Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/2002 Regular . . . , ~ " MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2002 The Springfield City Council met in Regular Session at Springfield City Hall, Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 4, 2002, at 7:06 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Ralston, and Simmons. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Tim Harold, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Meg Kieran, City Recorder Kim Krebs, and members of staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Leiken led the Pledge of Allegiance. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. City Manager Mike Kelly recognized retiring K-9 Beny, and his handler, Officer Rich Charboneau. CONSENT CALENDAR IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. I. Claims " a. Accept the December 2001 Quarterly Financial Reports. 2. Minutes a. January 12,2002 - TEAM Springfield Joint Elected Officials Meeting. b. January 12,2002 - Council Goal Setting Session. 3. Resolutions a. RESOLUTION NO. 02-8 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON MONEY PURCHASE PLAN. 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters a. Accept the 2000/2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Management Letter. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4,2002 Page - 2 . ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Rainbow Water District Withdrawal- 2001-12-0240, C SP 01-47 Willamalane, et al; Planning Journal Number 2000-08-0188; Applicant Willamalane, et al. ORDINANCE NO.1 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS WILLAMALANE. ET AL. LOCATED WITHIN THE WESTERN SPRINGFIELD AREA NORTH OF THE WILLAMETTE RIVER, SOUTH OF CENTENNIAL BOULEVARD, EAST OF INTERSTATE 5, AND WEST OF KELLY STREET: TAX LOT 600 Tl7S R03W S33 MAP 14: TAX LOTS 1000, 1001. PART OF 1100,1200, AND 1300 T17S R03W S34 MAP 24: TAX LOTS 6801. 7001. 7002, 7003, 7100, AND 7101 T 17S R03W S34 MAP 13: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. Planner II Kitti Gale was present for the staff report. She said there are nine water withdrawal ordinances scheduled for their public hearing and first reading of each ordinance. She said the second reading of the ordinances is scheduled for February 19,2002. She said staff recommends adoption of all nine of the ordinances at the second reading. . Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. Noone appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. 2. Rainbow Water District Withdrawal- 2001-12-0234, C SP 95-45 Delayed Annexation of Shorewood Packaging; Planning Journal Number 1995-02-0031; Applicant Shorewood Packaging Corporation of Oregon. ORDINANCE NO.2 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS SHOREWOOD P ACKAGING, LOCATED IN DIE McKENZIE-GATEWAY CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, EAST OF 1-5, NORDI OF INTERNATIONAL WAY: PART OF TAX LOT 3101 Tl7S R03W S15: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. . 3. G lenwood Water District Withdrawal - 2001-12-0237, C SP 01-09 Wildish; Planning Journal Number 2000-12-0248; Applicant Randal S. Hledik for Wildish Industrial Development Corp. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4, 2002 Page - 3 . ORDINANCE NO.3 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS WILD ISH. LOCATED IN THE GLENWOOD AREA OF WEST SPRINGFIELD, EAST OF 1-5, WEST OF FRANKLIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF 19TH AVENUE, NORTH OF NEWMAN STREET; TAX LOTS 1100. 1200.3800,3900,4000, . 4300,4400.4500,4600, T18S R03W S03 MAP 11; HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE GLENWOOD WATER DISTRICT. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. Noone appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. 4. Rainbow Water District Withdrawal- 2001-12-0233, C SP 95-13; the Delayed Annexation of Phase 1 of the Sony Facility; Planning Journal Number 1994-09-0187; Applicant, Sony/City of Springfield. ORDINANCE NO.4 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS PHASE 1 OF THE SONY F ACILITY, LOCATED IN THE McKENZIE- GATEWAY CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. IT IS BOUNDED ON THE NORTH AND EAST BY INTERNATIONAL WAY AND ON THE SOUTH BY DEADMOND FERRY ROAD: TAX LOTS 3502, 3600 AND PART OF TAX LOT 3403, T17S R03W S15: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. . Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. 5. Rainbow Water District Withdrawal-200l-12-0239, C SP 01-17 Arlie & Company, et al; Planning Journal Number 2001-04-0083; Applicant Arlie and Company, et al. ORDINANCE NO.5 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS ARLIE & COMPANY, ET AL, LOCATED IN THE GAME FARM ROAD AREA OF NORTH SPRINGFIELD, NORTH OF HARLOW ROAD AND FLAMINGO. SOUTH OF BELTLINE EAST, EAST OF GAME FARM ROAD, AND WEST OF THE McKENZIE RIVER; TAX LOTS 800, 900, 902.1100,1200,1201. 1203, AND PARTS OF 1000 AND 1400 T17S R03W S22: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. . 6. Rainbow Water District Withdrawal- 2001-12-0238, C SP 01-38 Arlie & Company/Sycan B, Planning Journal Number 2001-06-0135; Applicant Arlie & Company/Sycan B. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4,2002 Page - 4 . ORDINANCE NO, 6 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS ARLIE & COMPANY/SYCAN B, LOCATED IN THE GAME FARM ROAD AREA OF NORTH SPRINGFIELD, EAST OF GAME FARM ROAD, SOUTH OF DEADMOND FERRY ROAD, WEST OF BALDY VIEW LANE: TAX LOTS 300 AND . 700, T17S R03W S22; HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. 7. Rainbow Water District Withdrawal- 2002-01-0003, C SP 01-50 Fitch; Planning Journal Number 2001-11-0219; Applicant Mike Fitch. ORDINANCE NO.7 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS FITCH. LOCATED IN WEST SOUTHJWEST SPRINGFIELD. EAST OF ASPEN STREET, SOUTH OF JANUS STREET, AND NORTH OF THE WILLAMAETTE RIVER; TAX LOT 218, T17S R03W S34, MAP 22; HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. . Councilor Fitch said she would have to exclude herself from any discussion on this item, and would do the same when it returns to council for approval on February 19th, as she and her husband are the owners of this property. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. 8. Glenwood Water District Withdrawal- 2001-12-235, C SP 01-02 Wildish; Planning Journal Number 2000-06-0142; Applicant Wildish Industrial Development Corporation. ORDINANCE NO.8 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS WILDISH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LOCATED IN GLENWOOD AREA OF WEST SPRINGFIELD, EAST OF I-5, WEST OF FRANKLIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF NEWMAN STREET, AND NUGGET WAY; TAX LOTS, 200.500, 700, 800, AND 900 T18S R03W S03 MAP 14; HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE GLENWOOD WATER DISTRICT. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. Noone appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4, 2002 Page - 5 . 9. Rainbow Water District Withdrawal- 2001-12-23, C SP 01-04 Cline; Planning Journal Number 2000-10-0202; Applicant Branch Engineering for Ralph and Betty Cline. ORDINANCE NO.9 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS CLINE, LOCATED IN THE GAME FARM ROAD AREA OF NORTH SPRINGFIELD, NORTH OF HARLOW ROAD, EAST OF GAME FARM ROAD, SOUTH OF FLAMINGO AVENUE; PART OF TAX LOT 5700, Tl7S R03W S 22 MAP 41; HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. 10. Resolution Initiating an Expedited Annexation to the City of Springfield for Property identified on Assessor's Map 18-02-05-22 Tax Lot 1400 and 18-02-05-23 Tax Lot 101; Journal Number 2002-01-0002; Applicant - City of Springfield; The Owner - Willamalane Park and Recreation. . RESOLUTION NO. 02-9 - RESOLUTION INITIATING EXPEDITED ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE THE ANNEXATION WITHOUT THE STUDY, PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER REQUIRED BY ORS 199.461. Housing Program Specialist Kevin Ko was present for the staff report. He said on November 5, 2001, council approved an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the disposition of Volunteer Park between the City of Springfield, Willamalane and the Springfield School District. He said Willamalane is the current owner of the Volunteer Park site. He said the IGA would return a portion of the site to the city, and that this portion is valued at $115,500. He said at this time the city may choose to either sell the property, or use it for a CDBG eligible project. He said Willamalane would give the remaining portion of the site to the School District in exchange for a similarly sized piece of property at the former Mt. Vernon School Site. Mr. Ko said Willamalane would be paying for most ofthe costs associated with the Volunteer Park transaction, including Boundary Commission fees and costs of environmental studies and reviews. He said at this time staff recommends adoption of the resolution. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. Noone appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD .WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 02-9. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4, 2002 Page - 6 . 11. Second Reading, Public Hearing, and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Fees. ORDINANCE NO. 5993 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING APPENDIX L DEVELOPMENT CODE FEES, AS ESTABLISHED IN THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planning Supervisor Mel Oberst was present for the staff report. He said this is the time for the second reading and adoption of this ordinance. He said the recommended ordinance pertains to fees established in the Springfield Development Code. He said when staff completed the comprehensive fee review during 1999, it was intended to both allow a comprehensive look at the current revenue program for fees and charges at the city, as well as provide a mechanism that would allow for annual reviews. The purpose of the annual reviews would be to ensure that the amount charged for services at the city would continue to meet the City Council adopted guidelines for cost recovery. Mr. Oberst said three fees remain unchanged with the adoption ofthe ordinance; the Appeal of the Director's Decision, the Appeal of an Expedited Land Division, and Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council. He said these fees are established by ORS and cannot be amended by a local ordinance. Mr. Oberst said seven new fees are being proposed at this time. They are, Historic Commission Review Under Type 1, Historic Commission Review Under Type II, Establishment of Historic Landmark Inventory; Floodplain Development Fee, and DWP Overlay District Development, and for applications processed for land use activity conducted without city approvals. An increase of 10% has been added to all pre-existing fees to cover the current service cost adjustment. . Mr. Oberst said in conclusion it is anticipated that the implementation of these changes would increase the City's revenue by approximately $30,000.00 annually. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing; Noone appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 5993, THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. 12. Resolution Establishing Liens for Grass and Weeds Cutting Charges. RESOLUTION NO. 02-10 - A RESOLUTION THAT THE FINANCE DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD BE AND IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO ADD TO THE LIEN DOCKET THOSE OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT LIENS WHICH ARE UNPAID BY FEBRUARY 4,2002, UPON THE PROPERTIES DESCRIBED ON THE ATTACHED LIST, AND BENEFITED BY THE ABOVE DECRIBED NUISANCE ABATEMENT. . Accounting Manager Valerie Nardo was present for the staff report. She said under the authority of the Springfield Municipal Code (Appendix II-P), liens might be placed on the underlying real property as a means of enforcing collection of the grass and weeds cutting charges. She said the council is requested to establish the liens for these charges by adopting the proposed resolution. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4, 2002 Page - 7 . Ms. Nardo highlighted the information contained in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), and said the amount of the unpaid liens has changed, as there were some payments received from the time the AIS and attachments were prepared. She said there are currently 16 unpaid bills at this time. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 02-10. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. 13. Annexation of Property to the City of Springfield, Planning Journal Number 2000-07-0157, (John Shama Applicant). RESOLUTION NO.4 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORIES TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) AND REQUESTING THAT THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE THE ANNEXATION. . Planner II Jim Donovan was present for the staff report on this item. He said staff finds that the annexation before council this evening meets the standards for Development Code Article 6, and city policies for annexation because 1) the annexation is contiguous to the city limits; 2) 100% of the owners and residents have signed a consentto annex petition; and 3) the applicants have demonstrated that the property can be provided with the minimum level of urban services listed in Metro Plan policy 7-A for annexation. Mr. Donovan said the reason that this annexation is not going by an expedited process is that city staff and council recognize that flood plain issues, and storm water issues, and traffic issues in north Thurston are recognized and have to be addressed in each development and annexation. He said the generalities of whether services are available to serve the site are provided in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) Attachment 2, of which he highlighted. Mr. Donovan asked the council permission to be allowed to provide additional details and context regarding the subdivision process, and said there is some larger drawings of the site being discussed posted on the wall for reference should the council need clarification in any way. Mayor Leiken advised Mr. Donovan to proceed. Mr. Donovan highlighted several issues for council which included- · Neighborhood issues - related to flood plain, traffic, and groundwater during the public involvement process for the subdivision application. He said the City Engineer, and the Director in making the subdivision decision considered during the development review committee meeting, and the information presented by the neighbors subsequently. . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4, 2002 Page - 8 . . Subdivision criteria for approval and code provisions in effect at the time the application was submitted were applied. . City Engineer chose to rely primarily on the engineered storm water data submitted, and determined that the development area was: a. Not in the flood plain based on the engineer analysis submitted; b. The proposed storm water detention and pre-treatment pond satisfied provisions of the Code and current design practices in the industry; c. Proposed street improvements satisfied the provisions of Article 32 for connectivity, excepting conceptual local street connections proposed by the applicant, and traffic safety issues were satisfied because the adjacent intersections suffered only one level of service degradation, that being from level B to level C at the adjacent 66th and Thurston intersection. He said there was no history of traffic accidents for the three years prior to the application. Mr. Donovan said subsequently the Neighbors appealed the decision to the Hearings Official. He said the Springfield Hearings Official did hear seven allegations of error, and subsequently upheld the staff decision on all seven issues. He said those seven issues were largely storm water and traffic. . Mr. Donovan said having satisfied the subdivision criteria of approval, it is staff s opinion that the applicant has not only demonstrated whether the site can be s~rved, but indeed has shown how it can be served. The only standard in Article 6 for the annexation is whether or not services can be provided in accordance with that specific policy 7-A. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. Mayor Leiken called Brian Pifer forward, and thanked him for his letter. Mayor Leiken said in response to Mr. Pifer's request to speak longer than three minutes, he would grant additional time if needed. Mr. Pifer said three minutes would be plenty, and thanked the Mayor. . 1. Brian Pifer, 1453 66th Street, Springfield, Oregon, said he is the Vice President of the Rural Thurston Neighborhood, a Lane County chartered community organization, and was present to speak in opposition of the proposed annexation of the Eagles Flight Subdivision. He said there are too many unresolved issues to make the annexation request appropriate, timely, or logical. He said that they have provided evidence to the staff that this property has been flooded during a sixty-year flood event. He provided a map for council review and circulation. He said there are floodplain mapping errors that reside within this area, and city staff has testified that part of this property was flooded in 1996, which was a forty-year flood event. He said the boundary Commission has denied annexation of this parcel twice in 1976, due to its location within the flood plain. He said both the city and the McKenzie Watershed Council are currently undertaking . efforts to examine where the flood plain lies within that area, and what threats might exist. He said until the studies are complete, future development patterns and needs cannot logically be . determined. He said efficient traffic flow, street locations, storm water needs, and treatment locations and logical planning of future developments will be influenced by the outcome of these reports. He said the Neighbors have concerns with groundwater, and SUB wells. In response to Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4, 2002 Page - 9 . these concerns, the city staffhas indicated that the city will assume long-term maintenance and responsibility for these detention basins. He said this assumed responsibility is not mentioned or anticipated within a Public Facilities Plan, and that long-term maintenance does not appear to be budgeted within the Public Works.budget as well. He said in summary the current flood plain analysis should be completed addressing the current storm water capacity issues of Cedar Creek. He said the Neighbors would like some assurances from the city that it is their intent to perpetually set aside funding to maintain on site storm water facilities, and the long term solutions for the intersection at 66th and Thurston Road. He said it should be developed and included in the Transportation capital improvement budget. 2. Marvin Baker, 1344 66th Street, Springfield, Oregon, spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation of the Eagles Flight Subdivision. He said council might have seen his family on the news recently about a 12 year old Springfield boy shooting two of his horses with a hunting arrow. He said they have agonized over why something like this could happen, and what makes someone get so out of touch with the world. He wonders if it is because everyone is so out of touch with Mother Nature. He said everyone has forgotten where our food comes, as fish and streams need clean water. He said the Mayor and City Council are the community leaders, arid their actions influence the way people view the world. He encouraged council to take a step in the right direction, recognize the river will claim what it wants. . 3. Judy Bonn, 987 66th Street, Springfield, Oregon, spoke in opposition of the prop~sed annexation of the Eagles Flight Subdivision. She said being somewhat new to the area; her neighbors have provided her with information regarding how their rural neighborhood is becoming more urbanized. She wonders if they will continue to be able to farm and raise livestock, will their wells stay clean, and will there be more frequent flooding from Cedar Creek, or mOre flood water from the McKenzie River to threaten their homes. 4. Cheryl Platt, 958 No. 66th Street, Springfield, spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation of the Eagles Flight Subdivision. She said her husband's family has lived on this property since the 1920's. She said they have had to hook up to SUB water because they have not been able to drill a good well on their property. She believes this is because the continued deterioration of the water quality in Cedar Creek, and the proposed subdivision will only make it worse. She has concerns regarding continued development in the flood plain, and wonders if it will push more floodwater onto their property. She urged the council to take a bigger look on what makes sense for the whole neighborhood, and develop a more logical plan that takes all of these issues into consideration. 5. Brenda Leavitt, 1458 66th Street, Springfield, spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation of the Eagles Flight Subdivision said she has lived on this street all of her life. She said she and her husband have three children, one in the middle school and two at the high school. She said the staff report lacks a response from the school district regarding how to serve this . subdivision. She provided enrollment information for schools in the area that would service the proposed subdivision. She said students at Thurston High School are currently being forced to stand because there are not enough desks. She asked if it was necessary to create these additional burdens on these schools, and whether we are efficiently providing services if a situation were created where students would have to bused to other area schools. . 6. Sara Varney 945 No. 66th Street, Springfield, spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation of the Eagles Flight Subdivision. She said she lives directly across the street from Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4,2002 Page - 10 . the grange. She provided copies of various pictures, and circulated to the council. She talked about the traffic and right-of-way issues. She said the intersection is of a substandard width and spoke about concerns related to pedestrian traffic in the area. 7. Paul Welborn, 1155 North 66th Street, Springfield, spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation of the EaglesFlight Subdivision, and said he has lived in this home since 1972. He spoke about the reasons he moved to this property. He spoke about the Levi Landing litigation and mediation. He said they decided to drop the litigation because they received assurances from city staff that a good faith effort would be made to examine flood plain development, and that the city would meet with the neighbors to develop a more comprehensive approach to what would be developed in the area. He said the site in question was specifically mentioned as one he was concerned about. He said he now stands before the council unhappy, and feeling somewhat betrayed. He said he-believes the terms of their settlement have been violated. He said he is asking the City to chart a reasonable course and work with the Neighborhood to develop a long-term approach for a logical., efficient and safe development. He said that the neighbors were promised that once before. . 8. Dan Leavitt, 1458 66th Street. Springfield, spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation ofthe Eagles Flight Subdivision. He said he served on the Thurston Roundabout Advisory Committee, and is currently working with the city on the Sony roundabout. He said while this proposal may look like just another cookie cutter sub-division, it is not. What are the flood plain impacts, and is the McKenzie River changing its course? How and when will these questions be answered? What effect will this development have on the local schools? Has money been earmarked for the necessary improvement at the intersection of 66th and Thurston Road? Has the city made a policy change to provide long-term maintenance on the storm water basins? Has the City Council discussed this policy and agreed t~ provide funding for it? He said reports from the staff show that Cedar Creek cannot handle any storm water, and asked what plans and funding are in place to deal with this problem? 9. Mike Whitney, 1415 N 66th Street, Springfield, spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation of the Eagles Flight Subdivision. He said his wife's family has lived at the end of 66th street since the 1940's, and in 1964 she had to be transported by boat during. a flood as the water came up during the day. He said in 1996 some of his family members again had to be evacuated by jet boat. He provided a copy of a newspaper article for the councils review. He said the river has been on this site many times in the past, and will again. He said officially they have been told that this is not in the flood plain, and even if it is, it's legal to build there. While it might be legal, it is not right. He said approving this requestis not timely, necessary or orderly. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. Councilor Simmons said in his brief observation, this is a decision that is extremely difficult because of the process and findings so far. He said 9 individuais have come to the podium to oppose, one councilor will say he opposes also. He said the flood plan and flood way issues have not been resolved. Cedar Creek is an environmental problem that is not going to go away, flooding, e-coli, and run off, meets or exceeds federal standards in a number of areas. He said he would take an opposing position to the annexation based on his life experience in the area. He said he personally feels the need to further review the data and take a more in depth look before approving the annexation. . Councilor Lundberg asked staff for an update on the flood plain/flood way studies. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4, 2002 Page - 11 . City Engineer AI Peroutka said staff has contacted FEMA and are working with their technical program. He said that would allow the city to partner with them to look at this whole stretch of river from one end of the city to another. He said a new analysis is needed, and that FEMA will be awarded their funding allocation sometime in March of this year, and they will know then whether there are funds available for them to partner in this needed work. He said they would then need to do the appropriate agreements, and it is his estimate that we are at least one year out. Councilor Lundberg asked Mr. Peroutka to confirm that it would be a minimum of one year? Mr. Peroutka said yes, a minimum of one year. Councilor Hatfield; said the council has been discussing flood plain issues, and instituted some policy last fall having to do with flood plain. Councilor Simmons said Cougar Dam would not have a substantial flood capacity. When they drop the level of the cougar Reservoir, they will lose a substantial portion ofthe flood capacity in the McKenzie basin. He said the definition of the floodplain and flood wayneed to be examined with all the players included in the discussion. He said the county needs to be involved in the discussion as it relates to the riparian, and floodway issues. He said again he is opposed based on the frail issues as stated earlier. . Councilor Hatfield asked about storm water basin maintenance, and whether any agreements have been made. He asked about the Public Facilities Plan, and reference to Cedar Creek, having adequate storm capacity. Mr. Peroutka said the Cedar Creek study was done years ago, and showed there are some choke points built into Cedar Creek. There are some projects identified in the Public Facilities Plan, and fairly minor projects that increase the capacity. The issue has been the breaches that have occurred similar to the Gossler breach, where water from the McKenzie River during certain flood events overflow into Cedar Creek. He believes at this point Cedar Creek is contained within its banks for present flows. Councilor Hatfield asked what leads the Public Facility Plan to the conclusion that it is inadequate? . Mr. Peroutka said possibly because it was a 20-year projection, and it wouldn't be able to handle the increased drainage for a period of 20 years. Councilor Hatfield said he remembers that school capacity cannot be taken into account when reviewing annexation issues. City Attorney Joe Leahy said it is fair to consider the provision of public services, and public school is a criterion. However, the city did inform the school district and they chose not to participate. . Mr. Leahy responded to legal questions of the council. He said staff has made the best recommendation based on the information it has available to date. He said he believes it is a question of whether the city has acted in a prudent manner, they have an engineering study, and Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4, 2002 Page - 12 . another engineering firm has reviewed the study as well. He said in his opinion the city has been prudent. The Council discussed the Levi Landing issues, and how to best use the data from those studies to make decision for future development. There was discussion regarding the future build out of Levi Landing. Councilor Lundberg said she appreciates all the hard work put into studies. She said it is important to weigh out which has more validity, personal experience, or studies. She asked Mr. Donovan what would happen if the council chose to delay their decision? Mr. Donovan said he doesn't want to argue the basis of anecdotal testimony, versus the studies. He said the annexation application is good for 6 months, and delaying the decision may mean the next Boundary Commission meeting deadline is missed. Mayor Leiken spoke about his family being in the development business for 40 years, and knows they would never back away from a public hearing. He asked Mr. Donovan if the applicant was present to speak tonight? Mr. Donovan confirmed that the applicant was not present. Councilor Ballew asked if this property was above the lOO-year flood plain? . Mr. Donovan said yes. Councilor Ballew said the applicant has done what it needs to do, the engineering staff said we could go forward, the City Attorney said the city has been prudent. She would support going forward with the annexation request. Councilor Fitch said she is hearing that we've got the studies that state it is ok. Hearing the engineers took pictures, site inspections, although she is witnessing people present in the audience shaking their heads. She said at this time she is not in a position to vote yes or no. She said studies neeq to be done with FEMA. She would suggest that council delay their decision and discuss this in a future work session Councilor Hatfield said this is a difficult decision. He spoke about the UGB and that eventually it would be urbanized and annexed. He spoke about living in the area and driving Thurston Road many times a day. He said staff did the notification to the School District, and the School District chose not to respond. He said the critical issues for him have to do with the flood events. Where is the floodplain, what about Cedar Creek, is it adequate for storm water backup? He recognizes some of the properties in some of the pictures circulated by citizens tonight. The chances for potential flooding may be worse. He said he and the Mayor recently went on a boat trip in January, and looked at the breaches spoke about tonight. He said at this time he cannot support this annexation request to move forward. . Councilor Ballew asked staff if additional information could be provided in order to meet the Boundary Commission deadline? . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4, 2002 Page - 13 . City Manager Mike Kelly said if council directed staff to do so, they could bring forward the results of the studies, and could possibly bring in the applicant and his engineer to a work session. He said if that is the direction of the council the deadline for the April Boundary Commission meeting might be missed. Councilor Ballew said since there is much indecision, she would prefer not to go forward with a denial, she wants to allow the applicant the opportunity to respond, they have done a lot of work to get this far. Councilor Ralston, said he agrees with Councilor Hatfield he would not approve. Mr. Leahy said it is important to remember that we do not know why the applicant is not present. The Hearings Official handled the merits of this particular issue. He said it is possible that information was relayed to the applicant that the annexation would go forward on the criteria. He said we have the staff review and the initial engineering report as well as the peer review. He said the staff did not rely solely on the applicants engineering report. Mayor Leiken said knowing all that, he would not be willing to grant more time for the applicant as they had the opportunity. The developer had the opportunity to be here to present their case, which may have included more information that would assist in this decision. He said the item should be addressed at this meeting. . Councilor Lundberg said there are more underlying issues, thanjust looking at the studies. She would like to allow the council the opportunity to look at the flood plain issues from one end of town to the other. It begs the question of development along the river in its entirety. We keep trying to put a finger on what is good or bad, or'what might or might not flood. There may be new information or studies that would provide additional information that would allow the council more understanding, and provide an opportunity to make a more informed decision. Councilor Hatfield said there is a question about anecdotal evidence. Anytime there are people who step out their back door with hip waders on in waist deep water, it is a little more than just anecdotal evidence. He said the pictures presented tonight deserve some direct response. He said he agrees with the Mayor that certainly he cannot imagine why the applicant is not in attendance tonight. He said he will move to deny Resolution No.4. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD TO DENY RESOLUTION NO.4. Mayor Leiken said we are denying so this is a yes vote on denial. Councilor Fitch asked for a point of clarification, if this is denied and then upheld, does the applicant have to begin all over again, and will there be additional filing fees and costs incurred? . Mr. Oberst said denial of the annexation, is just the denial of the annexation only. The annexation petition signatures are good for six months, but the applicant has two years to plat the . subdivision. . City Attorney Meg Kieran confirmed that is a condition of approval, and they will have two years to satisfy those conditions in order to file the final subdivision plat. She said the clock started ticking in November 2001, and this decision is good for two years. She said the applicant could Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4, 2002 Page - 14 . come back with additional information and re- file, but after six months they would need signatures again. Councilor Hatfield said for a point of reference, the reason he moved for a denial is because the issues he has raised will not be answered within a few weeks. We have to resolve the issues with the County in terms of the revetments, those impacts we do need to get FEMA and work through that process. This is not something that is going to happen within the next few months. Mr. Leahy said council's motion would be to not adopt the resolution, which is a recommendation to the Boundary Commission. The City Manager raised a question about what might they do. He said they have a number of options, they might drop back, they might decide to develop some more information, approach the Council or the City Manager to schedule a work session and possibly start the annexation process over. He said they might decide that not withstanding the Council's recommendation go forward to the Boundary Commission and state that it is within the UGB, they've had the findings and the decision ofthe Hearings Official, and request approval of the annexation. So, again if the Council's motion is to not approve the resolution, it might be advisable to provide some statement of reasons that relate to the criteria to support the decision not to approve the resolution so that those can be presented to the Boundary Commission by the staff, if they were to choose that option. Councilor Hatfield said the findings are not a problem, because he has issues that he does not believe to be resolved regarding storm water, and regarding flood plain. The other issues have been resolved to his satisfaction, but flood plain and storm water have not. He asked Councilor Simmons for his comments. . Councilor Simmons said he believes .that to be sufficient. He said in discussions with the Corps about the mapping area, and that there is some opportunity for funding once that process is underway, he thinks we might find some additional emphasis for FEMA to begin doing something that is productive in the process. He said he concurs these are sufficient reasons for denial.. . COUNCILOR FITCH CALLED THE QUESTION. Mayor Leiken said there is a motion and a second, the motion is to deny, therefore, a yes vote is to deny, please vote. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO DENY RESOLUTION NO.4. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 IN FAVOR AND 1 OPPOSED (BALLEW). Mr. Leahy said the motion would be to not adopt the resolution. City Manager Mike Kelly reminded council that they will be experiencing similar issues in the near term. He said until FEMA updates their maps, there are a number of properties downstream, and anticipates future annexation requests. Councilor Lundberg asked what could be done to expedite the process? . Mr. Kelly said choices could be brought to council, possibly to help fund in order to accelerate the process. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4,2002 Page - 15 . Councilor Hatfield each issue will have to be reviewed on an individual basis. He said this decision was site specific, and cautioned that they should not be construed and applied elsewhere. Councilor Ballew said it would be prudent for council to be more informed related to what the critical elements are, and be considered on each specific application? 14. Youth Access Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 5994 - AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF TOBACCO AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO MINORS BY ADDING CHAPTER 5 "PUBLIC PROTECTION' OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.300 "SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF TOBACCO AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO MINORS" DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY L 2002. RESOLUTION NO. 02-11 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING AN AMENDED MASTER SCHEDULE OF RATES, PERMITS, LICENSES, AND OTHER FEES AND CHARGES AS ESTABLISHED BY THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE. . Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi was present for the staff report. He said council directed staff to prepare an ordinance regulating the sale and distribution of tobacco and tobacco products to minors. He said the council reviewed the initial draft of the ordinance at it's meeting of October 1, 2001, and conducted work sessions regarding the ordinance on October 8, and December 10, 2001. He said the City Council conducted the first reading of the ordinance on January 22,2002. Mr. Grimaldi said the proposed resolution establishes a license fee of $55.00 for the first license and $35.00 for the annual renewal or change of ownership. He said the Development Services Department estimates that approximately 50 licenses will be issued. He said tonight a public hearing is scheduled for the proposed resolution only. Councilor Lundberg thanked staff, Mayor and Council and all the youth that have stepped forward to bring this to a reality. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 5994. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 02-11. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4,2002 Page - 16 . 15. Decision Regarding Written Offer to Purchase City Owned Property. City Manager Mike Kelly was present for the staff report. He said the action requested tonight is to conduct a public hearing and provide direction to staff regarding a written offer from Arlie & Company to purchase approximately two acres of vacant land next to the existing Springfield Utility Board (SUB) station site along the east side of Game Farm Road. Mr. Kelly said a written offer dated November 26,2001 was received from Arlie & Company. This offer was presented to the City Council at their December 10, 2001 meeting and they directed that a public hearing be held on January 22, 2002. He said a public meeting and executive session were held on January 22nd, and councit directed that an updated appraisal report be prepared and another public hearing be scheduled for February 4, 2004. He said the updated Appraisal Report is Attachment 6 of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). Mr. Kelly said since their original offer, Arlie & Company has sold their 160-acre Riverbend site to Peace Health. In preparing a staff report on this matter, and reviewing Section 5.5 of the Annexation Agreement (Attachment 2), the City Attorney determined the City could not sell the city owned parcel to anyone other than Peace Health (Attachment 5). Mr. Kelly said on Friday, January 18th, Peace Health delivered a letter endorsing the sale of this parcel to Arlie & Company (Attachment 4), and on January 30th, Arlie & Company renewed their offer to purchase the property for $55,000. (Attachment 7). Mr. Kelly said the City Council could now decide to either: . . Sell the property for the offered price of $55,000; or · Reject the offer since the property's current value is $86,800; Otherwise, the City's options are specified in Section 5.5 of the Annexation Agreement to either: · Donate the property to Peace Health in consideration of their dedication of RIW for Pioneer Parkway; or · Reduce their financial obligation of$2.75 M for the construction of Pioneer Parkway by $55,000, to $2.69 M. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. I. Larry Reed, 722 Country Club Road, Eugene, said he was present to confirm that the city had received the letter from Arlie and Company, and said he was available if the Mayor and or Council had any questions. 2. JanWilson, 1260 President Street, Eugene, spoke in opposition of the offer to purchase city owned property. She said she does not support this parcel being sold separately, as it is part of the annexation agreement. She said there are two choices in her opinion that are ethical, 1) to sell it to Peace Health because they took over the agreement to the annexation, or 2) open it up and allow anybody to bid on the property. She also said there was some confusion regarding the public hearing notice, and said it was not clear that this item was scheduled for tonight, and whether or not a public hearing was scheduled. . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4, 2002 Page - 17 . Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. The council discussed the choices that Mr. Kelly has outline before them. Mr. Leahy responded to legal questions ofthe council. The council discussed the facts of the new appraisal information and that the value of property exceeds $55,000. The council discussed the success in entering agreements with developers in the past, and the fact that in this case an agreement was made, it is not the time to go back on that agreement. Mr. Leahy said the council would be complying with the terms of the agreement if they chose not to sell, with the understanding that the $55,000. would be deducted. He said it is at Arlie & Company's request to alter the agreement, and this is the time for the council to respond to their request. He said again Arlie has requested the alteration, and Peace Health has consented to the alteration. He said, under the terms of the annexation agreement if we don't sell them the property, we reduce their financial obligation by $55,000. ' Mr. Kelly provided background information related to the negotiations with Arlie & Company in developing the annexation agreement. Councilor Ralston said in good faith, and to maintain the agreement that the City entered into, the city has an obligation to sell it to them for $55,000. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ACCEPT THE $55,000 OFFER FROM ARLIE & COMPANY, ON THE CONDITION THAT PEACE HEALTH AGREETO THE SALE, AND AGREE TO WAIVE THE $55,000 CREDIT OR GIFT OF LAND PROVISION MENTIONED IN THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 IN FAVOR AND 1 AGAINST (SIMMONS). Mr. Leahy said staff would be willing to share with Ms. Wilson copies of the publication affidavit from the Springfield News, which reflects the notice was published on January 30, 2002 BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. John English, 1620 I Street, Springfield, spoke about the Peace Health piece of property in the Gateway area. He spoke about talking to a professor at the University of Oregon approximately 8 years ago. This professor made him aware that we are awaiting an 8-9.5 earthquake in this area. He spoke about the knowledge that rivers follow fault lines. He spoke about the impact an earthquake would have on a building that is built on a fault line. He said the council is charged with making life safety decisions for the citizens of this community, and this is an important issue to take into consideration. . 2. Larry Reed, 722 Country Club Road, Eugene, spoke about the 32nd and Main Street Project. He said the proposed community park and the Broadbase facility should stand on it's own merits. He said Arlie & Company wants the council to complete the Broadbase and Community Park, 32nd and Main Street agreement with Arlie at the utmost speed. He said they want the City to sign the pending agreement so Arlie can accomplish three things. 1) Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4,2002 Page - 18 . Donate, and give clear title to approximately 10 acres to Broadbase; 2) Sell approximately 20 acres to the City of Springfield at Arlie's purchase price cost; and 3) Complete the planning . for the site. He said Arlie has done everything the City has asked of them, he spoke about all of the various studies they have done in order to take this vision to a reality. He said when all of the studies are completed; Arlie would have spent in addition to their donation approximately $80,000 to $100,000. He said ifno decision is made by February 25, 2002, then Arlie & Company would make the decision as to what they want to do with the property. . CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ACCEPT CORRESPONDENCE 1-6 FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. I. Correspondence from Jane Corliss, 1322 Oksanna Street, Springfield, regarding written offer to purchase 22 acres of city owned Sports Center property. 2. Correspondence from John Corliss, 1322 Oksanna Street, Springfield, regarding written offer to purchase 22 acres of city owned Sports Center property. 3. Correspondence from Bonnie Ullman, Secretary and Co-Treasurer, Game Farm Neighbors, 3350 Oriole Street, Springfield, regarding Sports Center land public hearing held on January 22, 2002. . 4. Correspondence from Lauri Segal, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 120 West Broadway, Eugene, regarding Arlie & Company offer to purchase city property. 5. Correspondence from Gary Rayor, Eugene City Councilor - Ward 4,2373 Washington Street, Eugene, regarding rezoning of the Gateway sports center site. 6. Correspondence from Brian Pifer, Vice President Rural Thurston Neighborhood Organization, 1453 66th Street, Springfield, regarding request for annexation of property located on 66th Street. ORDINANCES 1. Prostitution-Free Zone Ordinance and Drug-Free Zone Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 5995 - AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 5.140 THROUGH 5.148 OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED "PROSTITUTION-FREE ZONE" AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. ORDINANCE NO. 596 - AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 5.150 THROUGH 5.158 OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED "DRUG-FREE ZONE" AND DECLARING AN.EMERGENCY. . Police Chief Jerry Smith was present for the staff report. He said these are two ordinances that provide specific geographical areas in the City of Springfield through the ordinance that permits the Police when they arrest an individual to issue them an appearance date in the Municipal Court. He said that would enable the Municipal Court to issue an Exclusion Order for 90 days if Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - February 4, 2002 Page - 19 . they failed to show cause why they should not be issued that Exclusion Order. If the individual were convicted of a specific offense as enumerated in the ordinances, then the Exclusion Order would be for one year. He said both ordinances provide for variances in which if the person has special needs they would not be excluded from the area for these specified purposes. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 5995. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 5996. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. Mayor Leiken thanked Chief Smith and City Attorney Meg Kieran for a job well done on these two ordinances. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL Councilor Ralston said the Springfield Cheerleaders placed first at the State Tournament this year. He said in the 18 years that the State Championships were held; Springfield has won 10 of them. He said there is a young man who is a member of this squad that t4e Oregonian interviewed recently. He said there were some references to Springfield that he wants to report as being inaccurate and asked staff to follow up on those inaccuracies. . Mr. Leahy said he would follow up on the article. Mayor Leiken announced effective January 31 st he has stepped down as the interim Director of the Metro Partnership. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER There was none. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Leahy said none other than the executive session following this meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Kim Krebs ~ ~ 2J.Uyrarx. - Tamalyn Fitch, Councilor .