HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/2007 Work Session
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JULY 9, 2007
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 9, 2007 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, f\ssistant City Manager Jeff
Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Matt Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and
members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused).
1. Plannin,g Options for G1enwood.
Community Development Manager John Tamulonis presented the staff report on this item. Land
development in Glenwood is guided by the policies of the Glenwood Refmement Plan (GRP).
As with the Metro Plan, the GRP has not undergone a significant update since the late 1980's
except for the 48 acre riverfront subarea. The issue at hand is whether additional updating of the
GRP should be undertaken, and if so, to what extent? This memorandum provides the Council
with 5 options. addressing this issue.
Planning and Public Works staff have assembled a list of 5 options for future development in
Glenwood.
These options include:
1. Status Quo Development
2. Expanding Riverfront Mixed-Use Along Both Sides of Full-Length Franklin
3. Franklin/McVay Corridor Planning
4. Entire Transportation Corridor Planning
5.. Update Glenwood Refmement Plan
Each option broadly identifies development activities, necessary department tasks, timelines,
staffing needs, costs and the associated pros and cons. Option # 1 does not include the
comprehensive visioning that occurs with Option #5. It does allow a portion of the Glenwood
riverfront to be developed to contemporary expectations but defers any development decisions
about the remainder of the riverfront, or the interior of Glenwood, to a later time. Options 2-5
represent a logical extension of the contemporary vision outlined in the Glenwood Riverfront
Plan. Staff supports the broader approach suggested by Option #5 because it incorporates the
wishes of the community, the energy of the Council and the trends of the 21 st century market
place.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 9, 2007
Page 2
Staff requests specific direction from Council regarding the future of Glen wood outside of the 48
acre riverfront site. The set of options presented in Attachment 1 cover these concerns by
allowing the Council to consider, accept modify or reject specific courses of action for
Glenwood. These options are accompanied by broad estimates of project timelines and costs, and
the more obvious advantages and disadvantages that may result from implementation.
At the direction of Council, staff will begin to assemble project lists and plans to implement the
planning option(s) preferred. This will be presented to Council as a follow up Work Session
item.
Mr. Tamulonis referred to the Glenwood RefmementPlan, Glenwood RiverFront Plan, the
Franklin/McKay Boulevard Study, the Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan, the American Institute of
Architect (AlA) 150th Anniversary Initiative, the 1-5/Glenwood Area Planning Study, and the
Walnut Station Mixed-use Area (which was located in Eugene). When considering changes in
land use, infrastructure must accommodate those changes.
Planning Manager Greg Mott discussed the various interests and participants that shaped the
activity in Glenwood. Staff felt it was appropriate to check in with Council to get a sense of their
direction. He reviewed the options listed above. The focused policy initiative had been on the 48
acres identified in the urban renewal district and through Council direction. Consideration of
extending that area farther west and south had been discussed. He explained each option and how
the planning department and public works department would have different roles in each option.
Glenwood represented something completely unique from any other area. Option 5 would be an
update of the Glenwood Refinement Plan and would not do away with the original plan. Each
option had an estimated cost associated with it.
Councilor Ralston asked if the full time employee (FTE) costs were separate from.the contract
costs. Yes. He asked if SEDA would pay those costs or the City.
Mr. Grimaldi said SEDA could pay if they chose.
Councilor Ballew said it appeared that Option 4 cost more than Option 5 and took longer.
Mr. Mott explained the differences in the costs for both options and said that they each had a
range of time. Staff was being conservative when estimating that Option 4 would take thirty to
forty-eight months. It was doubtful that Option 4 would take longer than Option 5. There was no
difference in the costs to public works for either option. He discussed the trip points and how
that affected the area. The public works piece would be about as extensive for both options as
would citizen involvement.
Councilor Ballew asked who should pay for infrastructure in the urban renewal area, the City or
the urban renewal agency.
Mr. Grimaldi said it would depend on the outcome of the infrastructure.
Councilor Ballew said there was specialized financing for the urban renewal agency. She said it
would be beneficial to have a policy to sort that out.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 9, 2007
Page 3
Mr. Tamu10nis said the Plan noted that SEDA would use infrastructure to make changes in
Glenwood. The first year strategy was to focus on industrial development to gain the most
benefit for tax growth. He discussed infrastructure that could be funded by SEDA to encourage
additional growth. Investment along the riverfront may require more funding. A case could be
made based on the priorities of the agency. The Plan did not spell that out specifically.
Councilor Ballew said citizens voted for urban renewal with the understanding that it wouldn't
cost them anything. She wanted to be clear that there was good rationale for spending funds.
Mr. Tamulonis said Glenwood development and the taxes paid in Glenwood, would be paying
for the infrastructure in Glenwood.
Mayor Leiken said in looking at Options 4 and 5, Option 4 seemed more ofa cookie cutter
approach. He could see why Option 4 could take a little longer than Option 5. The area in
Options 1,2 and 3 was contiguous, but Option 4 had noncontiguous property. Option 5 overall
would be less expensive over time with a better advantage. It was more expensive to redevelop
properties than to raze them and rebuild. He understood the timeline for Options 4 and 5.
Mr. Mott said that was correct. There was the edge treatment that was expanded through Option
4. It would include an attempt to modernize the land use activities along those corridors with a
coordinated vision between Council and the Glenwood residents.
Councilor Ralston he didn't like the patchwork approach and felt Option 5 made more sense. It
was better to get it done comprehensively and all at once. He was concerned about how the
neighbors would feel about this.
Assistance Public Works Director Len Goodwin recalled that his first presentation before
Council was regarding Glenwood. At that time, Springfield did not yet have jurisdiction over
Glenwood. Mr. Goodwin said public works would be involved in the infrastructure. It made a lot
of sense from an infrastructure standpoint to go with Option 5. He discussed some of the
infrastructure issues. He gave an example of a major sewer that was put into Glenwood to try to
get in ahead of the Franklin Boulevard overlay. It was designed with excess capacity to serve all
the needs of the Glenwood land uses that were around it. A developer came in and talked about
levels of intensity of development that were many times what the current Glenwood Refinement
Plan was talking about. If it were to develop at that intensity, the new sewer with excess capacity
would end up being inadequate. Further development would require finding ways to serve the
eastern shore of Glenwood. Those types of unintended consequences needed to be considered
when trying to integrate how the land was used and how the structure would be provided to serve
it.
Mr. Goodwin said from an infrastructure view, staff was already starting to update the
Refinement Plan. Staff would be bringing Council draft facilities plans for storm and sanitary
sewer. Those were designed, at this point, to accommodate Glenwood as it currently existed.
They were designed based on current information. That was good information to apply to new
land uses and the infrastructure to support that. Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt was looking
at the Franklin Boulevard Corridor, which would be essential when looking at the Glenwood
Refinement Plan in total. Staff was in the process of working with the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) on a study of a potential new interchange in the Glenwood area. Once
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 9,2007
Page 4
that interchange was designed, it would be designed to fit whatever land uses were in place at
that time. If there were changed land uses in Glenwood, they would probably be more intense
and bring about more transportation needs. Public works could accommodate any of the options,
but Option 4 presented a unique challenge for public works. He explained how they would be
impacted. There were land uses currently in those areas, but those would most likely be changed
to meet Council goals. That may mean that public works overbuilds the infrastructure to
accommodate future needs. From a public works and infrastructure perspective, it would be best
to look at the entire area of Glenwood, not just a portion of it.
Councilor Ballew said logically it made sense to do Option 5, but that was a lot of money and
she asked where they would get the funds.
Mr. Grimaldi said if Council directed staffto move forward with Option 5, staff would prepare
funding options and specifics for consideration. They didn't want to make a mistake. There was
some apprehension from citizens and the Refinement Plan process in the end could give them
long-term certainty.
Councilor Lundberg said updating the Metro Plan took a lot of time and energy. She would like
to have more flexibility in the plan and layer the time frames because things did change. She
asked if there was potential to do it in a segmented way. She had seen the Refinement Plan used
to hinder progress and also to move things along. Gateway was a good example in how things
changed. She said they would be in year five of the urban renewal district by the time the Plan
was updated. She asked if there was a possibility in updating the plan differently or if we were
bound by laws or rules. She wanted to use the Plan to our benefit, rather than a binding tool that
was restrictive.
Mr. Mott said there was a balance between the certainty that Mr. Grimaldi referred to and being
responsive. This Refinement Plan was adopted in 1989 and with the exception of the 48 acres,
everything had been consistent with that Plan. Things had changed a lot since 1989 and would
continue to change in the next seventeen years. There could be a better way to anticipate and
accommodate that change and still provide people with some measure of certainty. It would take
some smart thinking.
Mr. Grimaldi asked Councilor Lundberg for clarification regarding segments in the Plan.
Councilor Lundberg said she said it would either be each area at a time or a certain piece of the
infrastructure. She said the riverfront area had the most potential for development in the near
term. She said it was so expensive and she wanted to break it into pieces.
Mr. Mott said Council would hear another aspect of this which included work being performed
on the residential land supply demand analysis. Part of it was projecting the types of housing
needed, the types of densities and where it would happen from people with a lot of experience.
He discussed the expansion of the City's urban growth boundary and the need to provide
commercial, industrial and residential areas in the City, including Glenwood. Glenwood needed
to be considered in that equation. The residential information should be ready this year.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes.
July 9, 2007
Page 5
Mr. Goodwin discussed Option 3 and the stormdrainage that would affect the southwestern edge.
Sanitary Sewer could be an issue if the whole area was not done at the same time. The City may
be scrambling for solutions in some areas if not done right at first.
Councilor Woodrow said he appreciated Councilor Lundberg's concern about the time frame. He
discussed the different options. Springfield was responsible for all of Glenwood and needed to
plan for it as a whole. The whole intent was that Glenwood would be changing and needed to be
prepared. He agreed that it needed to be done as expeditiously as possible. He was strongly in
favor of Option 5 and planning ahead.
Councilor Ballew said a Refmement Plan was done and a developer had said it was not a good
plan because of the economics of the area. She could support Option 5, but would like to see
something on a higher level than Option 5, including things such as drainage tracking. It may be
too soon to determine what should be single family residential as opposed to what should
continue to be industrial. She would like to see more of an overall look, rather than the specifics.
Councilor Lundberg said flexibility was the operative word. There was a risk when things had to
be changed. She would like to see this outlined in layers.
Councilor Ralston said from a practical standpoint, this would create certainty for a developer.
The reality was that there was already a Refinement Plan which made sense and there wasn't a .
lot that needed to be changed. The cost could be on the lower end of what was expected. He said
to do it right, we needed to do it all.
Councilor Pishioneri said he supported updating the entire Refmement Plan and look at the
whole picture. It allowed for greater involvement with the public and businesses. It added a lot of
good checks and balances. He understood that it would cost more than the other options, but
would need to be done at some point anyway.
Councilor Woodrow said SEDA would be looking at all of Glenwood. SEDA and the City
needed to be in concert regarding this. He agreed that it would be beneficial to look at it in a
layered format so public works and planning could look at what needed to be added. Option 5
was the best way to go with a layered look, as long as that didn't impact or hamper public works
or the developer.
Mayor Leiken asked staff to put together an Option 5 hybrid, in a phased or layered outlook.
Mr. Grimaldi said staff would bring that option back to Council.
2. Review Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Membership for Franklin Boulevard Study
Proiect.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt presented the staff report on this item. The purpose of the
Franklin Study is to assess the design, alignment, and traffic operations of Franklin Boulevard
and the Franklin/McVay intersection and to investigate opportunities to improve the condition of
this important corridor, both for through traffic and Glenwood Riverfront re-development. The
project goal is to reach a preferred alternative for Franklin Boulevard improvements through an
open public process, and to adopt the selected alternative as a refinement to TransPlan and the
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 9, 2007
Page 6
Glenwood Refinement Plan. The Study is scheduled to take approximately 18 months. The
project team will host a public design charette in early August. Outcomes of this intense design.
activity will be presented to Council in work session on September 10, to focus on a discreet set
of alternative for subsequent analysis.
Oregon Land Use Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement, as well as the City's adopted Citizen
Involvement process, calls for fair, balanced, and transparent public involvement. To meet these
goals, and more specifically to guide a successful project, the Transportation Division seeks to
establish a project Stakeholder Advisory Committee for the Franklin Boulevard Study. The
attached list represents input from focused interviews with project stakeholders as well as
internal staff discussions. Representation from the Springfield Chamber of Commerce is still
being finalized. SAC membership may also evolve over the course of the project as individuals
or organizations select different members. to represent their interests. Public involvement costs
are assumed in the approved project budget and consultant contract.
Mr. Boyatt referred to the proposed roster. Staff would meet with the Planning Commission
Tuesday,July 17 for formal approval of the members.
Councilor Ballew asked if another development person should be included that was involved in
construction.
It was noted that one of the listed members was involved in construction.
Mr. Boyatt asked if the group agreed with the proposed list.
Council consensus was to go forward with the list as noted.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:29 pm.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Attest:
Am~
City Recorder .