Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/2013 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MAY 6, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. on Monday; May 6, 2013 at 6:15 p.m.; with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston. Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City .Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Springfield Transportation Systems Plan Update —Updated Draft Policies Review— P41014. Transportation Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The Transportation System Plan (TSP) update was intended to serve as a blueprint to guide future multimodal transportation system improvements and investment decisions for the City of Springfield. Goals; policies and action items helped provide guidance to decisions made in the Plan. The draft goals, policies and action items in the draft TSP update had gone through an extensive planning process, resulting in the attached edited document (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet). Existing goals; objectives and policies found in TransPlan were used as a basis to begin the update. Staff also used Council and Planning Commission input from previous work sessions_ as well as input from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee; Technical Advisory Committee, Project Core Team and the public to develop draft goals, policies and action items. As shown in the attached process outline (Attachment 2 of the agenda packet),. several revisions of the draft goals, policies and action items had taken place over time. All input received to -date was considered in developing the attached draft. Of specific focus for this work session were the newly updated transit policies and multimodal level of service policies. A brief explanation of where each proposed edit and/or addition came from and the potential impact of these edits and /or additions were included in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. The goal of the work session was to finalize the draft goals, policies and action items prior to the final review of the draft Plan later this calendar year. Attachment 3 of the agenda packet included an updated project schedule for reference. Mr. Reesor reviewed some of the changes that had been made in the Draft Policies. Councilor Woodrow referred to Policy 23 and asked if it locked the City into the Regional Transportation Options Plan (RTOP). Mr. Reesor said there did need to be consistency among plans, but we were not locked in. The RTOP still needed to go through a review process through the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and our Springfield representatives would be weighing in on that project. The RTOP was a separate document and not binding regarding specific policies. The draft strategies were developed from the Springfield and Eugene's draft TSP policies. Councilor Woodrow said basically it was putting us in a position of collaboration. Correct City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 2 Councilor VanGordon referred to Policy 2.9, Multimodal Levels of Service. He asked if going to a multimodal level of service methodology would measure the system as a whole, and perhaps cause a decrease service for one section. Mr. Reeser said it was complicated. The idea was to balance system needs in a way that wasn't detrimental to any one mode. It was meant to provide other options in transportation such as biking, walking, etc. Multimodal LOS was a way for the City to evaluate how the systems were working and provided options. Councilor VanGordon said he wanted that to be clearer in the policies. He wanted to make sure we weren't sacrificing one part for another. Mr. Reesor said one of the action items within that policy was development of that methodology, which would include involving stakeholders from all modes. Mayor Lundberg noted that Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) had changed around LOS. She asked how that would affect the references in this document. Mr. Reesor said en,ineering staff used the current LOS and there hadn't been any discussions about eliminating that. Community Development Manager Tom Boyatt said the OAR had changed for the state system and related to corridors. Our plan referred to the state mobility standards for the state system. The City was watching that and could eventually bring something back as a TSP amendment. Council was responsible for setting the standard for Springfield's TSP. Mayor Lundberg said we were graded on how well our system was working. The City did have state highways and how we handled those corridors translated into dollars. She also referred to Policy 2.9 and noted that she would like the same wording under Bicycle as was under Pedestrian. She referred to the following page (Attachment 1, Page 7 of 14). Under the second action item only Gateway. Glenwood and Downtown were listed for multimodal methodology. She suggested naming all areas in town or none of them. It was important to include all of our corridors when talking about standards and connectivity. Mr. Reesor said that section was intentionally written that way to start with those three areas. The idea was to start with Downtown, Glenwood and the Gateway area for the multimodal LOS rather than starting citywide. Thev could then see how it was working and apply it to other areas. They wanted to start looking at areas with higher density for mixed uses that coincided well with multi modal transportation. From the Project Team's perspective, those were good areas to start as they had viable options. They could look at expanding that list if Council directed. Councilor Moore said she would like something added that said in future the City would hope to add all of Springfield. There were neighborhoods in other areas such as Mohawk and Thurston that had potential and could be encouraged. Mayor Lundberg said one of her concerns was connectivity throughout the City. We needed to always pay attention to that connectivity and look at it comprehensively. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 3 Councilor Brew referred back to the question about the OAR changes for State corridors and the City deferring to the State for their corridors. Both Glenwood and Downtown were basically state corridors. Mr. Reesor said the City was working on a jurisdictional transfer of Franklin Boulevard in Glenwood. A portion of downtown was a Special Transportation Area (STA) which allowed some deviations for typical state standards recognizing it was not a traditional highway. Councilor Brew said he was confused about what the TSP was saying regarding deferring to the State. Mr. Boyatt said it was about trade -offs. Main Street within City limits was over 7 miles long and was expensive to own and operate. The mobility standards that were set in the Oregon Highway Plan had a range and there was always the opportunity to apply to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) to reduce the mobility standards. He discussed congestion alone Main Street and noted the difference between good congestion and bad congestions. Councilor Woodrow referred to Policy 4.1 regarding a flexible transportation finance system. She asked what type of financing incentives was being referred to under the fourth action item. Mr. Reesor said he envisioned something like system development charge (SAC) type reductions, parking requirements that could be flexible saving the business money and other similar incentives. Mr. Reeser asked for Council direction under the second action item of Section 2.9 and if they wanted to include it city -wide or just reference to future expansion to the full city. Council said to just include a reference for future expansion. Mr. Reesor said he would be back on June 17 to talk about project list and would bring the draft back in the fall. 2. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Urbanization Element (Metro Plan Amendment File No. LRP2009- 00014). Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. Adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Urbanization Element would allow the City to identify areas where the UGB would be expanded to establish future growth areas for economic development and infrastructure planning purposes in accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 9, Economic Development, Goal 14 Urbanization, other applicable land use goals, rules and statutes and local community development, livability and environmental quality goals. Springfield's UGB expansion proposal would also include a public land, parks; and open space component. Staff was preparing the Urbanization Element of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan — a new comprehensive plan policy document that amended the Metro Plan for Metro area lands east of Interstate 5 to provide guidance for managing and balancing Springfield's urban growth needs over the 20 -year planning period. The Plan would include maps and descriptions of Springfield's planned growth areas within the City Limits and existing UGB and in locations where the UGB may be expanded. Springfield was in the process of considering how and where the UGB might be expanded to provide suitable large employment sites, public land, open space and parks. The Council had reviewed the City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 4 results of the employment land suitability analysis, including information comparing estimated cost and difficulty of extending Springfield's urban services to five potential UGB expansion areas. At the March 18`t work session, the Council requested information from staff to help visualize the types of industrial development and other employment uses that would be suitable and well- matched to the site characteristics and unique potential of each distinct location. Ms. Pauly distributed a concept map to the Mayor and Council. She said she didn't have a lot of detail on their questions from the last work session; but had a lot of photos of the various types of employment that could be suitable for some of the areas considered for expansion. The concept map allowed them to visualize Springfield as a set of places with names. She presented a power point with photos of the different types of development that could occur over the next twenty years in the different areas of Springfield. The City was required by Oregon law to do land use plans based on an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). The uses identified in the EOA included different types of industrial development, commercial, office, retail and other uses. Staff would be looking both at existing sites within our current UGB and new sites outside our UGB. The EOA did have assumptions about redevelopment in Springfield. Before the City decided to expand the UGB; we needed to demonstrate utilizing land within our current UGB, and that the needs identified for the expansion area were different from the needs on land already in our UGB. Ms. Pauly said there were 187 industrial sites and 340 commercial sites noted on the map. Staff was assuming all site needs for less than five acres would be accommodated within our existing UGB. She asked if the photos had been helpful. Mayor Lundberg said she wanted to see what type of development could go into the different study areas and what type of needs there would be for each such as electrical; infrastructure, etc. Ms. Pauly said Community Development Manager John Tamulonis could bring more economic development information to the Council in an upcoming work session. She noted photos of the type of development being done in other cities in Oregon which could be competition for Springfield. She noted the amenities in Springfield that would be a draw for development. A copy of the slide show could be made available to the Mayor and Council after the meeting. Letters had been sent out to property owners that lived in the UGB expansion study areas. A copy of the letter was included in the agenda packet. Staff had received about nine responses and would be meeting with one property owner tomorrow. Ms. Pauly would be going out to Seavey Loop in June to talk with residents in that area. Councilor Moore asked about the next steps. Ms. Pauly said staff would be gathering information about the five study areas from residents in those areas and include that information in their analysis. There would be a Joint work session with the Lane County Board of Commissioners on July 22, with a public hearing scheduled for October. City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said in terms of process; the Council would meet and deliberate with the Lane Countv Board of Commissioners with an opportunity for public input during a public hearing. Once the public hearing was closed, it was a legislative process. Once that closed; the Council would deliberate and make a decision about where and if and how to expand. During the deliberations was the time to look at more of the detail of what could be done and what was needed. Staff was gathering that information now. There would still be a big public input process. Final decision would probably be sometime in 2014. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 5 Mayor Lundberg said the Council had a huge decision about UGB expansion and they needed to be very careful about what area(s) was chosen. The information they received and how it was received was extremely important. The next phase included some public feedback from the surrounding neighbors. Ms. Pauly said they wanted to give people a chance to be part of the process before they started the public hearing so they could understand it at the neighborhood level. She would also be meeting with the fire chiefs and utility providers to hear their rankings of the different areas. Mayor Lundberg said at some point if we brought in a very large industry; our electrical rates would increase. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder —Amy Sown Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: '19-2 VA— Amy Sots City Recorder