Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/2003 Regular . . . " MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JULY 28, 2003 The City of Springfield council met in Special Regular Session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 28,2003 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Woodrow, Burge, Malloy, and Ralston. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members ofthe staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Leiken led the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilor Woodrow noted that he had exparte contact regarding item number 2c, but it would in no way affect his decision. Councilor Malloy will not vote on item 2e. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM 2E REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 1. Minutes a. July 14,2003 - Work Session Minutes b. July 14,2003 - Special Regular Session Minutes 2. Other Routine Matters a. Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Tax Lot 3512, Map No. 17-03026-24 for the Amount of$12,000. b. Award the Contract for Laura Street Sewer and Drainage to Egge Sand & Gravel in the Amount of$215,732.10. c. Approval of the Release of Drainage Easement for Willamette Medical Center, AAA of Oregon/Idaho and Harlow Urology Center. d. Approval of City Prosecutor Contract. f. Award Contract for Sanitary Sewer Replacement, to Eugene Sand & Gravel in the Amount of $640,938.00. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR e. Award Contract for Oncall Traffic and Transportation Engineering Services. . . . , , Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 28,2003 Page - 2 IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO ACCEPT ITEM 2E. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (COUNCILOR MALLOY ABSTAINED). PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing to Consider a Request for the Annexation of Property (Jasper Meadows Phase 3) to the City of Springfield, Journal Number LRP2003-0000 1. RESOLUTION NO. 03-39 - A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING EXPEDITED ANNEXATION OF JASPER MEADOWS. PHASE 3, CONDITIONED UPON AN ACCEPTABLE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BEING FULLY EXECUTED PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION REQUEST BEING SUBMITTED TO THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION. IN ADDITION TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS, THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WILL REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE REMAINING PHASES OF THE JASPER MEADOWS PROJECT. Planner Linda Pauly was present for the staff report. Ms. Pauly explained that at the July 14, 2003 Work Session Council continued their discussion of the Jasper Meadows Phase III annexation proposal. Staff presented additional information regarding the availability and timing of key urban facilities and services. At that time, Council directed staff to proceed with the Public Hearing on July 28, 2003. 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 the issues that faced this property in terms of key urban services. Staff prepared an outline of what needed to be done to provide key urban services as noted on Attachment 2-1. She discussed conditions recommended by council leadership. Staff is confident that the developer and staff can come to an annexation agreement to provide services. She said they did not receive any comment from the public notice. Ms. Pauly said that council had three options this evening: 1. Adopt a Resolution to initiate and support the applicant's annexation request and to recommend that the Boundary Commission approve the annexation by an expedited process. To do so they would need to authorize the City Manager to forward the resolution during council recess to the Boundary Commission. 2. Continue this public hearing in September and have a Work Session on September 8 to discuss the details of the annexation agreement with staff and give further input. An expedited process could still be recommended to the Boundary Commission at that time. 3. Deny the annexation request. Mayor Leiken opened the Public Hearing. . . . " Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003 Page - 3 1. Mark Vukanovich, 15754 NW Graff St., Portland, OR 97229. Mr. Vukanovich represents the developer Crossroads, LLC and he is requesting council approve annexation for expedited process conditioned on an annexation agreement. Mr. Vukanovich is confident that between themselves and the City staff a formidable annexation agreement can be reached. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. Councilor Burge noted the cost ratio comparisons. He asked what methodology they used for this. Ms. Pauly said it was an annexation study given to her by Planning Supervisor Mel Oberst that compared the revenues generated by different parts of the city when they were annexed. Councilor Burge asked if they took into consideration the market and assessed value in this subdivision of the homes to be built. The proposed subdivision would include more entry level homes. That in itself would certainly make the cost ratio lower because they are lower priced homes. He said to give the ratio any credit, and to allow that to influence council's decision, would also be saying council does not support lower income housing. Ms. Pauly said she is not sure the cost used. She did not believe that would be a factor. Mr. Kelly said the study referred to is about 10 years old and was done by LCOG. The study referred to those living on the fringe of the city regarding their interest in annexation. These numbers in the staff report tonight are from that study done in 1993. He said that Ms. Pauly is indicating that the developer would be picking up a large number of the costs that would normally be the City's. Because it is an older report and with the developer paying more of the costs, it is not an accurate reflection of this issue. Councilor Burge suggested not using this number if it is no longer current. Councilor Ballew said that perhaps a mixture of commercial and industrial in areas would be more of a factor to increase that ratio. She feels it is not affected much by higher end homes. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 03-39. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. An Ordinance Amending the Springfield Municipal Code to Add Submittal Requirements for Grading Permits Sought Prior to, or in the Absence of, A Partition, Subdivision or Site Plan Review Application. ORDINANCE NO. 6065 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.300 ET SEQ, "GRADING" SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS 8.300, 8.308(1). 8.318(7) AND 8.334(1) OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE WHEN A GRADING PERMIT IS SOUGHT PRIOR TO OR IN THE ABSENCE OF A PARTITION, SUBDIVISION OR SITE PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003 Page - 4 . Planner Colin Stephens was present for the staff report. Mr. Stephens said that Council discussed this item during their Work Session earlier this evening. This ordinance supplements the submittal requirements ofthe Springfield Municipal Code to include requirements that are normally part of a Partition, Subdivision or Site Plan Review application and provides expanded bonding and 'hold harmless' guarantees by adding section that: · Require a 'hold harmless' clause stating that the approval of the grading permit does not ensure the approval or terms of approval of a future development application. . Protect important physical features until they are fully considered through a development application. · Require surrounding property owner notification for large-scale grading. · Expand the bonding requirements needed for cases where an applicant fails to complete the terms and conditions of the grading permit. Adoption of the Ordinance will allow the Public Works Director to issue LDAP permits prior to the submittal of a development application by providing supplemental information, guidelines and conditions necessary to fully protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens. This will insure certainty to property owners wishing to perform grading prior to the issuance of other required City development approvals. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6065. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 3. A Resolution Establishing Guidelines for the Development Services Director to Apply When Authorizing the Issuance of a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit Prior to Preliminary Approval of a Site Plan or Tentative Approval of a Partition or Subdivision. RESOLUTION NO. 03-40 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING GUIDELINES AND CONDITIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LAND AND DRAINAGE ALTERATION PERMITS PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN OR TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF A PARTITION OR SUBDIVISION. Planning Manager Greg Mott was present for the staff report. Mr. Mott said a change was made on Attachment 1.1 to provide guidance to the Development Services Director which is inserted in the second to the last paragraph of the first sentence. He said that council discussed this item during their Work Session earlier this evening. He said the Development Code includes an exception clause in Articles 31, 34 and 35 allowing the Director to issue a LDAP prior to approval of concurrent development applications (site plan, partition and subdivision). There are no instructions regarding conditions of approval to assure public health, safety and general welfare. . . . . " Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003 Page - 5 Mr. Mott said the existing exception language is somewhat vague regarding the circumstances that might precipitate a request for an "early" LDAP, or ifthe Director should impose conditions unique to "early" LDAP's. The Code says "In certain cases the Director may issue a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit prior to approval of the prelimimiry site plan or tentative partition or subdivision." This text could provide an opportunity for inconsistent application as well as the possibility of complaints that such action constituted a de facto approval ofthe pending development application. An additional complicating factor is that neither the Development Code nor the Municipal Code requires a LDAP to be processed with an actual development application. In other words, if the applicant is not proposing to do anything other than alter the site, the LDAP is processed and issued. If the applicant submits a concurrent development application with the LDAP' only an exception by the Director would allow the applicant to begin site work prior to development application approval. The proposed Resolution will eliminate this double standard and provide the guidelines and conditions necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens. A companion Municipal Code amendment regarding the issuance ofLDAP's without accompanying development applications is also proposed for Council consideration on July 28th. Mr. Mott said this resolution is responsive to the Council's target of a more efficient and consistent development review process. This target is derived from comments gathered during a half-day work shop with the development community on May 19,2003. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. Noone appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 03-40. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. Michael McIlrath., 916 G Street. Springfield, OR. Mr. McIlrath appreciated the air of fairness from last week's meeting regarding the Patriot Act. The Bill of Rights Defense Committee will be holding several forums this summer and they would like to invite councilors to meet to learn more about the Patriot Act. He said it was clear that the councilors do not understand that there is a contradiction between the law they are asked to uphold and the Constitution. He would ask councilors to read the Bill of Rights, learn more about the Patriot Act and reconsider this in the fall. He explained some of the issues of the Patriot Act at the expense of representation of government. He will extend invitations to councilors to events as they occur. 2. Roxie Cuellar, Homebuilder's Association, 2053 Laura Street. Springfield, OR. Ms. Cuellar apologized for her past comments to Susie Smith and the City of Springfield on this issue. She said tonight the Springfield Council will be considering increasing MWMC fees by 110% without public input. She asked that council consider her remarks to represent an appearance by the Home Builders Association of Lane County and the Homebuilders Construction Company. She outlined some of the issues with this new methodology and the . . . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003 Page - 6 double charging it would cause. She explained that council cancelled the public hearing in the spring. She explained the problems involved in basing this on the new CIP. She discussed the problems with these SDC charges and how they are not equitable. She referred to the metro plan amendments passed by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. She explained the facilities plan and how it applies to these charges. She referenced sections from the MWMC FY03 budget. She said there are a number of projects that need to be paid for by the city and she feels this is an attempt to pay for these. She discussed the infiltration and inflow (III) problem and that you cannot use SDC's for these problems. She explained that there are other projects that should not be funded by SDC's. She has not seen the list that shows which projects are SDC eligible, but the list she has shows maybe $lM worth of projects which would not warrant the increase staff if requesting. There is no data showing how much capacity the City is adding. She referenced a chart provided by staff. She said that SDC's are growth related and Springfield has the lowest growth rate; therefore, Springfield should have lower SDC's. She said the City of Springfield has a treatment plant with a lot of capacity for growth. Springfield has unique features. Ms. Cuellar submitted her written testimony along with other documents for the public record. City Attorney Joe Leahy clarified that the documents will be submitted as part of the record. The relevancy of it is an open issue. .. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. Correspondence from Carl and Delores Lohner, 40 Allen Avenue, Springfield, OR, Regarding Modifications to Streets West of the Pioneer Parkway Extension. [Please see attached staff response included in agenda packet.] IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ORDINANCES 1. An Ordinance Reapportioning the Liens for the Installation of Paving, Curbs and Gutters, Sidewalks, Storm Drainage, Street Trees, Sewer, and Street Light Improvements for Long Ridge Drive, West of South 39th Street, and Vicinity. ORDINANCE NO. 6066 - AN ORDINANCE REAPPORTIONING THE LIENS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PAVING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORM DRAINAGE, STREET TREES, SEWER, AND STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENTS FOR LONG RIDGE DRIVE, WEST OF SOUTH 39TH STREET. AND VICINITY, PROJECT #P20079, IN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, LANE COUNTY. OREGON AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Accounting Manager Valerie Warner was present for the staff report. Ms. Warner said that the Springfield Municipal Code 3.150 through 3.156 allows and defmes the action necessary for a property owner within a local improvement district to request that the assessment be apportioned or reapportioned to various parts or parcels of such real property. Such a request is to be made in writing to the finance director, who shall recommend approval or disapproval to the Council. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003 Page - 7 . Such a reapportionment request has been made by the property owner of tax lot number 18-02- 06-13-10002 and upon review is being recommended for approval by the finance director. The finance department has received a request of the reapportionment of an assessment upon tax lot #18-02-06-13-1002 as a result of Project No. P20079 (Long Ridge Drive, west of South 39th Street, and vicinity.) The original assessment was in the amount of$29,443.18 and the outstanding principal balance is $25,762.78, which would be divided equally among the three parcels. Since the original assessment, tax lot # 18-02-06-13-1 002 has been legally portioned into three separate tax lots, to include tax lot #18-02-06-13-1002, parcels 1,2 and 3. All required documentation for the partitioning, including recent survey maps, has been submitted to and acted upon by the City's planning services division. The public works department has completed the calculation for the reapportionment and it is included as an attachment to this council briefmg memo. The Finance Director recommends to the City Council that they approve, by ordinance the reapportionment requested. Councilor Burge asked if they had filed for partitioning. Ms. Warner said they did file for partitioning in March. Tonight they are just asking to reapportion the lien. . Mr. Leahy said the reapportionment has already been completed. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCaOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCaOR BALLEW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6066. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL Councilor Fitch wanted to thank two paramedics, Tony and Don, along with Mohawk Valley, who helped her mother when she recently broke her arm. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Leiken adjourned the meeting at 7:38pm with the opportunity to reconvene following Executive Session. Mayor Leiken reconvened the Special Regular Session of the Springfield City Council at 9:01pm. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY 1. Proposed Resolution of the City of Springfield Common Council Updating the FY03-04 Regional Wastewater System Development Charge (SDC) Fee Schedule per the Existing Methodology Adopted in 1997. . . . . . ". Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003 Page - 8 RESOLUTION NO. 03-41 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD UPDATING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 REGIONAL WASTE WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE EXISTING ADOPTED METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ON MAY 15, 1997 AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ON JUNE 16, 1997. Environmental Services Supervisor Gary Colwell said that last September the commission chose to amend their SDC methodology from a 5 year CIP basis to a 10 year CIP basis. Those are used for the improvement SDC portion of the combined SDC. Eugene approved the change in January. The Springfield chose to delay their decision to allow the Homebuilder's Association concerns to be heard. In June, the commission chose to not pursue implementation of the 10 year SDC methodology, but continue with the 5 year methodology while they hired a consultant and citizen's advisory committee to look at SDC alternatives. The Homebuilders and other community interests were invited to be a part of that committee to bring their recommendations to the commission for adoption of possibly a new methodology by July 2005. Staff is asking council to approve an update to the fee for two years. They didn't renew last year while anticipating the new methodology. These fee increases are under the 5 year methodology adopted in 1997. Mr. Colwell said that this update has been done administratively since 1991. He said that with the large increase, staff is asking council to approve this increase. He noted a correction on the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) which lists the amount for Springfield's total wastewater SDC charges as $1589. That amount should have been $1565 to match the amount listed on Attachment B. $1565 is the correct figure. Dave Jewett, Attorney for the MWMC, said that in light of comments made by the Homebuilder's Association regarding possible litigation, he will be submitting a number of documents into the record. These documents include: 1) the Status Monitoring Report, which is the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) plan review report that was done in 1986; 2) the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan that was developed for MWMC by CH2M Hill in December 2000 and approved by MWMC, Eugene and Springfield. This plan discusses a number of projects that are listed on the CIP; 3) the Technical Background Report, Existing Conditions and Alternatives, which was done for the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan in April 1999; 4) the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (the refinement plan) which was finalized in December 2001; 5) the FY03-04 budget for MWMC approved by MWMC. This document contains the 5 year CIP which the updated charges are based; 6) and the draft resolution with the referenced data table attached as exhibit A. This is the staff's proposal with respect to adopting the updated charges for the existing adopted methodology. Councilor Fitch asked what the increase would be if only one year was figured instead of two. Mr. Jewett said that they are not adopting methodology tonight. This is only the annual update of the SDC based on the original methodology adopted in 1997. Mr. Colwell said that if they had updated the fee in 02-03 it would have gone to about $580.00 from $380.00. '.. ...... . . . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003 Page - 9 Councilor Ballew said the 5 year CIP list is always changing. There are peaks and valleys depending on what is scheduled. Councilor Fitch asked why they have chosen to make up two years. Councilor Ballew said it was to stabilize rates as the list went up and down. Councilor Burge said he likes to believe that compromise could be reached, but it doesn't seem possible. He feels we should pass this to be effective immediately. We need to conduct our business as it needs to be done. He supports adoption of the resolution Councilor Ralston said he feels we should update it effective immediately. Councilor Woodrow said he thinks that as City Council we have a duty to look at something from all sides. If putting this off for 45 days allows us to work together with those that do not agree, he feels it would be well worth it. If something needed to be changed, it could be changed before September 16. Councilor Ballew believes we are here, and we need to act. She does not see an advantage of waiting. Mr. Leahy said that Technical Services Manager Len Goodwin reminded him that 45 days would get them to Monday so they may want to extend it to 46 days. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 03-41 WITH AN AMENDMENT THAT IT BE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 16, 2003. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR (MAYOR LEIKEN BROKE TIE) AND 3 AGAINST. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9: 19p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa \ ..., Attest: ~ Jo-u~ Amy Sow City Recorder