, at their cost, and that the City would provide SDC credits for installation and would assist the developers in obtaining necessary easements for the sewer extension, including condemnation of easements if necessary. To make this work, ODOT would need to agree to temporarily handle the drainage from the development in their drain lines in Main Street, which are near capacity. The agreement for the City to step in and condemn easements if the developer was not successful in obtaining easements caused a great deal of concern among Council during the discussion of this first agreement. Mr. Peroutka said this new agreement responds to two concerns with the original agreement. First, it responds to ODOT's reluctance to take the Mountaingate drainage on a temporary basis, by moving up the date of completion of the storm sewer to October, 2004 and placing some restriction on the amount of development allowed prior to completion of the storm sewer. Second, it makes the project a City project, so that the City will be dealing directly with property owners on easement acquisitions, rather than being secondary to the developers dealing with property owners. The agreement, however, does propose upfront costs to the City with a 50-50 split with the developers of the total project cost. The intent is to use Stormwater SDC's for the City's portion of costs, estimated at $150,000. The proposed 50% shared funding is similar to other cost sharing agreements for sewer extensions in the recent past. Councilor Ballew noted that the City is paying 100%. . Mr. Peroutka confirmed that and said it is part of our master plan storm water drainage system and it's all offsite to their development. By our SDC ordinance, if the developer makes any . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 14,2003 Page 5 offsite improvements for infrastructure that are on our SDC project list and our master plans, the developer gets credit for those improvements. Councilor Ballew asked if we would be doing this if they were not developing that property. She is not concerned with the property owner getting the easements, but the City having to stand behind them. Mr. Kelly said this was a topic of discussion last year. The developer could not have secured the easement without the backing of the City. That is why the City chose to back them at that time. The acreage could not be developed without access to that storm water system. He explained the difference with the new agreement. It is similar to what has been done in the Gateway area and Natron. He said it is up for discussion and for Council to determine if this agreement is acceptable. City Attorney Joe Leahy said that the other reason is that ODOT would not allow the use unless they could be sure the City could put through the sewer that is on its master plan. Without this, the developer is back negotiating with property owners and trying to get the property for the sewer and that is not enough for ODOT. Because this is on the City plans that the City will ultimately put it in and ODOT will no longer have to handle the drainage. The City has the ability to make that happen. It has been two years since this project began and still nothing has been done. The goal was to get something going this summer. . Councilor Fitch said that ODOT is at or near capacity in their storm sewer. The storm sewer dumps into the river and when the temperature gets too high, the City has difficult getting permits for water usage and we have to make adjustments along the riparian area to cool the water. She asked what fee ODOT pays the City for all of these additional expenses - nothing. She questioned whether or not we should consider charging them a fee. Mr. Peroutka addressed that issue. He said we have not traditionally gone to a system where the road authorities, including ourselves, pay any storm drainage fees. Councilor Fitch asked if they have their own set of systems. Mr. Peroutka said there are a number of agreements with ODOT regarding these systems. There is a shared responsibility. Councilor Ballew said this is an area with special storm drainage and run-off and yet the City is paying to meet the needs for development. Eventually, we could pick this up in our storm drainage fees, but somehow the development should have some share in the storm water run-off that they are creating by the development. If we are going to continue to subsidize this, it is not a very good policy with our current budget constraints. Mr. Peroutka said there will be some capturing of those costs because eventually enough units will be constructed to generate System Development Charges to the City after these initial costs have been paid. Councilor Burge asked how long this property has been in City limits and the property owner has paid taxes without any demand on services. Mr. Oberst said they have only been in City limits for one year. . . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 14,2003 Page 6 Councilor Woodrow said that we not only have to pay for this system, but also staff time to gain the properties for the access. He feels the developer is getting a pretty good deal. Mr. Peroutka said staff costs regarding easement are included in the project cost. He noted that it does serve more than the Mountaingate Development. It will be extended further east eventually and into more of the south hills. It was part of the master plan. He said it is something that could easily have been part ofthe Capital Improvement Plan, but was not requested. It is now coming in with some managing upfront money to get the job done. It is a modification of the Capital Improvement Plan. Councilor Ballew said she feels we cannot afford to do business as usual. We need to take a harder look at how we spend our money. Maybe it is appropriate. Councilor Ralston said he agrees with Councilor Ralston. He objected to being part of the facilitation to condemn properties if they needed them for this project. He doesn't mind helping to facilitate it, or having it be a City project, but he doesn't feel it would be inappropriate to ask the developer to pay for half of the initial development in order to facilitate something they want to get done. He feels uncomfortable with the City taking on the full burden. . . Councilor Burge said he is not real clear on this issue. He asked if as they begin building homes on Mountaingate, those applications would be assessed a storm water SDC. Should that figure into the mathematics? He also asked if there would even be an issue this evening if we had stormwater capacity to absorb Mountaingate already in the ground. He said a development that may take place in the City tomorrow which already has an existing stormwater capable of handling the development would have no issue. It is only because they have elected to develop in an area where infrastructure doesn't already exist. Mr. Leahy said that it is the City's pipe that will be going into the ground, not the developer's. It is our pipe that is in our master plan. How much you can exact depends in a large part on a Dolan analysis where you cannot require them to put in the entire pipe for not only themselves, but everybody to the east of them. That is why Mr. Peroutka worked out this compromise. He said Councilor Ralston is correct, but if Council takes this position it will not work with ODOT because they want the City to tell them they will build the City's pipe. Mr. Kelly said that traditionally past Councils have looked at the issue that the City will fund the major trunk systems and the citizens will go from those trunk systems and pay to serve their property. This is on our master storm drainage plan where the City used to do a Capital General Obligation Bond to put in major sewers or pumping stations, etc. We have not done that in awhile because of other operational needs that we felt were more important than capital needs. In the past, these would be 100% City funded. He explained some of the agreements made in recent years for areas such as Gateway and Natron. This is a similar agreement. He said that Councilor Ballew is correct in that we need these types of discussions regarding these issues. Do we want to look at changing policy and other ways of funding these? This will continue to become an issue as more developers begin developing on the fringes of our City. Tonight, staff is not looking for formal approval, but are asking for their review and input. Councilor Fitch asked Mr. Kelly if what staffis asking is something that has normally been done in the past. She asked if the current agreement was entered into before they were annexed into the City. . Mr. Peroutka said it was about the same time as when they annexed. . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 14,2003 Page 7 Mr. Kelly noted that if the agreement was made before annexation, Dolan doesn't apply. Ifit is after annexation, Dolan does apply. Ms. Pappas said that is it her recollection that the agreement was made after annexation. Mr. V ogeney confirmed that the agreement was made after annexation. Discussion was held regarding the fact that this is a City of Springfield master plan and went through the Planning Commission and Council. The only SDC credit the developer would receive would be for the system on property outside of their own property up to their 50%. Mr. Kelly said the view of the developer is that they are funding a City system that does not go on their property but goes by their property because the City does not have the funds to do it. Councilor Burge said we have a master plan that includes this work and we have already acknowledged that we will do this. He asked about the East Main interceptor for sewer and if part of that money came from the Federal Government. Mr. Peroutka said that it did in the form of loans which the City continues to pay back. Councilor Burge asked if we are doing anything different now in concept. Mr. Kelly said we did use Capital Funds to put that system in. The issue is whether or not , ,Mountaingate should have to pay for a portion of this system. . Public Works Director Dan Brown said that under out current SDC ordinance because this drainage line is offsite, we have to offer a credit to the developer. It is not optional. Councilor Fitch said this is not something we intended to do today. Will this delay any other project, or is there sufficient money that it will just readjust the schedule? Mr. Peroutka said it would be more of a readjustment of the current schedule. No current project should be dropped. Councilor Woodrow referred to item number 5 on Attachment A, page 2. Mr. Peroutka addressed his question. Councilor Ralston said when we accepted annexation, we committed ourselves to putting this system in. Councilor Ballew referenced Attachment A, page 3 and asked why the City is committing to annexation and development of other phases of this project. Mr. Peroutka said it means we will deem there is sufficient drainage for annexation. The agreement is a way of furthering this development. Councilor Fitch asked if Council was comfortable having this brought forth for action next week and consensus was yes. 7:00-7:08pm - Recess . . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 14,2003 Page 8 3. 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 LRP2003-0000 1. Planner Linda Pauly was present for the staff report. Ms. Pauly said that at the July 7 Work Session the Council continued discussion of the Jasper Meadows Phase III annexation to tonight's works session. The Council requested additional time to discuss the City's 4 minute emergency response time policy for this territory, and to consider additional information from staff concerning the availability of key urban facilities and services: sanitary sewer, stormwater management systems and transportation systems to serve the property proposed for annexation. The property owners ofthe 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. The Boundary Commission has accepted these agreements as demonstration that services can or will be provided to the subject territory in a timely manner. 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 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. Ms. Pauly referred to the questions asked by Council at the July 7, 2003 Work Session. Ms. Pauly responded to question number 1, regarding water pressure in the existing neighborhoods if this new development goes forward. According to SUB, there should be no change due to development. Two things can affect the water pressure: 1) Lower water level in the reservoir at peak demand times, and 2) When a hydrant is opened. . Supervising Civil Engineer Ken Vogeney responded to question number 2, if there would be sanitary systems in the short term and what the timeline would be. He said the timeline was driven by development. He highlighted two different development scenarios. . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 14,2003 Page 9 Councilor Burge asked if the trunk line in Jasper was already in the plans. Mr. V ogeney said it has been in the plans for about 25 years. Staff is currently in the process of putting out a request for proposals for consultant design in the next few weeks. There is money in the reserve account for this line. Discussion was held regarding jurisdiction on this. It is a County Road, State right-of-way and City sewer. Mr. Vogeney responded to question number 3, asking at what point the acreage is not enough to accommodate doing storm water drainage on site. He said the short answer is when the amount of developed land exceeds the land the developer has available for constructing one or more detention ponds. It is a compressed amount of space for the size of development. He explained constraints on this property due to wetlands. He explained that in our current master plan we have a 72 inch stormwater line along Jasper Road to the river. The design for this system has not been started yet. Councilor Woodrow asked about property to the right of phase 1. Mr. Vogeney said it is a piece ofWeyerhaeuser land. He explained that it was formerly a land fill and has a leach 8 line and is piped into the sanitary system. It is annexed. He explained the leach line. Ms. Pauly referenced the topographical map. . Transportation Planning Engineer Gary McKenney responded to question number 4, regarding transportation options if they develop phase 5 or 6 before phase 3. He said access would be in a manner similar to what has been done for phases 1 and 2 with a new street extending southward from Mount Vernon Road at a point west of 58th Street through phase 5, then turning westward through Phase 6 and connecting with a "Future South 57th Street Extension". Councilor Woodrow asked if it would divert traffic that would go to phase 3 to phase 5 and 6. Mr. McKenney said it would if phase 3 was not built. Mr. McKenney responded to question 5, asking when phase 1 of Jasper Road Extension (JRE) is built, how will that impact traffic counts on the local street that serves Jasper Meadows subdivision. He said that phase I of JRE would extend from Main Street to South 57th/Weyerhaeuser Road. It may increase traffic on Mount Vernon Road between Jasper Road and South 57th Street, which would impact the Mount Vernon/South 57th intersection, but it would not affect traffic volumes on the local streets serving Jasper Meadows. . There was also a written response from Mark Vukanovich, Crossroads Development, regarding question number 6 - would the developer agree to develop phase 5 before phase 3. Ms. Pauly read that response: "Councilor Woodrow asked the question if we could develop our next phase west of phase 1 and adjacent to Mt. Vernon Road. That was our preference, but after a number of meetings with City Staff and a variety of agencies, we were given strong direction to go south of phase 2. It would have complicated the wetlands review for both our project and the Jasper Road Extension. The Army Corp of Engineers and Division of State Lands did not want to be put in a position of having that portion of the future Jasper Road just South ofMt. Vernon to be set in stone due to . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 14,2003 Page 10 development on both sides. All the jurisdictions and agencies were pleased with the location of phase 3." . Councilor Woodrow asked if staff directed the developer to go forward with phase 3, why is staff now saying we should not go forward with phase 3. Mr. Vukanovich said that they have been working with City staff and other agencies for the past 3 years on this project. One of the top issues was the Jasper Road Extension. He explained the reasons why the Corp of Engineers and ODOT did not want them to develop to the west because they wanted more flexibility for the JRE. He felt that City and County believed the developer would be better off going further south to give the Corps the flexibility they were asking for. Deputy Chief Dennis Shew responded to question number 7, regarding the future plans for fire and ambulance service to serve the Jasper/Natron area and/or a fire district, and how it would affect response times ifphase 5 or 6 is developed before phase 3. He said they do not have any current plans to relocate the station to serve the area differently than it is already served. He said that the movement to a fire district will not improve response times to this area without the addition of a station and staffing for it. He said the City will provide service, but not the same level as areas within the City that are closer to existing fire stations. The development of phase 5 or 6 instead of phase 3 still will not allow for the meeting of the response times. The inclusion of the Jasper Road Extension may improve response into that area. . Ms. Pauly noted that in the council packet on attachment 3, page 1, there is information from the Springfield Comprehensive Urbanization Report. This report looked at future annexation areas in the City. She referenced the site and noted that the annexation request being considered tonight is in the east Jasper study area. The purpose of this study was to look at the cost benefit analysis for the different areas of the City and to compare the different areas. She referenced the table on attachment 3, page 2, which shows the general fund revenue cost ratio which is .13 for this area. This translates to $.13 to the dollar. Gateway has a ratio of $0.96, North Springfield A has a ratio of$1.37 and North Springfield B has a ratio of$1.81. She said this study was done in 1999. Mr. Oberst said that Lane County of Governments (LCOG) performed the study. Councilor Fitch asked how soon staff feels we could provide services to this area. By annexing, we are committed to provide these services. She doesn't want to make a decision that will cause difficulties for future council and staff. She has a concern that the annexation is premature. Councilor Ralston said he is not too concerned about JRE or the response times. If we allow the annexation and development to occur, it shows that we are committed to development in that area. He feels we should go forward with this. Councilor Woodrow asked how many lots they are planning to develop in phase 3 - 39 lots. He asked how they would access the lots that are on the road next to where the JRE is planned. Mr. Vukanovich said they would build a road and access would be available. Discussion was held regarding traffic after this phase was developed. . Councilor Woodrow does not want to stop growth, but he is concerned with the increased amount of traffic as well as the ability to serve the sewer. . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 14,2003 Page 11 Mayor Leiken asked when this would go to the Boundary Commission if Council approved it on July 28. Ms. Pauly said it could go to the October 2, 2003 Boundary Commission meeting. Discussion was held regarding the annexation and whether or not the annexation could be expedited. It is up to the Council whether or not it is expedited and if there are any conditions on the approval. Councilor Burge asked if when Crossroads applied for annexation in phase 1 for development he assumes they were required to submit a master plan. Ms. Pauly said there was no approved master plan for this development, just a conceptual future development plan that shows nine phases. Councilor Burge asked why the City did not require a master plan if we knew this would be a continuous, multi-phase development. Mr. Oberst said that when the council adopted the master plan ordinance in the Development Code, it was specific that this was not to be a requirement, elected only. We cannot require them to submit a master plan. This is the same throughout the City. The Riverbend project had a master plan as part of the annexation agreement and this could be done for this property as well. . .. Mr. Kelly reminded Council that once a property is annexed, allCity policies apply and Dolan applies to infrastructure costs. If a developer wants to develop property and there are issues regarding the City being able to afford the infrastructure, we can negotiate outside Dolan prior to annexation as part of the annexation agreement. Councilor Burge said if he were the developer, he would have been more comfortable submitting a master plan as additional assurance that development could occur. Mr. Kelly noted that the Jasper Road Extension has taken much more time that anyone anticipated, and that is what developers looked for regarding traffic issues, etc. He discussed the sewer and storm water issues with both Mountaingate and Crossroads proceeding with their developments. Mayor Leiken said this is a Council that wants to move forward with growth, but there are a lot of questions here tonight with this development. He feels a little uncomfortable with some of the issues surrounding this project. He feels confident that if they do move forward on this in a couple of weeks, that Staff and the developer could come to an agreement on this to move it forward to the Boundary Commission, but he is not sure they can do that legally. He asked if it would be better to wait and vote on this in October to send to the Boundary Commission in December. Mr. Kelly said if Council decides in a couple of weeks that the City cannot provide key urban services, that ends it. If Council feels they can, according to certain assumptions and sharing of costs, endorse it subject to completion of an annexation agreement. Staff would then bring an annexation agreement to Council in September with the issues resolved. If they are not resolved, they can contact the Boundary Commission and ask that the approval be rejected because we have found we cannot provide these services. . . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 14,2003 Page 12 Mayor Leiken feels confident the staff and developer could come up with an agreement that resolves these issues, but if not, Council is in a bad position submitting something to the Boundary Commission that they cannot support. Councilor Fitch discussed the wetland issues and the Corp of Engineers has not approved anything to this point. She asked if we knew when that might occur. Mr. Vukanovich said the Division of State Lands has given them verbal agreement for Phase 3. Ms. Pappas said that staff have been working on this and the Corps has not given any indication of a date for this issue regarding the Jasper Road Extension. Changes in staff at the Corps has slowed the process. Discussion was held regarding the construction season and the importance of the developer submitting a master plan for the entire project. Mr. Kelly said it looks like the developer has lost a window of opportunity. Council can approve with conditions or deny at the July 28 meeting. Council is in control of when this will go before the Boundary Commission, either in October or December. Councilor Fitch asked if there was anyone on Council who is strongly advocating for this item to go expedited. There was no one. She then asked if in order to get it on to the Boundary Commission, Council would need to come back from recess early and she is not sure that gives staff enough time to resolve these issues. She said she will feel more comfortable when there is an agreement with ODOT. . Councilor Ballew said she does not like to go forward with marginal properties. She is concerned about building a duplicate sewer line for these developments. Mr. Kelly said that for something to go forward on the December Boundary Commission meeting, a resolution would need to be submitted by November 4,2003. He said staff could talk with ODOT and the developers to get these issues resolved. Councilor Fitch said she would have to vote no on this if it is brought back on July 28. She would like staff to wait and work out the issues and bring it back prior to the deadline in November. More questions could be answered. Discussion was held regarding a waiting period to resubmit for annexation if an annexation request it denied. There is not waiting period. Councilor Fitch asked about cost to the developer if it is denied or if they put it on hold. Councilor Woodrow asked about excusing future fees. Ms. Pappas said they could take care of this if they tabled their action. The application and associated fees are good for 6 months. The applicant can sign a petition to renew it with no additional costs. Discussion was held on the subdivision application. . Ms. Pauly confirmed that she will bring this item back to the July 28 council meeting and put it forth to be tabled until later in the fall. . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, July 14,2003 Page 13 Mr. Kelly said Council can then direct staff to work on an annexation agreement to bring forward in the fall. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Attest: Am~ MUlA- City Recorder . .