Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/2013 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JULY 8, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 8, 2013 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorneys Mary Bridget Smith and Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Wylie was absent (excused). 1. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Urbanization Element: Proposed Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to Address a Portion of Springfield's 20 -Year Employment Land Needs, and to Add Publicly -Owned Land for Parks, Open Space and Public Facilities. (Metro Plan Amendment File No. LRP2009- 00014). Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented this item. The proposed UGB amendment was the product of a multi -year Springfield planning process to consider how and where Springfield would grow and where the UGB might be expanded to designate suitable employment sites, public land, open space and parks. Staff conducted a UGB Alternatives Analysis — a very thorough step -by -step method required by the Oregon statewide planning goals, administrative rules and statutes — to consider all lands surrounding Springfield's UGB. The UGB Alternatives Analysis was used to identify suitable sites to support development of employment uses shown in Springfield's Economic Opportunities Analysis, followed by an increasingly more detailed suitability analysis of each area including but not limited to: • evaluation of environmental, social, energy and economic consequences of adding land to the UGB (ESEE factors); • transportation and infrastructure engineering feasibility assessments; • comparative costs of extending infrastructure to new growth areas; • consideration of public involvement received through the entire SRP planning process to date; • consideration of testimony received at public hearings conducted 2008-2011 in response to the 2009 Draft Economic Opportunities Analysis, draft SRP policies and preliminary growth concepts; • consideration of proposed regulatory changes for developing in flood plains; • focused outreach to land owners. The final UGB would be determined by the elected officials after consideration of additional testimony from the public and additional input from staff that may be requested during the public hearing and may include or not include lands depicted in Attachment 2 of the agenda packet and /or other lands. Ms. Pauly presented a slide presentation. She said the purpose of tonight's meeting was to let Council know staff s recommendation for expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB). The expansion areas had been reduced from five to three. She would be presenting the three areas selected by staff City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 2 and explain the reasons for choosing those sites. She would also discuss the two areas that staff was not recommending and why. Because this was a 20 -year plan, they were looking at how the study areas could look in 20 years. Staff used the 2009 Economic Opportunities Analysis as the basis for the proposed expansion of the UGB. In deciding which of the study areas would be best for Springfield to grow into, they looked at what mattered to people that lived here and what areas of growth would be in sync with what people loved about Springfield. She discussed the things that people had identified as important, including natural resources, and arts and culture. They looked at what Springfield had that other communities didn't' have that might attract businesses looking for a site. Staff also went through a process to determine how much of the growth for employment could be accommodated through redevelopment, From that they determined there were 187 industrial sites and 340 commercial and mixed use sites within the existing UGB that would redevelop. All site needs for sites smaller than 5 acres could be addressed through redevelopment. The focus of the UGB expansion was for the larger than 5 acre sites. She referred to a map showing where most of the redevelopment would occur as well as the five study areas. Ms. Pauly said a focused stakeholder outreach process had been done by staff over the last couple of months. A summary of comments from that outreach was included in the agenda packet. The outreach was in response to a letter that was sent out to all property owners in the five study areas. The purpose was to get a sense of how people felt about being in Springfield's UGB and if there were landowners that would be willing to sell or develop their property in the next twenty years. Two neighborhood meetings were held at the request of the neighbors: one in the Seavey Loop area in which 30 people attended; and the second in the Mahogany Lane area. Ms. Pauly referred to an earlier question from Mayor Lundberg about a letter received from 1000 Friends of Oregon. Staff had not yet responded in a formal way, but would do that before the public hearing. The purpose of 1000 Friends of Oregon was to protect farm and forest land and they didn't want to see Springfield expand the UGB, especially into farmland. Their concerns would be addressed. The letter stated that 1000 Friends felt the City's Economic Opportunities Analysis was flawed and did not follow the correct methodology. Staff disagreed with that and had a letter from the Department of Land Conservation Goal 9 specialist stating that Springfield's Economic Opportunities Analysis was consistent with what the law required. Staff would continue to have conversations with 1000 Friends and would provide a response memo prior to the public hearing. Councilor Moore asked about a comment from Randy Hledik (Wildish) regarding a concern about including land for parks and open space. Ms. Pauly said a snap of the study area that included their property was attached to the letter sent out to property owners in April. The body of the letter spoke regarding expansion for employment purposes and also parks and open land. The parks and open land was in a different area than the Wildish property. Ms. Pauly explained to Mr. Hledik that there was no park and open space identified on the Wildish property. Mayor Lundberg said there was a woman in Gateway concerned about development in the floodplain in one area causing flooding in another area. She asked if we were doing flood plain studies. Ms. Pauly said she had talked with that citizen who did farming in several areas around Springfield. Flood analysis would need to be done in the north Gateway area before any development was done to determine the impacts. The last one done was by PeaceHealth. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 3 Mayor Lundberg asked how often a new analysis had to be done Ms. Pauly said if land came into the UGB, it would be subject to the City's floodplain overlay district in the Development Code. The Development Code required all development to make an assessment of the impact of their development on surrounding properties. It would depend on the development whether or not a flood plain analysis was required. City Engineer Ken Vogeney said the rivers were continuously moving and shifting and the studies the City relied upon were based on data that was over 40 years old. As updates occurred, some land would be more or less impacted as the river moved. As larger development occurred, updated flood plain analyses were required. When looking at expansion in the UGB, the City may not have funds to do the studies to update the maps to current data. It could affect property values. Community Development Manager for Transportation Tom Bovatt said the private property owner was responsible through development and annexation to make sure there would not be an impact on surrounding properties. If the City conducted the study, it would be for the next development and would set a precedent. Updates would need to continue to be made with new development. Mayor Lundberg asked about Johnson Crushers who was in favor of having his land included in the UGB and hoped to add 125 new jobs with the ability to expand. She asked if that property was being considered in the UGB expansion. Ms. Pauly said his property was in the Seavey Loop area and had an existing business. He would like to expand his operations and needed more land for that expansion. His ideal site would be 15 -20 acres. He owned property that was already developed as well as vacant property that he could not expand into because it was not in the urban area and was zoned for exclusive farm use. Mayor Lundberg said if that area was not included, we would want to help him find a suitable place Councilor Moore referred to a comment from Richard Hunsaker in the North Gateway area regarding historic photos of the river channel. She was not sure how that would be of use in this process. Ms. Pauly said Mr. Hunsaker was planning to do some research in the map library to find data on historical flood patterns to submit prior to the public hearing. Part of the purpose of the outreach meetings was to get more information about each of the sites from the people that knew the land. Councilor Moore referred to another comment about flood plain issues from Earle Wicklund who also had property in North Gateway. Mr. Wicklund recommended the City look at Creekside in Beaverton, Tualatin Commons developing in the flood plain. She asked if this was an issue or how it applied to the area. Ms. Pauly said Mr. Wicklund had submitted another email to Ms. Pauly this afternoon that showed development in that area. All of the comments were part of the record. Councilor Moore said there seemed to be a basic concern in North Gateway about the river and water table. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 4 Ms. Pauly said Mr. Wicklund wanted to be included in the UGB so he could develop his property. His reference to the Tualatin property pointed out that development could be done in a flood plain in the event the City felt the flood plain was an absolute constraint. Ms. Pauly said maps in the agenda packet showed 634 acres of employment land. The Economic Opportunities Analysis supported adding up to 640 suitable acres, The other proposal to add public land and parks showed about 379 acres. Discussion was held about the number of acres for parks and for employment. All figures would be confirmed and rechecked before the public hearing. Mayor Lundberg said she liked the map in the presentation and thought it would be good to use for the Main McVay discussions in a larger size. It not only showed Main and McVay, but also the development areas throughout the City. Ms. Pauly noted comparisons between areas under consideration currently and the original areas considered. If they went with staffs proposal, they would add 8 large (20 acres or larger) sites to Springfield's buildable lands inventory. They included: North Gateway — two 50 -acre sites and one potential 30 -acre site; South Mill Race — one 50 -acre site and one 20 -acre site; and Mahogany — one 200 -acre site which could be split into smaller sites, and two 20 -acre sites. There was more land in each of these areas, but these were the larger sites. Councilor VanGordon referred to the Knife River site and asked if that was their current location or the location they were looking to relocate the quarry. Ms. Pauly said that was the proposed quarry site. Councilor VanGordon asked if they would be able to site a quarry there if it was within the UGB. Ms. Pauly said they could do that if they received a Goal 5 inventory approval from the State. That was a plan amendment process. If that were approved, they could apply to have it re- designated and zoned to allow that use. Councilor VanGordon asked if staff had talked with them during the public outreach. Ms. Pauly said she had received an email from them asking to be kept informed. Councilor VanGordon asked if we knew what Knife River's plans were for that property. Ms. Pauly said she was not sure. They did not submit any testimony in 2010 during the Planning Commission hearings. Councilor VanGordon said he was concerned that their plans could affect the property and its future use. He hoped they would make their intentions more clear. Councilor Moore was concerned that this site was also the well protection area and could restrict use. Ms. Pauly pointed out the well fields in both areas. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 5 Mayor Lundberg asked how the well fields affected development. There were other areas with heavy industrial development near well heads in Springfield. She asked about the restrictions. Ms. Pauly said once the areas were entered into the UGB they would be subject to the City's Drinking Water Protection Overlay District and the regulations in that district to address chemicals, spills, etc. There could be something new enacted by Council with greater restrictions if they chose. Mayor Lundberg said development could occur, but would need to meet certain requirements. Councilor Brew asked about the location of the Knife River properties. Staff identified the site. Ms. Pauly discussed why large sites were important to attract certain types of development. She reviewed the characteristics of Springfield that could be attractive to development. There had been discussion about including a warehouse and distribution site, but testimony had been received noting that those uses didn't bring in many jobs. Council may want to reconsider that type of use. She reviewed each site and noted the advantages of each. North Gateway Area: • Interstate 5 visibility • Grew an existing employment center • Contiguous with City limits • Potential for extending McKenzie River recreation path system • Potential for extending EmX transit service • Limited flood plain development to southernmost sites • Flood way was excluded from UGB, kept development impacts away from the river corridor. • Reduced impact to highest value agriculture soils • Excluded productive farms and agricultural businesses The State employment department agreed this was a good site. There was also a potential to extend the recreational path system from donated land. Ms. Pauly noted that only half of the area was selected in order to create more of a balanced approach so all of the land for employment opportunity was not in the flood plain. They did see the value of having the 1 -5 visibility, and having two 50 -acre sites made sense. Reducing the area by half also helped reduce the impacts to agricultural soils and farmland, and limited more impact to the flood plain. Staff looked at soils as required by Goal 14. There were good agricultural soils in this area, but were best further north. The southern portion of this site was contiguous with current City limits and had potential of being annexed which also made it a good choice. Some of the challenges for this area included access which was problematic so creative transportation solutions would be needed. The area also needed a flood plain analysis. There were 18.8 acres of hydric soils which could reduce the number of suitable developable areas. The folks from Business Oregon said it could be difficult to be competitive when a site was in a floodplain. There could, however, be industries that would be interested. Ms. Pauly discussed the Mahogany and South Jasper Area. Some of the advantages of this area included: large, flat sites under single ownership; a number of sites not on the flood plain; it was close to City limits and existing development; had natural beauty; and infrastructure was available. This site did limit the impacts of urbanization compared to the other areas. It utilized land under the Bonneville City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 6 Power Administration (BPA) transmission corridor and was along the Union Pacific rail corridor and Jasper Road. Councilor Brew asked for clarification on 'limit the impacts of urbanization'. Ms. Pauly said if they expanded into a lot of new areas, there would be impacts to things like natural systems, flood plains, farmland, etc. Limiting impacts meant developing in some areas and not in others. Comparing this site with other study sites, this one seemed to have fewer impacts. Mayor Lundberg said they would be looking more closely at each of these sites. She noted that railroads did impact different types of development for different reasons. It would be important to identify where the rail lines were located in each of these areas. Ms. Pauly said another advantage to this site was that the Jasper Natron area needed a plan. A plan was started about 15 years ago that was never adopted. Since then, there had been a lot of changes including discovery of wetlands along Bob Straub Parkway. There were land use changes that needed to be done in that area and it would make sense to plan it all at the same time. Operations and engineering staff liked this area because they were familiar with the problems and felt having it in our UGB would be helpful. Councilor Moore said it was beautiful, which made her think of residential use. She asked if the land could be rezoned residential in the future if it was taken into the UGB as industrial. Ms. Pauly said these were actually employment sites and not necessarily industrial Councilor Moore asked if they were committed to maintaining the land as employment by bringing it into the UGB, or if it could later be rezoned residential. Ms. Pauly said during the planning period, they were committing the land to employment purposes. She noted that housing could go in other kind of areas and some of the employment uses could not. There were very few flat areas adjacent to our current UGB and once those were gone, there was no opportunity to get them back. Housing was a more flexible use. Councilor Moore said employment sites could also be beautiful and nicely done. Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said it could become more like employment mixed -use which could possibly accommodate some residential in context with the use. Ms. Pauly said when they did the 2030 Land Use Element, there was a desire to look at the Campus Industrial (CU) zoning. People wanted to do mixed -use development so they could see areas that were currentlyjust commercial orjust industrial turn into mixed -use areas. Also, as the City adjusted its inventory, things would be growing and changing. Councilor Woodrow said she was excited about the Mahogany /Jasper Road area. Current residential was not far from that site. There was not that type of employment development in that area and it would be good for east Springfield. A school would also be built in that area in the near future. Ms. Pauly said there was a lot that could be done in this area City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 7 Councilor VanGordon said he liked the large 200 acres site and the proximity to the rail line. His concern with Jasper was that it felt far away and there could be transportation issues. He asked if there was a way to address that concern. Currently, our commercial corridor was near 1 -5 so he was concerned a site this far away would not be competitive. Ms. Pauly said it wasn't actually very far from the center of town. Councilor VanGordon said he did agree with Councilor Woodrow that this area needed more employment lands, but he wanted to make sure we could attract development and have them be competitive. Ms. Pauly said there was a benefit in distributing the areas throughout the city. Having a balance seemed more equitable for the community. Mayor Lundberg asked if the City might want to designate someplace to offset wetlands. Eugene had mitigation sites and she wondered if it was something Springfield wanted to consider. Ms. Pauly said the specialist from the Department of State Lands (DSL) would love it if Springfield did that and would be able to assist, perhaps with funding. The City would first need to do a Wetlands Conservation Plan which would allow the City more flexibility around how we developed wetlands. There was a lot of potential for that. Mayor Lundberg asked if staff could look into that (land banking for wetlands mitigation). Mr. Grimaldi said they could look into it. Ms. Pauly said a staff member from DSL said to be careful when drawing the UGB to make sure it included resource land that could be used to mitigate wetlands and other constraints. Ms. Pauly spoke regarding the South Mill Race area. The advantages of this area included: a potential to improve the existing industrial area; it was close to City limits; there was an opportunity to connect parks and open space; and it was no longer viable for farming. Councilor Ralston asked if it was mostly parks and open space. Ms. Pauly said there was over 100 acres of suitable land in that area; some was in the flood plain and some was open space. The State saw this as a potential tech park. This area was quite close to downtown, the Main Street corridor, Agnes Stewart Middle School, and the Regional Sports Center. Currently, it included the Mill Race, mill sites, schools, Booth Kelly Road, junkyards and some farmland. The biggest issue for this site was the access. There was a rail spur going into Knife River. The rail expert said it was best to develop around rail and preserve those opportunities for the future as it was difficult to get new track. Rail usage was a growing use in the transportation system. Selecting this area would be an opportunity to institute the best low impact development practices to protect drinking water sources and riparian resources. Ms. Pauly reviewed the themes from the 2010 Planning Commission public hearings: • Avoid flood plains • Avoid farmland • Protect drinking water source areas. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 8 Ms Pauly said they needed to look at trade -offs in looking at the choices available. Staff had tried to recommend the best ones. Councilor Brew asked about the other two sites that were eliminated Ms. Pauly said she would be talking about those shortly. She reviewed considerations that needed to be taken into account for each of the sites: number of acres; which lands were better positioned for the future and had fewer constraints; Goal 14 factors; industrial readiness factors; and engineering feasibility to extend transportation and infrastructure systems. Ms. Pauly said the two areas they had set aside were Seavey Loop and North Springfield Highways 126. Staff had first considered Seavey Loop because Goal 14 priorities required them to look where there was already development to see if it could meet our needs. They found that the lands that were already developed had been developed, parcelized and didn't meet the suitability criteria. There were 262 acres, but only 152 were suitable. Those acres had the highest cost per acre to serve. She referred to a chart showing the different uses of the developed land. There was only one site larger than 20 acres in this area. It was a 50 -acre site, but included 29 acres of hydric soils which meant over half of the property could be wetlands that couldn't be developed. The property owners, the Straub family trust, were interested in having their land in the UGB but not in this time horizon. Mayor Lundberg brought a chart from a previous work session showing the difficulty in price of each site. She noted the high cost of this area. This chart was very helpful and she suggested they provide it during future meetings on this topic. Ms. Pauly spoke regarding the North Springfield Hwy 126. The main reason this site was set aside was that they could only justify a certain number of acres for the full expansion. They eliminated the northern portion of North Gateway, Seavey Loop and this area because it was almost all flood plain. Even the parts outside the flood plain were under water during the 1996 flood. This area also had viable agriculture and one of the property owners was restoring the filbert orchard and had intentions of staying there for the next 20 years. McKenzie River and Cedar Creek habitat also needed to be maintained. The Metro Waterways study included a lot of proposals for restoring this area. It scored high regarding the value of the habitat. She referred to a picture showing the Restoration Concept Diagram for Cedar Creek. Councilor Moore said it would be good to let people know the City had considered that area, but had removed it for those reasons. 1000 Friends may be happy to hear why it was taken out of consideration. It should be emphasized that this site was not chosen in order to address environmental and habitat concerns. Councilor VanGordon said maybe staff could include a couple of slides that discussed the things that were done to protect agricultural land and waterways. It world show that we were not just looking at employable land, but took positive steps to address these concerns. Councilor Moore said she was excited about getting the public lands in the expansion and felt it was very wise. Mayor Lundberg said this was a lot of work and a huge change for Springfield. First we separated our UGB, and now we were looking at expansion. Everything would need to be considered carefully. As they moved forward looking locally for produce, the City needed to consider what constituted City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 9 farmland. It used to be that farmland was vast acreages of one crop, but now we had smaller acreages with multiple crops. That needed to be considered when identifying farmland in the future as it would help determine its value. We may need to expand again in another 20 years, so that type of farming needed to be considered. The Council would be meeting with the Lane County Board of Commissioners regarding the UGB expansion on July 22. Ms. Pauly said it would be a similar presentation as this evening, but with more technical information since the Commissioners had not seen all of this yet. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m Minutes Recorder —Amy Sowa Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: X71 Amy SoM City Recorder