Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/2002 Regular III , ~ ~ . . . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 The Springfield City Council met in regular session at Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Jesse Maine Meeting Room, on Monday, May 6, 2002, at 7: 11 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE . Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Lundberg, Ralston and Simmons. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Kim Krebs, and members of staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Leiken led the Pledge of Allegiance. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Mayor Leiken asked Mr. Len Goodwin to come forward, and acknowledged his hard work regarding the Qwest Franchise litigation. CONSENT CALENDAR IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. 1. Claims 2. Minutes 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters a. Authorize staff to accept the Oregon Department of Transportation Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Grant for on-street bike lanes along 31 st Street between U Street and Yolanda Avenue. b. Award Contract for the Springfield Maintenance Office Renovation - Phase IV to 2G Construction, in the amount of$91,585.00. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Annexation of Property (Peace Health) to the City of Springfield, Journal Number 2002-02- ,028. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 2 . RESOLUTION NO. 02-22 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORIES TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE THE ANNEXATION AND REQUESTING THAT THE ANNEXATION REVIEW BY THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION OCCUR DURING A PUBLIC HEARING. Planner Colin Stephens was present for the staff report. He reminded the audience that this is a continuation ofthe public hearing that was from Monday, April 29. No written testimony has been received by the public over the past week, but an amended legal description (exhibit 3-1) was submitted from the applicant along with a letter from Alan Yordy CEO of Peace Health supporting their annexation. He pointed out that the council had a copy of the final draft of the annexation agreement with exhibits in front of them at this time. The annexation agreement is a contractual agreement between the City of Springfield and Peace Health. The city would recommend this annexation of approximately 59 acres to the Boundary Commission in exchange for commitment from Peace Health to ensure that there are adequate urban services available to serve the anticipated site. He highlighted those commitments from Peace Health. There is an additional clause in the agreement that allows Peace Health to bring in an additional 25 acres in this area to be brought forward for annexation and if approved Peace Health would provide an additional $750,000.00 for off-site improvements. Mr. Stephens said there are two items that are still being worked through as far as language. They include the clause for termination of the agreement and the language on the timing of the payments. . City Manager Mike Kelly said there are some negotiations pending. The complete agreement would be to council for their review prior to the June 6th Boundary Commission. Councilor Ballew asked a question regarding the area being annexed. Mr. Stephens pointed out the area to be annexed on the map. Councilor Lundberg said on the resolution itself, under section 3 it states that staff would reach an agreement with the applicant for the provision of key urban services. She asked if that had been reached. Mr. Kelly said everything has been agreed upon except clause 4 and 5. Final agreement would be brought back to council prior to June 6th Boundary Commission meeting. If at that time council does not approve the final agreement, they could direct staff how to proceed. Councilor Lundberg asked for clarification on page 6 of the annexation agreement and the grade separation, and whether or not there had been discussion regarding grade separation. Mr. Stephens said the $10.25 million would not apply to grade separation. He said it had been discussed in the past, however there no longer seems to be a need to continue that discussion. . Mr. Kelly said the previous owner in the development plans saw the need 20-25 years from now for a raised or a lowered intersection by bridge. The current owner, Peace Health, has indicated that unless their detailed traffic studies show a need for it, they do not plan on any grade separation. If there happens to be a need at some time in the future, it will be at the expense of the property owner, not of the public. The new agreement along with the previous agreement of the 102 acres will have Peace Health paying a good share of the Pioneer Parkway extension. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 3 . Councilor Lundberg asked if grade separation discussion would occur during a developmental phase. Mr. Kelly confirmed that would be the case. City Attorney Joe Leahy said any of these items could also be discussed at the time of the master plan submission. Councilor Ralston asked if the additional 25 acres that was mentioned had been identified. Mr. Stephens said no that has not been identified as of yet. Mr. Kelly said the applicant could speak to this best. They have told city staff they have interest in purchasing additional acreage there. If they do choose to purchase more property they would have to pay additional off-site costs. Mayor Leiken asked City Attorney Meg Kieran to clarify again the criteria for annexations. . Ms. Kieran said the annexation is governed by Article 6 of Springfield Development Code, and the key criteria is whether or not the city can provide key urban facilities to the territory that is proposed to be annexed. The development code has a flood plain overlay district, and the review of any territory found to be in any flood plain is dealt with at the time the master plan is submitted. At this stage the issue is whether or not we can provide key urban services, not if we should apply article 27 to any development proposal that may be presented at a later date. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. 1. ilia Puustinen Westerholm. 3564 Hayden Bridge Road. Springfield. She is asking council to consider seismic activity and the flood plain knowledge her family has had for generations. Her hobby is watching the various seismic areas on computer programs. Floodplain is an issue not just for rainy weather; we must also consider breached dams. How many minutes would it take 2. Dan Egan. 850 North 6th Street. Springfield. Executive Director Springfield Chamber of Commerce. One ofthe many jobs of the Chamber is to welcome new businesses to the area. Springfield has been able to maintain a reputation of welcoming business and working with businesses. Businesses recognize this, as well as citizens. Development has been successful here in Springfield, and he believes that will continue. In the issue before council tonight, they have been fair and open minded with some tough issues, and he hopes they will stay the course and find a way to work this business into the community. Most citizens have been proud of the community leaders taking a proactive stand working through some of the issues they have faced. He would urge council to maintain that kind of open attitude, but have a clear aggressive business plan in Springfield. . 3. Terri Harding. 132 East Broadway. Suite 536 Eugene. Planning Manager Satre Associates. She is here as the applicants' representative. The criteria of approval centers around whether or not key urban services can be provided. The annexation agreement spells out the terms of the agreement as well as outlining how and when some of the services will be provided. The applicant would ask that council pass the resolution tonight, recommending the annexation of Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 4 . this property to the Boundary Commission, contingent on the signing of the fmal annexation agreement. 4. Lauri Segal. 120 West Broadway. Eugene. Thanked council for extending the public hearing period. In reviewing the report, she has noticed a lot of proposed roads. She talked about the impervious surface issue, and three or four other significant road proposals at this site are a concern. Is this really the best site for such a significant development? She discussed the discrepancy between the $500,000.00 agreed upon by Peace Health and the $10,000,000.00+ needed for off site improvements. There is still no indication of zoning changes that might be requested, and as Mr. Stephens pointed out we still do not have the final annexation agreement. She still has a lot of questions and concerns. . 5. Ann Heinsoo. 35 Lorie Court. Springfield. Ms. Heinsoo is a member ofthe Game Farm Neighbors Association Board. She referred to the article in the Springfield News entitled "Speak Truth to Power". One truth, an important one, is that Springfield has its own hospital, an outstanding medical facility that has worked cooperatively with Sacred Heart for many years. She wants to make it very clear that their objections are not against Sacred Heart. But it is also true, that the Peace Health expansion should be located in Eugene not Springfield. Her association challenges the leaders of Eugene and city planners to work with Peace Health to solve their apparent stalemate. They also challenge Peace Health to discover and develop a far better location. In this era, with changing weather, changing topography and areas of forested lands, the science of computing floodway and floodplains will always be little more than educated guesswork. For this reason alone, they seriously question the use ofthis land for this expansion. On behalf of her neighbors, and she is convinced that many other citizens of Springfield feel the same way, sometimes city councilors should have the courage to say no. 6. Rob Zako. 1280 B East 28th Avenue. Eugene, s~id he would like to commend the city for drafting the annexation agreement. He was concerned, however, about the transportation issue because there has been no traffic impact study done yet. He commends Peace Health for offering $10,250.00.00 for transportation improvements. It is hard for him to understand whether that is adequate without knowing what the impact of traffic will be for the development. He does not know how one can determine if this is a good agreement or not without that information. He is specifically concerned about there being too much traffic in the Gateway Riverbend area. The Be1t1ine 1-5 area, prior to any discussions about a hospital being built in the area, is requiring $35,000,000.00 for safety improvements, not capacity enhancements. Another $18,000,000.00 is needed for capacity improvements prior to talking about building a hospital. He feels we need to know what the impacts are. Last year Mr. Yordy made a presentation to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTe) regarding Beltline 1-5. At that time OTC made the comment that the location of the hospital was unfortunate, That indicates to him that the state is not planning on offering funding for the area anytime soon. He would urge council to wait until there was a traffic impact analysis before making a recommendation. .' 7. Bonnie Ullman. 3350 Oriole Street. Springfield, She had submitted written testimony via e- mail, and wanted to highlight four points from that testimony. 1) Zoning needs to be determined before infrastructUre needs can be accurately assessed. 2) Game Farm neighbors are concerned about the connector roads. They would like the annexation agreement to reflect a respect of the Gateway refinement plan work the city and the neighborhood has Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 5 . accomplished so far and respect discussion on location of connectors. She referred to the agreement allowing an enlarged cross section and a grade separation of Pioneer Parkway Extension. Game Farm neighbors do not want to see this validated by inclusion in this agreement. 3) Storm water and sewer needs should be up to standards. Poor storm water management won't serve the community well. 4) Please take into account Goal 7 regarding the effect of hazards on existing and future development. She urges council to use wisdom, prudence, and foresight. 8. Phillip Farrington. 677 East 12th. Suite N225. Eugene, Represents Peace Health, and said the annexation agreement that has been developed with City staff has addressed a large volume of issues that have been discussed. The flood plain issues are being addressed in the annexation agreement, as well as the storm water issues. They have been working with staff in respect to the master planning. The connector roads are those listed in the Gateway refinement plan. Peace Health has and will continue to hear and respond to the concerns of neighbors, city staff and residents of the city. He reminded council that the property mentioned in this annexation agreement is not the site for the hospital. . 9. Tom Bowerman. 33707 McKenzie View. Eugene, Mr. Bowerman circulated a copy of his written testimony. He commends the city staff for the money they negotiated in the agreement, but it is not possible at this time to know if this amount is adequate. He is concerned about the term 'hospital' in the annexation agreement before a master plan has been submitted or accepted. He is concerned with some of the terminology in the agreement i.e. "Unless Peace Health elects otherwise", and he is still concerned with the flood issues on this property. He urges council to deny annexation ofthis land until after the flood hazard issues are more sufficiently understood. 10. Alan Yordy. 770 East 11 tho Eugene. Represents Peace Health, and said he would not speak to the technical aspects, however, he would like to note with respect to Mr. Farrington's comments regarding the delay to this point, that it has been an expensive delay. However, Peace Health is proud and pleased to be able to make that contribution which he believes will lead to real community in this area. A community focused around a regional medical center, providing access between neighborhoods and rivers, and building neighborhoods in an area that is one of Springfield's best hopes for development in the future. He hopes tonight is the first step in many processes, working with the neighbors and the community, to make this development an asset for Springfield and the community. 11. Fred Starkey. 3842 Hayden Bridge Road. Springfield, Mr. Starkey said he has a lot of anxiety about this issue because he has had water up to his back fence. He discussed a development in Grand Forks that had taken all precautions, yet were still wiped out by floods. He spoke about the fact that the state budget is short on funds and this would be an added burden. He asked Mr. Kelly some questions about off-site improvement costs. Mr. Kelly responded. Mr. Starkey's main concern is for the individual, their safety and the costs involved to the individuals. If a disaster were to occur, the city would not have any funding to assist. He read a document stating that there has been an increase in natural disasters. FEMA doesn't protect citizens, insurance costs are rising, and home repairs are exceeding inflation. This puts a huge burden on citizens, especially older folks on fixed incomes. . Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 6 . Councilor Simmons said staff performed excellent work in cooperation with Peace Health to develop this agreement. He referred to page 6, paragraph D, the obligation of contribution. It seems confusing the way it is written, and he would like it explained later in the process. Under paragraph E that discusses the opportunity for Peace Health to construct the Gateway/Beltline improvements, he is concerned with wage issues. Mr. Leahy responded to some legal questions of the council related to the annexation agreement, and imminent domain issues. He said council would need to approve any imminent domain issue, and the language is included to make it very clear that nothing would be done without a public process. He said staff has had discussions with the property owner regarding this very issue. There was discussion regarding the need to be protective ofthe riparian habitat, and the fact that Peace Health is in true faith interested in doing so. There was discussion regarding any obligation the city would have in assisting in an appeal to the Boundary Commission, and whether the city would incur legal costs or merely participate and pass through costs to Peace Health. Mr. Leahy said the city would participate, but participation would be at a minimum. The bulk would be the responsibility of the developer and owner. If council would like to make it clearer or have staff negotiate a modest cap of some type, they could do that. . Councilor Simmons said again staff ought to be commended on the process. The agreement has been tough to come to completion and he salutes both parties. Mr. Kelly said there was testimony about funding. Mr. Kelly discussed the amount of funding the city would receive through the annexation agreements from the property owners. These amounts do not include ODOT requirements and pass throughs. As we receive the master plan and it goes to ODOT, we could expect ODOT to then come forward and ask for reasonable traffic improvements to the intersection. Those negotiations would be between Peace Health and ODOT. The city may join with them if they felt ODOT's requirements were unreasonable. Councilor Ballew said the applicants have met the city's requirements, and have worked with the city on future impacts on public service. She is ready to support the annexation request. Councilor Lundberg said the issue tonight is annexation of property, not approving a development plan. Some of the arguments she has heard, although valid, do not pertain to annexing the property. She feels we have more control because there is one owner, with a large tract of property and we have a good annexation agreement in place. She is very supportive of being able to have annexation agreements ahead ofthe process. She will have a problem with the grade separation, but appreciates that there is a lot more process before that point is reached. This is an annexation agreement for a piece of property that was going to be annexed at some point. There will be a lot more process to assist in mitigating concerns as we continue. Councilor Fitch commended staff and Peace Health for being a good partner. They have shown a can do attitude. She supports moving forward with the annexation now, and feels this will be a good move for the entire area. . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 7 . Councilor Ralston said a lot of good points had been made tonight. Flood plain issues are important in the annexation process in relation to the ability to provide key services, but he feels at some point we need to believe in our staff. They say services can be provided to this property. Someone did speak about having the courage to say no, but he feels it takes just as much courage to say yes. Councilor Hatfield said in looking at traffic issues comparing this property to the OHSU campus in Portland and the surrounding area, he doesn't see a need for a grade separation in the Pioneer Parkway extension project. He mentioned the following points. 1) If the property were to be developed as currently zoned (MDR) there would be a large flow oftraffic on Game Farm Road. 2) In the master planning, the developer has a choice. They can do it as part ofthe city annexed or as part of the county unannexed. If it is done as part of the county prior to our annexation, our planning commission or city council does not have opportunity to review it. If it is within the city, the City Council and Planning Commission are the people who work with the applicant to ensure the needs of the community are met. He has heard a lot about risks, and they do exist, but are exceedingly small. 3) There has been discussion on the impact on McKenzie Willamette Hospital. This council will not permit them to disappear; it hasn't disappeared yet. The impact would have been the same if Peace Health were to develop its facility on Chad Drive in Eugene. The issue of annexation is whether or not we want the site plan and master planning to come before this body. Yes. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 02-22. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Sanipac Franchise Amendment. ORDINANCE NO.1 - AN ORDINANCE REGARDING THE EXCLUSIVE GARBAGE COLLECTION FRANCHISE OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASED FRANCHISE FEE. AND RESTATING THE FRANCHISE. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5395 (SPECIAL). AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 5621 (SPECIAL). Technical Services Manager Len Goodwin was present for the staff report. This is a public hearing and first reading only, and no action is required at this time. He said the current franchise granted to Sanipac provides for a franchise fee of 5 percent of gross revenues. As part ofthe City's strategy to improve General Fund revenues, staff has discussed an increase in that franchise fee. Following those discussions, staff has concluded that it is reasonable to increase the franchise fee to 6 percent effective July 1, 2002, and require a further increase to 7 percent, effective January 1,2003. In addition, staff believes that it is appropriate to require that Sanipac pay the current tipping fee of $46 per ton imposed by the Lane County on street sweepings that Sanipac collects for the city. He said staff recommends that imposition ofthis requirement be deferred to July 1, 2003 in order to avoid imposing a hardship on the company. Mr. Goodwin said staff estimates that the increase in franchise fee will product about $45,000 in additional revenue FY 2003, and $60,000 in FY 2004 and thereafter. . Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 8 . 1. John Hire. 3935 Spring Blvd. Eugene, Mr. Hire is the General Manager of Sanipac. He views the contractual agreement as a partnership relationship. He was pleased to have Bob Duey and Len Goodwin call to discuss a few of the city's financial issues because it shows that they value this partnership. The presentation given by them both of them was very professional. What the city is asking for is within the range of all industry standards. Because of Mr. Duey and Mr. Goodwin's professionalism and approach to this situation, Sanipac was not surprised and is prepared to move forward. He thanked council for viewing Sanipac as a partner with Springfield. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. 3. Annexation of Property (Bayberry Commons) to the City of Springfield, Journal Number 2002-03-0090. RESOLUTION NO. 02-23 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORIES TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE THE ANNEXATION AND EXTENSION OF SANITARY SEWER BY EXPEDITED PROCESS. . Planner Susanna Julber was present for the staff report. She referred to a revised resolution, which was presented to council with a corrected reference to ORS 199.464 regarding extraterritorial extension for wastewater and a revised legal description for the annexation area. The Boundary Commission requested both. She also noted that because it is an expedited request, no public hearing would be before the Boundary Commission unless one is requested following council's approval of the annexation. If that were to happen, it would then be presented at the August 1 Boundary Commission Meeting. Ms. Julber said the property owners ofthe subject territory, Bayberry Commons L.L.C., have requested annexation in order to develop property located east of Laura Street in Springfield. They wish to develop the property consistent with the standards of the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district, and have indicated that the 3.7-acre tract of land will be developed as an assisted living facility. Such urban uses are not permitted in the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District, and annexation is required. Ms. Julber said the area for annexation lies directly east of Laura Street, which is an unimproved roadway within the jurisdiction of Lane County. It is policy of the Springfield Public Works Department to not include portions of substandard right of way in request for annexation. Consequently, an extra-territorial extension of sanitary sewer is needed to serve the property. She said the applicant has provided a plan to extend sanitary service from Lindale Drive to the proposed development area at the applicant's expense. Ms. Julber said Article 6.030(2) of the Springfield Development Code requires that territories considered for annexation must be provided "key urban facilities and services", as defined in Metro Plan Policy 7.a. Among these key urban services are water, sewer, storm water facilities, streets, electricity, parks, fITe/emergency services, and schools. Based on its analysis, staff finds that key urban services are available to the site. . Councilor Ballew asked why there is no annexation agreement. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 9 . Ms. Julber said the City Council is authonzed by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority ofthe electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed. She said there are no registered electors currently residing within the territory proposed for annexation. Mr. Kelly said the Boundary Commission does not require annexation agreements when annexation requests are small enough and are a logical extension ofthe city. When annexations are large and apply to large parcels, then annexation agreements are created to insure a fair split of costs for infrastructure and urban services between the city and the property owner. Traditionally, an agreement is not required if staff has confidence that we can provide the parcel with key urban services. ' Councilor Lundberg asked for clarification on when the annexation would go before the Boundary Commission. Ms. Julber said that normally in the annexation process, there is a city council public hearing and then it is forwarded for approval to the Boundary Commission, followed by a Boundary Commission hearing. An expedited annexation means the Boundary Commission would not hold a public hearing unless someone requests one during a two-week period following receipt of the recommendation from council to the Boundary Commission. The expedited process saves staff time for the city and the Boundary Commission. . Councilor Lundberg feels that it needs to be clear what the criteria is regarding when an annexation agreement is needed and when it is not. She wants to be fair to all parties who apply. Mr. Kelly said he agrees with that. In the two cases before them tonight, discussion on how the property will be developed has occurred. This helps staff to know what the impacts will be for traffic off-sites. The language in this resolution has been worded to make sure that it has been looked at carefully to see if an annexation agreement is needed. Councilor Lundberg asked who would pay for the construction ofthe sewer line under Laura Street. Would we be limited in how much we could ask the developer to pay? Mr. Kelly said the developer would pay the costs. Mr. Leahy said staff would work with the developer to find a fair apportionment that's proportional to the impact on the system. We are entitled to do that under the law and there is no need for an annexation agreement to do that. 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. 02-23. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 IN FAVOR AND 1 AGAINST (BALLEW). Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 10 . 4. FY 2002-2003 One Year Action Plan ofthe Eugene - Springfield Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. Housing Program Specialist Kevin Ko was present for the staff report. He said the Five- Year Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, adopted in May of 2000, is a requirement ofthe federal government and is necessary for Eugene and Springfield to continue receiving funding from HUD. One Year Action Plans must be submitted to HUD each year and are designed to indicate how communities intend to fulfill the priorities established in the Five Year Plan. Mr. Ko said the FY 2002-03 One Year Action Plan includes the one-year funding allocations and proposed activities and must be approved by both the City of Springfield and City of Eugene prior to submission to HUD. The document was available for a thirty-day review and comment period from April 5, 2002 ending May 5,2002. As of May 1 S\ no comments have been received. The Eugene City Council is adopting separately the Eugene portion. The combined Eugene- Springfield One Year Action Plan is due to HUD on May 15,2002. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. Noone appe~red to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR . FUTCH TO ADOPT THE SPRINGFIELD PORTION OF THE FY 2002-2003 ONE YEAR ACTION PLAN OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. Mayor Leiken called'for a recess at 8:55 p.m. Mayor Leiken reconvened the meeting at 9:02 p.m. 5. Annexation of Property to the City of Springfield, Planning Journal Number 2000-07-0157, (John Shama Applicant). RESOLUTION NO. 02-24 - 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 Jim Donovan was present for the staff report. He said the property owners have requested annexation in order to proceed with development of the 5 acre site located 200 feet north of Thurston Road on the west side of 66th Street. Construction of 30 single-family homes and required public improvements has been given tentative subdivision approval by City staff. . Mr. Donovan said City Council initially considered and rejected the proposal on February 4, 2002. The applicant then requested and received a rescinding of that decision on February 19, 2002. Since then, the City Council has held three work sessions in March and a public meeting in Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 11 . April in order to gather input on floodplain development. He said the subject property in not located within the 100-year floodplain as determined by FEMA FIRM map. During subdivision review procedures, staff determined that additional studies were needed prior to development of the subject parcel to verify and refine the nearby flood hazard areas. A satisfactory level of study and analysis has been completed. The reviewed information supports the conclusion that the p~operty is not within the 100-year floodplain. Because it is preliminary, staff has requested, and the applicant has approved that if new information arises prior to fmal plat approval, the applicant would be required to comply with SDC Article 27 prior to Subdivision Plan approval. All design issues raised were heard and unanimously upheld by the Hearings Official. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. . 1. Doug DuPreist. 777 High Street #200. Eugene, Mr. DuPriest represents Rural Thurston, Inc. At the time the council decided to take the decision back after initially denying it, there was discussion about the relationship and possible implication on the Peace Health annexation decision made earlier tonight. In addition, the Cedar Creek issues, both in terms of flooding and water quality were to provide some distinctions. City studies have identified significant problems in the vicinity as early as 1979. This was mentioned in a Brown and Caldwell study. The Cedar Creek problem is multi-fold because ofthe storm water drainage aspect and the water quality is-sue. Should this property be annexed before the solutions to the problems have been identified? With respect to the flooding issues, he referred to the public services plan and past city studies. The city can identify $5 million dollars of improvements spent on Cedar Creek to address current conditions. The question to the council is do they want to make the conditions worse before determining where the funds are coming from to solve the existing problems? Who bears the responsibility? Does the city feel it has responsibility to deal with the dikes outside the urban growth boundary, or would the county fund some of those expenses? The irrigation districts are not eligible to receive grant moneys. There are important issues that need to be discussed and resolved. Another issue is the cumulative effects. The new FEMA information is only preliminary, and we only know what staff has said. One of the keys to remember is that the decision to annex is irrevocable. Ifthis property is annexed it is highly likely that it will be developed for residential development. Mr. DuPriest urges council not to annex property. 2. Eileen Yarborough. 918 N. 66th Street. Springfield, Ms. Yarborough has lived at this address for 26 years, and is 83 years old. She feels that if council approves this as it stands, they are asking people to buy houses that could be flooded. Council is making a decision without having all the facts, promising to pay for maintenance without knowing where the funding is coming from. She feels that this is wrong. . 3. Cheryl Platt. 958 N. 66th. Springfield, Ms. Platt's family has lived along the McKenzie for four generations. There are changes in the river occurring at this very moment and it is impossible to determine how people living downstream will be affected. Building more subdivisions in the area will add more runoff into Cedar Creek. Council may be able to enforce restrictions on new development, but by elevating the land, streets and adding more runoffs, it puts the established homes at a greater risk. Who will be responsible for damages if they do get flooded out? In 1961 her husbands' father was farming his property, which ran along the north side of Thurston Road. His property was annexed into the city and he was forced to sell off 10 acres. The west side of this subdivision will border her property. Eventually a street will need to go in which will cut through her property, and they will have Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 12 . to relinquish more of their land. She is frustrated and angry because it seems that property owners only have rights to their land until the city chooses to take it over. Photos have been provided, because photos are a much truer account than educated guesses. 4. Judy Bonn. 987 N. 66th. Springfield, Ms. Bonn is with the Rural Thurston Neighborhood Association. Ms. Bonn is angry because the city of Springfield is in non-compliance with the negotiated settlement between the City of Springfield and the Rural Thurston Neighborhood Association. She is angry with the city engineer for stating that if and when this property is found to be in the flood plain, it will need to be tweaked a little. Levi Landing has a bio swell that is supposed to filter and allow settlement before discharging into Cedar Creek, but the drain allows direct discharge. The city says that it will provide minimal services, but they can't and don't. There is evidence that Ecoli levels are extremely high in Cedar Creek, and she is concerned that more storm water will be dumped into this creek. Has this parcel already been approved for annexation by the city? She takes exception to the statement by the applicant's attorney accusing the neighbors of sound and fury, but no evidence that this property is in the 100-year flood plain. The neighbors aren't going anywhere, and will not go away. They are the little guys, but they are being affected by all of this. . 5. Dave Jewett. 1011 Harlow Road. Springfield,Mr. Jewett represents John Shama. Mr. Jewett said in regard to flood plain issues, the staff has weighed in, other governmental agencies have weighed in, consultants have weighed in and neighbors have had every opportunity to weigh in. Ultimately, we have arrived full circle. The conclusions are correct and reasonable, and there is no need to change its policies around flood plain. Article 6 governs annexation 'and the criteria include whether or not key urban services are available. The Springfield Development Code governs development within the flood plain. All of the evidence of good quality indicates that the property is not in the flood plain. The facts have been provided in the memorandum. The applicant has provided assurance to the) council that if new reliable evidence is provided regarding flood plain before final plat is recorded, adjustments will be made in order to comply with SDC Article 27. Cedar Creek has been discussed tonight, and the evidence in record states that one of the conditions ofthe annexation is that the client is developing a storm water detention basin that will result in less run off. Councilor Simmons said Mr. Jewett indicated that the existing elevation is 509 feet, yet the base flood elevation on the property ranges from 507.9 to 508.9 feet, referring to the hearing's official response. He is confused by the numbers on page 2 of 12, under paragraph 3. Mr. Jewett said exhibit C, page 2, and paragraph 3 talks about the EGR analysis of the 100-year flood plain being 507.9 to 508.9. The streets in the proposed subdivision will be raised to 509.5 and building pad areas to 510. They will be above the reasonable interpretation of the 100-year flood plain. He said input assumptions and computer modeling account for the difference. Regardless of whose engineering study you rely on for the decision, the property is above the 100-year flood plain. The reason the letter of assurance has been given to council is that they want people to understand if engineering data comes back and indicates that the property is within the 100-year flood plain, the development requirements will be adhered to as stated in Article 27. . Councilor Simmons asked Mr. DuPreist the same question. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 13 . Mr. DuPreist said that as Councilor Simmons has identified the facts are not clear. Evidence has been submitted about actual flood elevations where there has been flooding at levels comparable to this site. He spoke about the upstream dikes reaching the end of their 50-year life span, and not having funding to rebuild them. Councilor Simmons asked if Mr. DuPriest had any scientific data that shows that the elevations as mentioned are inaccurate. Mr. DuPreist said it depends on what you term as scientific data. Actual data has been submitted that shows this elevation of property to have flooded recently. Councilor Simmons asked if the 1996 flood was higher than the 505 or the 507. Eric Gossler said in submitting photographic evidence, it showed water on the site in the 1940' s and water to the edge of the property in 1996. He said what we have to remember, is that the 1996 flood is the most recent in the memory, yet it was only classified as a 40-year event. A 100 year event would be much more severe and would be more like that in the photos of the 1940 flood. . 6. Brenda Leavitt, 1458 66th Street, Springfield, OR. Ms. Leavitt received a letter from Mr. Jewett that upset her. The letter included a statement that the neighborhood does not seriously contest the availability of key urban services and services. She recalls the neighbors having concerns about fIre, the streets and the storm drainage, which continues to be a concern. The letter states that the Eagles Flight property is not in the flood plain, yet on page 25 of their previous written testimony it shows the property flooded in the 1940's. Is the city concerned about liability? If the neighbors were flooded out because of these developments, someone would be liable and will be held responsible. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. Councilor Simmons said this is a tough issue. Based on the facts submitted by the applicants' engineer, the Hearings Official ruling, and the FEMA map at 505, the site is not within the 100- year flood plain. If the correction comes from FEMA and the CORPS then the elevations proposed by the applicant are adequate to meet Article 27. Having watched the water in that area in his lifetime, he feels that there is something wrong with the numbers. Based on the facts presented, there is no engineering or scientific argument that would say that the site resides within the 100-year flood plain. This is one of the hardest decisions he has dealt with, but based on the information submitted, the applicant has made the case for approval. He believes the site will flood. He does appreciate the letter from the applicant and their representatives stating that they will try to meet the higher elevation if new evidence is presented. He will be supporting the applicant. . Councilor Ralston said Cedar Creek couldn't handle the current runoff. It is also his opinion that this property is in the 100-year flood plain; however those issues are not reasons to deny the application. In light of the evidence presented, it is his opinion that key urban services cannot be provided. He agrees that land in the UGB is designed to eventually be developed, but not all property in the UGB can be developed. The most important point is if development were to occur, and we fmd out they are in the flood plain and the property is raised, what about the other property owners who would be impacted by the runoff. He said in light of these issues he would not support the annexation. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 14 . Councilor Fitch said she believes in rules and regulations, and she feels that studies have been done on the different issues that lead her to believe that Article 27 would take care of those issues. She feels we must utilize those same measures for anything that comes before the council, no matter what ward it is in. We must use what tools we have in place, and given that she would support the annexation. Councilor Ballew agrees this has been a tough decision. The applicant has followed the rules, and she feels it is an appropriate annexation. She would support the annexation. Councilor Hatfield said the city is not the applicant in the process and the council prior to this hearing has made no decision. Flood plain development is permitted under Article 27 and mitigating impacts on the neighboring property is covered in Article 27. If it is not within the flood plain, there could be land alteration permits, and the impacts on the neighboring properties would also be applied. The dams installed in the 1960's do change the impact of flooding today. Councilor Hatfield stated that he does not accept threats, and he will make the best decision he can based on the facts he has received. The city is committed to work with the county on the Cedar Creek issue. The city has worked prudently to deal with storm water issues, the Hart revetment, and the Gossler revetment, to determine what issues the city is going to assume. The county would need to be involved in these decisions as well. The letter of commitment from the applicant regarding Article 27 satisfies his requirements. Article 27 will be applied if this property were found to be in the flood plain. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 02-24. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 IN FAVOR AND 1 AGAINST (RALSTON). 6. Proposed Springfield Development Code Amendments. Planner Gary Karp was present for the staff report. He said that a Ballot Measure 56 notice was sent out that mentioned the Planning Commission public hearing on April 2 and tonight's public hearing. The Planning Commission public hearing was continued, so they do not have a report for the council. He said tomorrow they are going to the Planning Commission requesting a continuance until June 6th. They have received thirteen submittals from the public, both oral and written testimony. On May 14th, a work session with the Planning Commission was set up to deal with three or four of the primary issues that were raised by that testimony. On June 4th, they will be going back to the Planning Commission to reconvene the public hearing, on June 24th they will come back to the council with a report, and on July 1 S\ they will reconvene the public hearing. , Mr. Karp asked that council open the public hearing and continues it to July 1 st. Councilor Simmons asked how many of the one thousand property owners will have direct knowledge of the July 1 st public hearing. Mr. Karp answered that those attending the April 2 hearing will have that knowledge. There was no mention of the July 1 st hearing in the notice. . Mr. Simmons recognizes the legality of doing that, but in the event that we are going to enact changes that are this severe, it would seem appropriate to notify the owners about the continuation of a public hearing. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6,2002 Page - 15 . Mr. Leahy said council is always free to do more than the law requires. But as budgetary constraints have worsened, those have been cut back. Unless council instructs, staff will not be sending out another mailing. The legal test will have been met. Councilor Simmons suggested a brief notification at second-rate postage. Cost and the effectiveness of the mailings were discussed. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing, and continued the hearing until July 1, 2002. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE There was none. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. Correspondence from G. David Jewett, Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness & Wilkinson, P.C. 1011 Harlow Road, Suite 300, Springfield, Oregon, Regarding Applicant's (John Shama) Statement in Support of Property Annexation, Planning Journal #2000-07-0157. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments a. Appointments to the Hospital Facility Authority Board. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCll,OR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF MCKENZIE WILLAMETTE HOSPITAL TO APPOINT ANNE BALLEW, STEVE LOVELAND, JOHN HALGREN, PHIL DEAN, MD AND MAUREEN WEATHERS TO THE HOSPITAL FACILITY AUTHORITY BOARD FOR THREE YEARS EXPIRING JANUARY, 2005. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports b. Other Business BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER . . ~ . . . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - May 6, 2002 Page - 16 Mayor Leiken said in light of the late hour, Mr. Metzger's item regarding the Preliminary Node Site Selection would need to be set over until the May 20th Regular Session Meeting ofthe Council. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY There was none. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Kim Krebs ~. Kim Krebs, City Recorde ~