HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Phase I AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 10/17/2013
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Molly Markarian/DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-4611
Estimated Time: 45 min
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Encourage Economic Development and
Revitalization through Community Partnerships
ITEM TITLE: GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN UPDATE PROJECT, PHASE 1
(Springfield File Nos. TYP411-00005 & TYP411-00007, Lane County File No. PA 11-5489)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Conduct a Work Session to receive an introduction to the proposed Glenwood Phase I amendment package to address the LUBA Remand in preparation for the
November 18, 2013 public hearing.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Glenwood Phase I was adopted by Springfield on June 18, 2012 (Ordinance No. 6279) and
by Lane County on September 5, 2012 (Ordinance No. PA1288 and Ordinance No. 3-12). Shamrock Homes, LLC filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal Ordinances 6279, PA12888, and
3-12 on September 28, 2012. LUBA rendered their decision (LUBA nos. 2012-077, 078 and 079) on July 12, 2013. LUBA’s decision required the City take additional action with
regards to Goal 9 (Economic Development); Goal 10 (Housing); Goal 12 (Transportation); and Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Briefing Memo and Exhibit
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
In response to LUBA’s Final Order and Opinion, staff has worked with the City Attorney’s Office to address the following issues upon which LUBA remanded the
adoption of Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan: 1. Demonstrate compliance with Goal 9 and the Goal 9 rule based on an
acknowledged Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and inventory;
2. Demonstrate compliance with Goal 10 through consistency with the Metro Plan policies relating to housing;
3. Demonstrate compliance with Goal 12 and the Goal 12 rule (TPR); and
4. Demonstrate compliance with Goal 15 through setbacks based on the protection of resources identified in Greenway inventories.
Therefore, staff proposes amending the Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram and the refinement plan text to reflect changes made to the Plan diagram, including policies
and implementation strategies regarding land use and open space within the Glenwood Phase I boundary and amend the Findings associated with TYP411-00005 to address the deficiencies identified in LUBA’s Remand related to Goals 9,
10, 12, and 15. Staff also proposes amending the Springfield Development Code Section 3.4-245, 3.5-280, 4.3-115 and Appendix 3 to implement the policies in the Glenwood Refinement Plan by establishing land use designations and Willamette
Greenway development standards and amend the Findings associated with TYP411-00007 to address the deficiencies identified in LUBA’s Remand related to
Goals 9, 10, 12, and 15.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 10/17/2013
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Len Goodwin and Molly Markarian BRIEFING
Subject: Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Ph 1 MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: Glenwood Phase I was adopted by Springfield on June 18, 2012 (Ordinance No. 6279) and by
Lane County on September 5, 2012 (Ordinance No. PA1288 and Ordinance No. 3-12). Shamrock Homes, LLC filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal Ordinances 6279, PA12888, and 3-12 on September 28, 2012.
LUBA rendered their decision (LUBA nos. 2012-077, 078 and 079) on July 12, 2013. LUBA’s decision required the City take additional action with regards to Goal 9 (Economic Development); Goal 10
(Housing); Goal 12 (Transportation); and Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway).
COUNCIL GOALS:
Encourage Economic Development and Revitalization through Community Partnerships
Amendment of Glenwood Phase I to address the LUBA Remand as a step towards acknowledgement will represent the attainment of two targets associated with this Council Goal: The area comprising Glenwood Phase I will be planned and zoned for redevelopment; and
infrastructure needed for growth will be identified and planned.
BACKGROUND: In 2008, the Springfield City Council directed staff to undertake a planning process to update the Glenwood Refinement Plan in phases. The Glenwood Phase 1
amendments update the 20-year comprehensive plan, zoning and development standards for the
Glenwood Riverfront, a 267.28 acre area of Springfield along the Willamette River. Over the course of nearly four years, City staff worked with partner agencies and stakeholders to prepare
Glenwood Phase I to establish Refinement Plan policies and Development Code standards for
the Glenwood Riverfront.
This section of the memorandum includes: a timeline outlining the process that has occurred since Springfield initiated the public hearing process associated with Glenwood Phase I in 2011; a discussion of the status of development applications within the Phase I boundary (Glenwood
Riverfront); and a description of the actions Springfield proposes to continue working on while seeking acknowledgement by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) of Glenwood Phase I.
Timeline
On October 18, 2011, the Springfield Planning Commission (SPC) held a joint work session and
public hearing with the Lane County Planning Commission (LCPC). The record was kept open until December 20, 2011, at which time the SPC and LCPC closed the record, deliberated, and
unanimously recommended adoption of Glenwood Phase I with changes to the Joint Elected
Officials.
On January 23, 2012 the Springfield City Council (SCC) held a joint Work Session with the
Lane County Board of Commissioners (LCBCC). The LCBCC then held its first reading on March 14, 2012. The SCC and LCBCC held a joint Public Hearing on April 2, 2012, and
following the joint public hearing and Council-Board deliberations, the SCC elected to close the
record and requested a work session to discuss five issues raised during the public hearing: prohibition on drive-through facilities; the peer review option; parking restrictions in Subarea D;
park block width; and vehicular access to the river. The LCBCC elected to keep the record open until June 20. 2012.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM 10/10/2013 Page 2
At a May 14, 2012 work session, the SCC resolved four of the issues and directed staff to modify the draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District text. At that time, the SCC also
directed staff to prepare an additional work session discussion on the prohibition of drive-
through facilities in Subarea D. The SCC also directed staff to prepare a notice for a public hearing limited to the single issue of adding student housing as a component of the educational
facilities permitted in Subarea C.
On May 18, 2012, notice of the limited public hearing was mailed to property owners of Subarea
C and those who testified at the April 2, 2012 public hearing. At the May 21, 2012 work
session, the SCC concluded the discussion of drive-through facilities in Subarea D and directed staff to modify the draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District text. The SCC also
clarified their interest in permitting forms of high density residential dwellings units in Subarea C to serve students. On June 4, 2012, the SCC held a second reading and public hearing limited to a proposal adding student housing as a component of educational facilities in Subarea C. On
June 18, 2012, the SCC concluded their deliberations on the Glenwood Phase I package and voted unanimously to adopt Glenwood Phase I.
On June 20, 2012, the LCBCC held a third reading and continued Public Hearing, after which they elected to close the Record and initiated deliberations. On July, 11, 2012, the LCBCC held
a fourth reading and continued deliberations. On August 15, 2012, the LCBCC held a fifth
reading and further continued deliberations. On September 5, 2012, the LCBCC concluded their deliberations on the Glenwood Phase I package and voted unanimously to co-adopt
Glenwood Phase I.
On September 6, 2012, Notice of Adoption was mailed, and Ordinances 6278, PA 1288, and
PA 3-12 went into effect 30 days following co-adoption on October 5, 2012.
On September 28, 2012, Shamrock Homes, LLC filed a Notice of Intent to appeal Ordinances
6279, PA12888, and 3-12. Following Springfield’s preparation of the Record, Shamrock
Homes, LLC filed their Petition on January 30, 2013. Springfield then filed its response brief on May 17, 2013, and Oral Argument occurred on May 30, 2013. On July 12, 2013, the Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA) issued its Final Opinion and Order (LUBA nos. 2012-077, 078 and 079). Of the nine assignments of error alleged by the appellant, LUBA only remanded portions of four of the assignments of error, as described in Exhibit A. The four Remanded items require
the City take additional action with regards to Goal 9 (Economic Development); Goal 10 (Housing); Goal 12 (Transportation); and Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway).
Glenwood Riverfront Development
While Ordinance 6278 was adopted by the Springfield City Council on June 18, 2012 and co-
adopted by the Lane County Board of Commissioners with Ordinances PA1288 and PA3-12 on
September 5, 2012, Glenwood Phase I has not been acknowledged by DLCD due to the appeal and LUBA remand. As described in the DLCD Headnotes, “New land use regulations can only
become acknowledged under ORS 197.625(2) if the ordinance adopting those new land use
regulations is “affirmed on appeal under ORS 197.830 to 197.855.” Where LUBA remands the adopting ordinance because a portion of the new land use regulations is found to be defective,
without specifically affirming the remaining portions of those regulations, no part of the
ordinance is considered acknowledged under ORS 197.625. Western States v. Multnomah County, 37 Or LUBA 835 (2000).”
Glenwood Phase I is, however, in full force and effect for the purposes of proceeding with implementation and approving land use development applications. The DLCD Headnotes state
“A permit application may be approved based on adopted standards and criteria that are not yet acknowledged. However, under ORS 197.625(3), if the standards and criteria are not ultimately
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 7
MEMORANDUM 10/10/2013 Page 3
acknowledged, any improvements that have been made in reliance on a permit issued under the unacknowledged standards and criteria may have to be removed. Western States v. Multnomah
County, 37 Or LUBA 835 (2000).”
Since Glenwood Phase I was co-adopted on September 5, 2012, the City and/or Springfield
Economic Development Agency (SEDA) have taken the following steps to further help facilitate
implementation of Glenwood Phase I:
October 2012:
Executed Glenwood Riverfront-specific Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the
Springfield Utility Board.
December 2012:
Adopted an update to the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
February 2013:
Initiated Capital Improvement Project #21080 to extend sanitary sewer service along McVay
Highway.
October 2012:
Initiated Phase I NEPA for Franklin Boulevard.
April 2013:
Completed City-initiated annexation of 36.54 acres (Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway
Right-of-Way and city-owned parcel at 4095 Franklin Boulevard).
June 2013:
Initiated development of a Glenwood Riverfront-specific IGA with Willamalane Park and
Recreation District.
July 2013:
Commissioned a report documenting structures at 3005 and 3007 Franklin Boulevard that had
been identified in the Glenwood Refinement Plan as being potentially eligible for the National
Register of Historic Sites and Places. Also, facilitated moving house to another site in Springfield.
July 2013:
Obtained Federal STP-U funding for the NEPA and design of the Glenwood Riverfront Multi-Use Path.
September 2013:
Initiated Phase II NEPA for Franklin Boulevard.
In addition, Springfield has processed the following land use applications in the Glenwood Riverfront since Glenwood Phase I was co-adopted:
January 2013:
Began the property owner-initiated annexation process of 1.35 acres on the north side of Franklin Boulevard near the Springfield Bridges for future residential mixed-use development.
April 2013:
Began the property owner-initiated annexation process of 8.14 acres on the north side of Franklin Boulevard in the vicinity of Mississippi Avenue for future residential mixed-use
development.
May 2013:
Completed property owner-initiated annexation of 1.33 acres on the south side of Franklin
Boulevard near Glenwood Boulevard for the development of a hotel.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 7
MEMORANDUM 10/10/2013 Page 4
June 2013:
Issued Site Plan Tentative decision for development of a Candlewood Suites hotel on the south
side of Franklin Boulevard near Glenwood Boulevard.
August 2013:
Began the property owner-initiated annexation process of 5.16 acres on the north side of
Franklin Boulevard in the vicinity of Glenwood Boulevard for the development of student
housing.
Remand Next Steps
In response to LUBA’s Final Order and Opinion, staff has worked with the City Attorney’s Office to address the following issues upon which LUBA remanded the adoption of Phase I
Glenwood Refinement Plan. Springfield must demonstrate compliance with:
Goal 9 and the Goal 9 rule based on an acknowledged Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and inventory;
Goal 10 through consistency with the Metro Plan policies relating to housing;
Goal 12 and the Goal 12 rule (TPR); and
Goal 15 through setbacks based on the protection of resources identified in Greenway
inventories.
Specifically, Staff proposes taking the following steps, as described in detail in the Staff Report
associated with this agenda item:
Goal 9 – Economic Development
1. Amend the findings of TYP411-00005 and TYP411-00007 to:
a) Demonstrate compliance with Goal 9 and the Goal 9 rule based on an acknowledged EOA and inventory;
b) Justify the 5-acre minimum development area rule based on an acknowledged
EOA and inventory; and
c) Justify the short-term land supply rule based on an acknowledged EOA and
inventory.
Goal 10 – Housing
1. Amend the findings of TYP411-00005 and TYP411-00007 to:
a) Adopt a more adequate explanation for why making existing manufactured dwelling parks non-conforming uses is consistent with Metro Plan Policy A.25; and
b) Establish that the deletion of Glenwood Refinement Plan Subarea 9 policies is consistent with Metro Plan Policy A.25.
Goal 12 – Transportation
1. Amend the Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram by establishing a Mixed-Use Management Area (MMA) under OAR 660-012-00060, Section (10), as amended
January 1, 2012 and amending the adopted Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan text and
Springfield Development Code Sections 3.4-245 and Appendix 3 to reflect the establishment of the MMA refinement plan designation for the Glenwood Riverfront.
2. Amend the findings of TYP411-00005 and TYP411-00007 to, under the TPR adopted
prior to and also after January 1, 2012:
a) Explain or find support in the record for assuming full build-out under the old
zoning but only a partial build-out under the new zoning;
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 7
MEMORANDUM 10/10/2013 Page 5
b) Place the Portland Metro study in the record; and
c) Establish a basis to apply no trip reduction at all to nodal development under the
old zoning.
Goal 15 – Willamette Greenway
1. Amend the adopted Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan text and Springfield
Development Code Sections 3.4-280, 4.3-115 and Appendix 3 to change the Greenway
Setback in the Glenwood Riverfront from 75 feet to a variable width, to be determined as development and/or redevelopment occur.
2. Amend the findings of TYP411-00005 and TYP411-00007 to demonstrate that the
Greenway Setback Line in the Glenwood Riverfront is based on protection of resources identified in Greenway inventories.
Schedule of Work Sessions and Public Hearings
In coordination with the other comprehensive planning projects in which the City is engaged this
fall, staff has scheduled the work sessions and public hearings listed below with the Springfield Planning Commission, Springfield City Council, and Lane County Board of Commissioners to address the Glenwood Remand. Please note that while the Lane County Planning Commission
was present for the work session and public hearings associated with the initial adoption of Glenwood Phase I in 2011, pursuant to the 1986 IGA (190 agreement) between Lane County
and Springfield, Lane County delegated its Planning Commission authority to the Springfield
Planning Commission for land use matters within the Springfield UGB.
Specifically, Article IV Section A(3) of the IGA states: “The County shall, as of January 1,
1987: Transfer to the Springfield Planning Commission the legislative land use authority for the urbanizable portion of the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary currently exercised by the Lane
County Planning Commission.” Given this authority and due to the County’s limited resources,
the Springfield Planning Commission will act on behalf of Springfield and Lane County for matters associated with the Remand.
October 15, 2013: Springfield Planning Commission - Work Session and Public Hearing
October 17, 2013: Joint SCC and LCBCC - Work Session
October 29, 2013: LCBCC - First Reading
November 18, 2013: Joint SCC and LCBCC - Public Hearing
December 2, 2013: Joint SCC and LCBCC - Second Reading for SCC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a Work Session to receive an introduction to the proposed Glenwood Phase I amendment package to address the LUBA Remand in preparation
for the November 18, 2013 public hearing.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 7
Shamrock Homes LLC v. City of Springfield and Lane County, LUBA No. 2012-077/078/079
Assignment of Error Status Discussion
1 Goal 5, Natural Resources Denied Petition has not established that the city erred in failing to
conduct an ESEE analysis or more extensive Goal 5 analysis
2 Goal 8, Recreation Denied Neither the Plan nor any other plan language cites requires
that 7 acres for park and open spaces be designated as high-
density residential
3 Goals 2 and 9
A. Unacknowledged Economic
Opportunities Analysis
Remanded Remand for the city to demonstrate compliance with Goal 9
and Goal 9 rule based on an acknowledged EOA and
inventory.
B. Goal 9 Inventory Denied Petitioner does not argue and has not established the
application of site review standards physically reduce the
acreage of land in the Goal 9 inventory
C. Minimum Development Area Sustained If reliance on the CIBL/EOA is necessary to demonstrate
consistency with Goal 9, then the city erred in relying on
CIBL/EOA to justify minimum development area standard.
D. Short-term Supply Sustained Exclusive reliance on the unacknowledged CIBL/ EOA is
inconsistent with Goal 2.
4 Goal 10, Housing
A. Metro Plan Housing Policy A.
25
1. Conserving Existing
Manufactured Dwelling
Parks
Remanded City must adopt a more adequate explanation for why
making existing manufactured dwelling parks non-
conforming uses is consistent with Policy A.25
2. Low-density residential
zoning for manufactured
dwelling parks
Remanded City must establish that the deletion of sub-area policies is
consistent with Policy A.25
B. Needed Housing Clear and
Objective Standards
Rejected If SDC 5.17 violates ORS 197.307(4), can only be challenged
in an appeal of a decision that amends or applies SDC 5.17.
C. Housing Inventory and Public
Facilities
Rejected There is no strict concurrency requirement inherent in Goals
10 and 11.
D. Five-Acre Minimum
Development Area
Rejected Cannot determine that minimum development area on its
face will cause “unreasonable” cost or delay, depends on
factual variables.
5 Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services
and Goal 2, internal plan consistency
A. Transportation Facilities Rejected Any inconsistency or inadequacy in TransPlan cannot be
challenged in present appeal- list of future projects will likely
not be constructed within the 20-year planning period.
B. Sanitary Sewer Facilities Rejected See above. Also public facilities subject to PFSP include only
wastewater facilities with lines 24 inches or larger.
C. Stormwater Facilities Rejected
6 Goal 12, Transportation
A. Consistent Assumptions
Regarding Buildout
Remanded Remand is necessary for the city to explain or find support
in the record for assuming full build out under the old
zoning but only partial build-out under the new zoning. (**I
believe LUBA had a typo here.)
B. OAR 660-012-0060(6)(a) Ten
Percent Reduction
Rejected Disagree with petitioner that provision for hotels disqualifies
the city from taking 10% reduction
C. OAR 660-012-0060(6)(b)
Additional Reductions
Remanded The city must either place Portland Metro study in the
record or adopt findings justifying the 10% reduction
Exhibit A, Page 1 of 2
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 7
Shamrock Homes LLC v. City of Springfield and Lane County, LUBA No. 2012-077/078/079
without reliance on the study.
D. Nodal Development Remanded Findings and record do not establish a basis to apply no trip
reduction at all to nodal development under the old zoning.
E. Contingent Measures in
Compliance with the TPR
Rejected Plan and zoning changes that do not exceed the planned
traffic-generative potential but adopt measures to ensure
that actual development under the new plan or zoning
designation do not exceed those planned potential are not
inconsistent with the TPR.
7 Goal 15 Sustained,
in part.
A. Inventory Remanded The city must demonstrate that the setback is based on
protection of resources identified in the city’s
acknowledged Greenway inventory.
B. Water-dependent and Water-
related uses
Rejected All or nearly all of the use examples listed in SDC 3.4-
280(D)(2) can qualify as water-related uses. *LUBA noted
example “[b]ridges and related appurtenances for
pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles” is particularly
problematic.
C. Refinement Plan and
Proposed Zoning Map
Rejected Goal 15 requirement that Greenway boundaries “be shown
on every comprehensive plan” and on “…zoning maps” only
requires that setbacks “be established.”
8 Unacknowledged Land Use Regulation Rejected While LUBA agreed with petitioner that there may be a Goal
2 problem with the EDSPM, petitioner does not provide an
argument for reversing or remanding Glenwood Phase I.
9 Peer Review Rejected SDC 3.3-230 does not violate 197.307(4), the peer review
requirement only applies when the applicant is seeking a
“major modification” to a GRP standard. LUBA also stated
that local governments are authorized to establish fees
charged for processing permits at an amount no more than
the actual or average cost of providing that service.
Exhibit A, Page 2 of 2
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 7