HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Glenwood Phase 1 Update AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 12/2/2013
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Molly Markarian/DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-4611
Estimated Time: 30 min
S P R I N G F I E L D CITY COUNCIL Council Goals: Encourage Economic Development and
Revitalization through Community Partnerships
ITEM TITLE: GLENWOOD PHASE 1 UPDATE
(Springfield File Nos. TYP411-00005 & TYP411-00007, Lane County File No. PA 11-5489)
ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a second reading of the following Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE COMPLYING WITH LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA)
REMAND (2012-077/078/079) BY INCORPORATING SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS INTO THE RECORD OF SPRINGFIELD FILE NUMBERS TYP411-00005 AND TYP411-00007 AND LANE COUNTY FILE NUMBER PA 11-5489, AND AMENDING THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT
AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, and direct staff to schedule a third reading for deliberations
and action at a later date.
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: Council Briefing Memorandum: Response to Kloos Testimony Attachment 2: Ordinance and Exhibits Attachment 3: City Council Minutes from November 18, 2013
DISCUSSION: On October 15, 2013, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing
to receive testimony on the proposed Glenwood Phase I amendment package to address the LUBA Remand. In accordance with the 1986 IGA (190 agreement)
between Lane County and Springfield, the Springfield Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend adoption of the amendment package to the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
On October 17, 2013, the City Council held a joint work session with the Lane County Board of Commissioners to receive an introduction to the proposed
Glenwood Phase I amendment package to address the LUBA Remand. On November 18, 2013, the City Council held a joint public hearing with the Lane
County Board of Commissioners on the proposed amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Springfield Development Code, and Findings associated with TYP411-00005 and TYP411-00007 to address the deficiencies identified in
LUBA’s Remand related to Statewide Planning Goals 9, 10, 12, and 15. Three people spoke in support of the amendments, and one person submitted written
testimony questioning the City’s approach to addressing the Remand.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 12/2/2013 COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
To: Gino Grimaldi
From: Len Goodwin and Molly Markarian
Subject: Glenwood Phase I Update
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/
MANDATE:
Encourage Economic Development and Revitalization through Community PartnershipsEncourage 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: On November 18, 2013, the City Council held a joint public hearing with the Lane County Board of Commissioners on the proposed amendments to the Glenwood
Refinement Plan, Springfield Development Code, and Findings associated with TYP411-00005 and TYP411-00007 to address the deficiencies identified in LUBA’s Remand related to
Statewide Planning Goals 9, 10, 12, and 15. Three people spoke in favor of adopting these
amendments. Attorney Bill Kloos, representing his client Shamrock Homes, LLC and Yoon Shin, also spoke at the public hearing and submitted a letter into the record that raised questions
regarding the proposed amendments. What follows is the staff response to the statements made
in the letter with respect to the proposed amendments.
Issue 1: Goal 9, Economic Development The basis of LUBA’s remand in connection with Goal 9 centers on how the City used the draft Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (CIBL) to establish that the Glenwood Refinement Plan is consistent with the state rules
regarding economic development.
The CIBL is the most recent study on the amount of land that would be required to provide for
economic development in all of Springfield, including Glenwood. It was provisionally adopted
by the Springfield City Council but is not yet acknowledged by the state because it is part of the proposed, upcoming UGB expansion.
In its remand decision, LUBA stated that the City could rely on the CIBL to confirm the findings
in previously acknowledged economic studies. (Final Opinion and Order Pages 12-13) To comply with this direction, the City is asking the Council and Commissioners to adopt additional
findings that show the Glenwood Refinement Plan is consistent with those earlier studies and the
more recent information in the CIBL confirms the information and analysis contained in the earlier studies.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4
Issue 2: Goal 10, Housing
LUBA instructed the City to adopt a more adequate explanation for how changing existing manufactured home parks to be considered a non conforming use is consistent with Metro Plan
Policy A25 which provides that the supply of existing affordable housing should be conserved. To accomplish this direction, the City drafted additional findings that outline how Glenwood
Refinement Plan’s policies and implementation strategies are consistent with this Metro Plan
Policy and the City’s own acknowledged Springfield 2030 Residential Land Use and Housing Element (2030-R).
In drafting these findings the City first outlined how, through a lengthy public process, it came
to the conclusion that Sub Area D is suited for employment and not residential use. The findings then outline the applicable 2030-R policies regarding preserving existing housing stock,
providing a broad range of housing options and exploring funding options for public, non-profit
and private investment in housing.
The Glenwood Refinement Plan addresses the complicated issue of providing affordable
housing in an area where the current housing stock is in many cases aging and in need of repair.
In addition, the City’s Residential Housing Needs Analysis concluded that Springfield had a surplus of low density zoned housing but a deficient of high density housing. Many factors in
Glenwood such as access to public transportation and employment opportunities make Glenwood a suitable place for high density housing. As such, the Glenwood Refinement Plan provides for strategies to allow mobile home parks to continue and other strategies that
encourage the development of other, higher density housing.
Issue 3: Goal 12, Transportation
In his letter, Mr. Kloos states that the City has not justified a Multimodal Mixed-Use Area
(MMA) for the entire Glenwood Phase I area. He supports this statement by alleging that a pre-adoption notice to the State and individual property owners did not occur.
On September 11, 2013, the City mailed a Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in accordance with the statutory
requirements for submittal. As summarized in the notice, this included the designation of the
Glenwood Phase I boundary as an MMA, as depicted and described in the map and text included with that notice. The State elected not to weigh in on this amendment as evidenced by their lack
of submission of any written statements to the record. On October 4, 2013, the City mailed a Notice of Public Hearing on the aforementioned
amendments to all residents and property owners in Glenwood in accordance with the
requirements of the Springfield Development Code. The same notice was also mailed that day to all parties of record in the Glenwood proceedings to date. Further, a public hearing notice
was published in the Register Guard that same day. Later in his letter, Mr. Kloos contends that the City has not entered the primary source
substantiating its trip reduction discount of 47% into the record and proceeds to put the study into the record. However, this City had already placed this primary source in the record. The
2008 TCRP Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel by Arrington and
Cevero was included as Exhibit 12-11 to the Ordinance presented to the Council and Board for the November 18, 2013 public hearing. This study preceded Exhibit 12-12 of the Ordinance, the
2013 technical review of the interactions among land use, transportation, and environmental
quality published by the EPA to which Mr. Kloos refers in his letter.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4
Mr. Kloos also questions the validity of the 2008 TCRP as a “competent empirical basis” for
conclusions about trip reductions in Glenwood. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), established under Federal Transit Administration sponsorship in 1992, is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the TCRP is to provide
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multi-modal. The TCRP thus
serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-
term solutions to meet demands placed on it. Research reports like the Arrington and Cevero study are intended to disseminate the results of the rigorously conducted research projects of the
TCRP to its intended end users, including local decision makers. Further specific information
regarding the TCRP, its research process, and the research questions TCRP Report 128 addresses are detailed on pages four through seven of the TCRP report in Exhibit 12-11 of the
Ordinance included in this packet.
Issue 4: Goal 15, Willamette Greenway
In his letter, Mr. Kloos states that the City has not conducted an inventory required by Goal 15.
LUBA’s directive, however, was “to demonstrate that the setback is based on protection of resources identified in the City’s acknowledged Greenway inventory.” In other words, LUBA
did not require the City to conduct an inventory but rather to demonstrate that when a Greenway Setback Line is established that it is based on protecting resources identified in an inventory.
Mr. Kloos then asserts that the City has added new approval criteria to the list of standards for establishing a Greenway Setback Line contained in Springfield Development Code Subsection 3.3-325. Staff added Subsection 3.4-280 to the Glenwood Riverfront Plan District adopted in
2012 by Ordinance 6279 so that a majority of development standards applicable to the Glenwood Riverfront would be conveniently located in one portion of the Springfield
Development Code. Subsection 3.4-280L.1-12. listed criteria of approval for development
within the entire Greenway boundary. There were no separate criteria of approval for establishing a Greenway Setback Line in Subsection 3.4-280 at that time because staff proposed
a coincident Riparian and Greenway Setback Line. However, in response to the LUBA Remand,
staff is: 1) deleting text relating to the concurrent setback line; and 2) adding approval criteria text for the establishment of a Greenway Setback Line. The approval criteria are a subset of the
criteria of approval for development within the entire Greenway boundary and mimic the criteria
listed in Section 3.3-325 that have been in effect for this purpose since at least 1982.
Later in his letter, Mr. Kloos contends that the City does not require basing the setback line on
inventory data. Springfield’s practice regarding the establishment of a Greenway Setback Line has been determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Springfield Development Code
Section 3.3-325 since at least 1982. This section of the Development Code dictates the basis for the setback line and is derived directly from Section C.3. of Statewide Planning Goal 15. This existing process results in an applicant hiring a qualified professional who is required to
demonstrate that the proposed setback line conforms to the criteria of approval, including protection of significant fish and wildlife habitat and the natural vegetative fringe;
demonstrating conformance with the criteria necessitates conducting an inventory. Staff the uses
that inventory in making a recommendation to the Planning Commission or Hearings Official (Type III Review), as appropriate, and a decision is rendered. In fact, two of Mr. Kloos’ clients,
Mr. Marvin and Mr. Shinn (Shamrock Village RV Park, LLC), have established a Greenway
Setback Line on their respective properties utilizing the aforementioned process. Staff has no reason to believe this same process would not be employed in the Glenwood Riverfront. While
researching staff’s response to Mr. Kloos’ letter, it was determined that Subsection 3.4-280L.8.
was unintentionally omitted. Staff is amending the revision to tis Subsection to include criterion L.8. This requires no change to the adopting Ordinance, only the attachment.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4
Staff has recently learned that Counsel to the Board of County Commissioners has concluded that some of the changes discussed require that the Board not take action on December 3, as originally contemplated, but schedule another reading, probably for the week of January 15,
2014.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deliberate on the amended Glenwood Phase I Ordinance with the option to adopt/not adopt. Council will note that the response to Mr. Kloos’ letter of
November 18 has been produced quite rapidly, to meet the requirements of the calendar.
Although staff believes that the response is accurate, the necessary delay in action by the board of County Commissioners opens an opportunity to further study the November 18 letter, and
make sure that the response is full and complete. Accordingly, while Council has the option to
deliberate and take action, staff recommends that staff be directed to further review the response and schedule deliberations for a future date.
ORDINANCE NO. _______ (General)
AN ORDINANCE COMPLYING WITH LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND (2012-
077/078/079) BY INCORPORATING SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS INTO THE RECORD OF SPRINGFIELD FILE
NUMBERS TYP411-00005 AND TYP411-00007 AND LANE COUNTY FILE NUMBER PA 11-5489, AND
AMENDING THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT AND THE SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FINDS THAT:
WHEREAS, 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); and
WHEREAS, Shamrock Homes, LLC filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal Springfield Ordinances 6279
and Lane County Ordinances PA12888, and 3-12 on September 28, 2012; and
WHEREAS, LUBA rendered their decision (LUBA 2012/077/078/079) on July 12, 2013; and
WHEREAS, 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); and
WHEREAS, timely and sufficient notice of the public hearings regarding the LUBA Remand
pursuant to Glenwood Phase 1, has been provided in accordance with SDC Section 5.2-115; and
WHEREAS, Springfield Development Code Section 5.6-100 sets forth procedures for the
amendment of the Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram and text and the SDC; and
WHEREAS: the Springfield File Numbers TYP411-0005 (Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram and
text amendments) and TYP 411-00007 (Springfield Development Code amendments) and Lane County
File Number PA 11-5489 contain supplemental findings and studies regarding Goals 9, 10, 12 and 15 that
address the LUBA Remand; and
WHEREAS, the public hearings listed below were limited to address only the issues contained in
the LUBA Remand regarding Glenwood Phase I; and
WHEREAS, On October 15, 2013, the Springfield Planning Commission held a work session and
public hearing regarding the LUBA Remand and the criteria of approval, findings and recommendations
as set forth in Exhibit A, together with the testimony and submittals of those persons testifying at the
public hearing or in writing are part of the public record, and the Springfield Planning Commission voted
-- to --, to recommend adoption of Glenwood Phase 1 LUBA Remand to the Springfield City Council and
the Lane County Board of Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2013, the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners held a work session on the LUBA Remand; and
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2013, the Lane County Board of Commissioners held a first reading
on the LUBA Remand; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2013, the Springfield City Council held a first reading and the Lane
County Board of Commissioners held a second reading on the LUBA Remand and joint public hearing;
and
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 12
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2013, the Springfield City Council held a second reading and the
Lane County Board of Commissioners held a third reading on the Glenwood Phase 1 LUBA Remand; and
substantial evidence exists within the public record as set forth in Exhibit A, together with the testimony
and submittals of those persons testifying at the public hearing or in writing that has been considered
and are part of the public record and the Springfield City Council is now ready to take action on the
LUBA Remand.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The above findings and the findings set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein
are hereby adopted.
SECTION 2: The previously adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram (Ordinance No. 6279) is
hereby readopted in its entirety and further amended as set forth in Exhibit B designating 33.26 acres
from Residential Mixed-Use to Residential Mixed-Use/Multimodal Mixed-Use Area, 14.58 acres from
Commercial Mixed-Use to Commercial Mixed-Use/Multimodal Mixed-Use Area, 46.33 acres from Office
Mixed-Use to Office Mixed-Use/Multimodal Mixed-Use Area, and 173.11 acres from Employment
Mixed-Use to Employment Mixed-Use/Multimodal Mixed-Use Area in Glenwood Phase I; and the
previously adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan, Phase I text (Ordinance No. 6279) is hereby readopted
in its entirety and further amended by amending text, development policies and implementation
strategies in portions of the Land Use and Open Space Chapters for Glenwood Phase I; and amending
the findings for TYP411-00005.
SECTION 3: The previously adopted Springfield Development Code text (Ordinance No. 6279) is
hereby readopted in its entirety and further amended as set forth in Exhibit C by amending Section 3.4-
245; amending Section 3.5-280; amending Section 4.3-115; amending Appendix 3; and amending the
findings for TYP411-00007.
SECTION 4: Severability Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and individual provision and such holding shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield by a vote of ____ for and ___ against,
this ____ day of ______________, 2013.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield, this ____ day of _____________, 2013.
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Mayor
______________________________________
City Recorder
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 12
Exhibit A for the following ordinance related to Glenwood Phase 1 can be viewed in its entirety
by contacting Brenda Jones, City of Springfield, 541-726-3610 or bjones@springfield-or.gov
AN ORDINANCE COMPLYING WITH LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND (2012-
077/078/079) BY INCORPORATING SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS INTO THE RECORD OF
SPRINGFIELD FILE NUMBERS TYP411-00005 AND TYP411-00007 AND LANE COUNTY FILE
NUMBER PA 11-5489, AND AMENDING THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND
TEXT AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
The only changes made within Exhibit A were in Exhibits 15-4 and 15-5 which are attached to
the ordinance in the Council Agenda Packet.
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 12
EXHIBIT 15-4 PROPOSED GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN, OPEN SPACE CHAPTER
AMENDMENT
…
Statewide Planning Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway, requires a greenway boundary of 150 feet
measured from the ordinary low water line, which allows development to occur within this zone as a
discretionary use. Within this boundary, a Greenway Setback line is a also required to delineate where
only water-dependent and water-related development may occur, such as boat ramps, multi-use paths,
and viewing areas (Figure 3). For much of the Glenwood Riverfront, the location of the Greenway
Setback Line has not been formally established. The Implementation Strategies discussed below
include working with property owners to establish [establishing] a [standardized 75-foot] property-
specific, variable-width Greenway Setback Lines in the Glenwood Riverfront [(measured from the top of
bank) coterminous with the existing riparian setback], as depicted in Figure 3. [Formally establishing
the Greenway Setback Line in the Glenwood Riverfront will reduce uncertainty and provide
predictability in achieving Goal 15 standards for public access to and views of the river; protect fish and
wildlife habitat; provide riverine flood hazard protection; promote restoration and enhancement of
natural vegetation; and direct development away from the river.]
Objective:
Provide ample opportunities for people to access and enjoy the Willamette River and the natural
environment while: complying with State and Federal Regulations; providing stable riverbanks; and
conserving, protecting, restoring, and establishing a diversity of riparian habitats and wetlands in order
to retain their properly functioning condition related to fish and wildlife habitat, riverine flood control,
sediment and erosion control, water quality, and groundwater [pollution] protection.
Policies & Implementation Strategies:
• Restore, enhance, and protect the riverbank and riparian and wetland areas.
o Work with property owners to [E]establish [a standardized] Willamette River Greenway
Setback Lines [of 75 feet from top-of-bank] for water-dependent and water-related uses
[consistent with the existing 75-foot riparian setback] in the Glenwood Riverfront.
…
• Integrate natural resources, urban interface/built environment, and water resources
management.
…
Figure 10
Figure 5a
CHAPTER: Open Space
SECTION: Natural Resources
SUB-SECTION: Wetlands & Riparian Areas
PAGES: 88-92
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 12
o Limit recreation and associated improvements within the Riparian [and Willamette
Greenway Setback areas] to passive activities including, but not limited to: picnicking;
pedestrian activities; [by]bicycling; bird watching; fishing; educational, interpretive, and
directional signage; and riverfront viewing.
o Locate a multi-use path at the outer most edge of the Riparian [and Greenway Setback
areas], to the maximum extent practicable.
Figure 3
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 12
EXHIBIT 15-5 PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
Note: Existing text to remain is depicted with an ellipsis (…). Proposed changes are highlighted, proposed text to
be added appears underlined, and proposed text to be deleted appears in strike-through.
3.4-280 Willamette Greenway Development Standards
…
C. Definitions. As used within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District, unless
the context otherwise requires, the following terms are defined:
Boardwalk. A floating or non-floating platform that either provides pedestrian access along a
shoreline or within a riparian area; it may also act as a bridge between two bodies of land.
Change of use. Making a different use of the land or water. Change of use includes changes that
require construction or alteration to land or water outside of existing buildings, structures, or
open storage areas and which substantially alters or affects land or water. It does not include: a
change of use of a building or other structure which does not substantially alter or affect the
land or water upon which it is located; the sale of property; or modifications of existing
structures, as may be permitted by this Section.
Development. Any activity within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District
that would alter the elevation of the land; remove or destroy plant life; cause structures of any
kind to be installed, erected, or removed, or result in a measurable impact to the riparian area
(See also Section 6.1-110 for other definitions of this term).
Dock. An individual secured and stationary or floating structure designed for uses including, but
not limited to: mooring boats and fishing.
Enhancement. Increasing the net ecological functional values of the riparian buffer by any of the
following: removal of impervious surfaces; restoring natural bank slopes; or increasing the cover
and diversity of native vegetation.
Greenway Setback Line. A line that divides the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay
District into two distinct areas. In the area between the ordinary low water line and the
Greenway Setback line,[75 feet from the top of bank] only water-dependent and water-related
uses may occur. In the area from the Greenway Setback Line to the WG Overlay District outer
boundary, uses permitted in the base zone may be allowed in accordance with the standards
and criteria of this Section.
Intensification. Any addition that increases or expands the area or level of activity of an existing
use; or any remodeling of the exterior of a structure that will substantially alter the appearance
of the structure. For the purposes of this definition, “intensification" does not include:
maintenance and repair necessary for the continuance of an existing use; reasonable emergency
procedures necessary for the safety or protection of property; or existing residential use of lands
within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District that includes the practices
and activities customarily related to the use and enjoyment of one's home, such as, landscaping,
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 12
construction of driveways, modification of existing structures or construction or placement of
such accessory structures or facilities adjacent to the residence as are usual and necessary.
Ordinary high water line. The line on the bank or shore to which the high water ordinarily rises
annually in a season.
Ordinary low water Line. The line on the bank or shore to which the low water ordinarily
recedes annually in a season.
Maximum extent practicable. Text drawn from Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 15 (F.3.b.)
intended to require a balancing of factors so that each of the identified Willamette Greenway
criteria is met to the greatest extent possible without precluding the requested use.
Riverbank. A land feature or constructed structure that serves to contain the waters of a river. It
can be distinguished from upland areas by the presence of riparian vegetation in close proximity
to flowing water. Usually, the riverbank represents the limits of seasonal high water and
periodic flood waters.
Top of Bank. See Section 6.1-110.
Water-dependent use. A use or activity that can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to a
water body, because the use requires access to the water body for transportation, recreation,
energy production, or source of water. Except as necessary for water-dependent uses or
facilities, residences, parking lots, factories and mobile home parks are not generally considered
to be water-dependent uses.
Water-related use. A use that is not directly dependent upon access to a water body, but which
provides goods or services that are directly associated with water-dependent use. Except where
as necessary for water-dependent or water-related uses or facilities, highways, restaurants,
businesses, factories, and mobile home parks are not generally considered to be water-related
uses.
D. Establishment of the Greenway Setback Line and Permitted Uses.
1. Establishment of the Greenway Setback Line. In the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the
WG Overlay District, the Greenway Setback Line shall be established to protect,
maintain, preserve, and enhance the natural, scenic, historic and recreational qualities
of the Willamette Greenway. Only water-dependent and water-related uses are
permitted between the Willamette River and the Greenway Setback Line. The location
of the Greenway Setback Line shall be determined consistent with the criteria specified
in Section L.1.; L.4.; L.5.; L.7.; L.8; L.10.; and L.11.[75 feet upland from the top of the
bank, coterminous with the existing 75 foot wide riparian setback as specified in
Subsection 4.3-115A.1. The coterminous positions of these setbacks shall not lessen the
significance of, or reasons for protecting, the Willamette Greenway.]
EXCEPTIONS:
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 12
a. For property owners who received City approval to establish a Greenway
Setback Line along the Glenwood Riverfront as specified in Section 3.3-300 prior
to the effective date of this Ordinance, that approval shall continue to be in full
force and effect when development is proposed within the WG Overlay District.
[b. For property owners who apply for approval to establish a Greenway Setback
Line along the Glenwood Riverfront prior to the effective date of this Ordinance,
the criteria of Section 3.3-325 shall be utilized. In this case, the Greenway
Setback Line approval may occur after the effective date of this Ordinance. That
approval shall also continue to be in full force and effect when development is
proposed within the WG Overlay District.]
E. …
L. Criteria. In the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District, the applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with the following criteria of approval:
1. Any development, change of use or intensification of use permitted in the base zone
shall be oriented toward the river between the Willamette Greenway Setback Line and
the Willamette Greenway outer boundary.
EXCEPTION: Proposed water-dependent and water-related uses listed in Subsection 3.4-
280D.2. shall be permitted within the Greenway Setback Line.
2. Between the Greenway Setback Line and the Willamette Greenway outer boundary, any
development, change of use or intensification of use shall provide the maximum
possible landscaped area/open space between the activity and the river.
3. Significant air, water and land resources including but not limited to: natural and scenic
areas; views; vistas; and fish and wildlife habitats in and adjacent to the Greenway shall
be protected, preserved, restored, or enhanced to the maximum extent practicable.
4. The maintenance of public safety and protection of public and private property,
especially from vandalism and trespass shall be provided to the maximum extent
practicable.
5. The natural vegetative fringe along the river shall be enhanced, protected and
maintained in order to assure scenic quality and view points, protection of wildlife,
protection from erosion and screening of uses from the river.
6. Areas of annual flooding, floodplains and wetlands shall be preserved or restored in
their natural state to the maximum extent practicable to protect water retention,
overflow and other natural functions specified in Section 3.3-400.
7. Recreational needs shall be satisfied as specified in the Glenwood Refinement Plan
and/or this Plan District.
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 12
8. Adequate public access shall be provided to and along the river by appropriate legal
means for all development as specified in the applicable base zone, overlay district, or
this Plan District.
9. Areas of ecological, scientific, historical or archeological significance shall be protected,
preserved, restored or enhanced to the maximum extent practicable.
10. Significant fish and wildlife habitats shall be protected to the maximum extent
practicable.
11. Significant natural and scenic areas, viewpoints and vistas shall be protected to the
maximum extent practicable.
12. Any necessary tree felling shall comply with Section 5.19-100 and shall occur in a
manner that ensures the wildlife habitat and natural scenic qualities found in the
Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District will be maintained and shall be
restored by mitigation on-site. Only diseased trees or trees in danger of falling located
between the ordinary low water line and the Greenway Setback Line may be removed
with a certified Arborist’s statement. However, snag retention shall be allowed. In the
area between the Greenway Setback Line and the outer boundary of the Glenwood
Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District, tree felling may be permitted to the
extent necessary to accommodate those permitted uses as specified in the applicable
base zone, overlay district or this Plan District.
M. …
4.3-115 Water Quality Protection
B. Permitted Uses in Riparian Areas. The following uses are permitted in riparian areas as long as
they do not diminish riparian functions:
1. The planting of trees and native vegetation to promote bank stability, enhance riparian
areas, minimize erosion, preserve water quality and protect federally listed species.
Trees may be clustered to allow the preservation of views; or to allow maintenance
vehicles to approach City maintained stormwater facilities including detention basins,
outfalls, culverts and similar stormwater facilities as may be permitted by the Springfield
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
2. The felling of hazardous trees for safety reasons as specified in Section 5.19-100, Tree
Felling.
3. Riparian area restoration and enhancement including the removal of invasive plant
species, where necessary.
4. Flood control structures, where necessary.
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 12
5. Stormwater management systems and outfalls, as specified in the Springfield
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual or as required by other regulating
authorities.
6. Multi-use paths for pedestrian and/or bicycle use shall be permitted, provided that the
multi-use path drains away from the watercourse. Multi-use paths shall be located along
the outer edge of the required riparian area and away from the watercourse. The multi-
use path shall be located at the outermost edge of the 75 foot-wide [Greenway Setback
Line/]Riparian Setback to the maximum extent practicable. Utilities may be extended
within a multi-use path.
7. Water-dependent or water-related uses between the Willamette River and the
Greenway Setback Line as may be permitted in the Willamette Greenway Overlay
District.
8. Private driveways, public street crossings, bridges and necessary culverts when there is
no other vehicle access to the property. Crossings shall be preferably at right angles to
the watercourse. Public and private utilities shall be permitted within the driveway,
public street or bridge right-of-way.
9. Repair, replacement or improvement of utility facilities as long as the riparian area is
restored to its original condition.
10. Routine repair and maintenance of existing structures, streets, driveways, utilities,
accessory uses and other similar facilities.
11. Other activities similar to those listed above that do not diminish riparian function. The
Director shall make the interpretations as specified in Section 5.11-100.
…
C. Open Space Chapter.
C.1. Riparian Areas and Wetlands.
C.1.a. Restore, enhance, and protect the riverbank and riparian and wetland areas.
C.1.a.1. Work with property owners to [E]establish [a standardized] Willamette
River Greenway Setback Lines [of 75 feet from top-of-bank] for water-
dependent and water-related uses [consistent with the existing 75-foot
riparian setback] in the Glenwood Riverfront.
C.1.a.2. Partner with property owners, private developers, non-profit
organizations, and other agencies to seek opportunities and funding
sources to acquire property and/or easements to create a contiguous
Appendix 3 – Glenwood Refinement Plan Policies and Implementation Strategies – Phase I
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 12
riverfront that is sensitive to natural resource function and the urban
interface.
C.1.a.3. Restore, enhance, and protect the riverbank and riparian areas from
the ordinary low water line to the Riparian Setback Line boundary
using plants appropriate to the local urban aquatic and riparian areas
and zones, as depicted in Figure 4.
C.1.a.4. Pursue funding for public/private partnerships to achieve riverbank
re-shaping/benching, stabilization, and riparian and aquatic habitat
restoration, as conceptually depicted in Figures 5a and 5b (also see
Riverfront Linear Park objective).
C.1.a.5. Establish policy for vegetation management of river bank, riparian,
wetland, and other natural resource areas through sustainable
landscaping and controlling invasive species based upon introducing
and supporting plants appropriate to the local urban aquatic and
riparian areas and zones.
C.1.a.6. Incorporate into the Glenwood Mixed-Use Riverfront Plan District and
the Springfield Engineering Design Standards And Procedures Manual,
as appropriate, riverfront/river bank design concepts for developing
an urban river’s edge along the Glenwood Riverfront that improves
conditions for fish, wildlife, plants and people.
C.1.b. Integrate natural resources, urban interface/built environment, and water
resources management.
C.1.b.1. Establish and maintain riparian habitat connectivity to the maximum
extent practicable, while allowing for and managing appropriate and
limited public access to the river, as well as sight lines through the
riparian area, as depicted in Figure 6.
C.1.b.2. Limit recreation and associated improvements within the Riparian
[and Willamette Greenway Setback areas] to passive activities including,
but not limited to: picnicking; pedestrian activities; [by]bicycling; bird
watching; fishing; educational, interpretive, and directional signage; and
riverfront viewing.
C.1.b.3. Locate a multi-use path at the outer most edge of the Riparian [and
Greenway Setback areas], to the maximum extent practicable.
C.1.b.4. Allow for Low Impact Development approaches for Stormwater
Quality Management facilities and/or wetland educational parks that
establish or restore natural stormwater functions to be within the
riparian boundary and setback, as depicted in Figures 7 and 8.
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 12
C.1.b.5. Utilize the objectives, policy and implementation strategies listed in
the Riverfront Linear Park section of this document.
C.2. Flood Plains…
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 12
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 7
MINUTES OF THE
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2013
A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield and Lane County was held in the Springfield Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 18, 2013 at 7:00pm with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Board Vice-Chair Bozievich opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, Moore, Ralston,
Woodrow and Brew. Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused). Springfield City Manager Gino
Grimaldi and other Springfield staff were also present.
Present from Lane County were Board Vice-Chair Bozievich and Commissioners Farr, Sorenson and
Stewart. Board Chair Leiken was absent (excused). Lane County Planning Manager Matt Laird and other Lane County staff were also present.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Glenwood Phase 1 Update (Springfield File Nos. TYP411-00005 & TYP411-00007, Lane County File No. PA 11-5489).
Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery read the Springfield ordinance title into the record: ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE COMPLYING WITH LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND (2012-077/078/079) BY INCORPORATING
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS INTO THE RECORD OF SPRINGFIELD FILE
NUMBERS TYP411-00005 AND TYP411-00007 AND LANE COUNTY FILE
NUMBER PA 11-5489, AND AMENDING THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Commissioner Bozievich read the Lane County ordinance title into the record. ORDINANCE NO. PA 1308 - AN ORDINANCE COMPLYING WITH LAND USE
BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND (2012-077/078/079) BY INCORPORATING
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS INTO THE RECORD OF SPRINGFIELD FILE
NUMBERS TYP411-00005 AND TYP411-00007 AND LANE COUNTY FILE
NUMBER PA 11-5489, AND AMENDING THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND
ADOPTING A SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
November 18, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 2 of 7
City Planner Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. Tonight’s meeting was to discuss Glenwood Phase 1, the approximately 275 acres along the Franklin and McVay riverfronts in
the Glenwood area of Springfield. Beginning in 2008, staff worked collaboratively with citizens and our partner agencies to develop an updated Glenwood Refinement Plan that articulated the community’s vision for a vibrant, dense and multimodal riverfront that enhanced access to and
appreciation of the Willamette River. The public hearing phase of that adoption process was initiated before the joint Planning Commissions in October 2011. Later that year, the joint Planning Commissions unanimously recommended adoption of a package of amendments for Glenwood Phase
1, including Metro Plan, Refinement Plan, Development Code, and Zoning Map amendments. With modifications made to the proposed amendments as they were reviewed by the Planning Commissions
and elected officials, the City Council unanimously adopted Glenwood Phase 1 in June of 2012. The
Board of County Commissioners unanimously co-adopted Glenwood Phase 1 in September 2012. Later that month, attorney Bill Kloos filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal on behalf of his client,
Shamrock Homes. Since then, staff had been working through the state’s land use appeals process
with the assistance of legal counsel.
In July of this year, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) issued its final decision which remanded portions of four of the nine alleged assignments of error. The purpose of tonight’s public hearing was to receive testimony on the amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Springfield Development
Code, and findings of compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals that were proposed to address the Remand. Notice was sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on September 11, 2013 and notice was also mailed to property owners and those participating in the
proceedings to date on October 4, 2013. Notice of this public hearing was also published in the Register Guard on October 4, 2013.
As documented in the minutes in Attachment 2 of the agenda packet, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this package of amendments on October 15th. Without making any modifications, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Council and Board adopt the
amendments as documented by the Final Order in Attachment 3 of the agenda packet. Staff then presented the proposed amendments to the Council and Board at the October 17th work session, the
minutes of which constituted Attachment 4 of the agenda packet. Attachment 1 of the agenda packet
contained the proposed Ordinance and Exhibits. Exhibit A of the Ordinance was the staff report addressing the Remand. The remaining, very lengthy exhibits were comprised largely of studies that
aided in substantiating the findings in Exhibit A.
In summary, staff proposed amending findings in Exhibit A of the Ordinance such that they justified
policy choices in the updated Refinement Plan consistent with the City’s legally acknowledged Economic Opportunities Analysis. They also proposed amending the findings in Exhibit A of the Ordinance to provide a more adequate explanation for why policy choices in the updated Refinement
Plan were consistent with the Metro Plan’s housing policies. In addition, staff proposed designating
the Glenwood Riverfront a Multimodal Mixed-Use area, a designation that captured the essence of the dense, highly connected mixed-use and multimodal environment that the Glenwood Phase 1 policies
and regulations aimed to facilitate and support. This was a statewide designation that did not exist when the Plan was originally adopted but was included in laws that went into effect this year, laws under which LUBA based its assessment of the appeal. Additionally, staff proposed amending the
November 18, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 3 of 7
findings in Exhibit A of the Ordinance to explain and find support for the original congestion calculations.
Finally, staff proposed amending the establishment of a standardized 75-foot Greenway Setback Line to one that would be established on a case-by-case basis as development occurred and would be based
on an inventory of natural resources. On this topic, she emphasized that at this time, staff was not proposing to establish a new Greenway setback line. Since the standardized setback line was intended to streamline the development review process and was based on staff’s knowledge of the riverfront’s
natural resources at that time, the City had undertaken the key task associated with establishing a setback line for property owners and would offer it free of charge to applicants to cite in their
individual application. Property owners could, if they chose, conduct their own inventories to justify
the setback line they requested to establish at the time of development.
In closing, adoption of the amendments summarized was the next step towards seeking
acknowledgement of the Phase 1 Glenwood Refinement Plan and would bring the City of Springfield one step closer to providing certainty to developers and the public regarding what was planned for the
Glenwood Riverfront. Following tonight’s public hearing, a joint meeting had been scheduled for December 2nd for the Council’s second reading, the Board’s third reading, and the opportunity to adopt the amendments.
Councilor Brew asked if the adopted amendments, if approved, would go back to LUBA to determine if they were sufficient.
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said if the changes were adopted, they could be appealed to LUBA, but would not otherwise go to LUBA for review.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing for the Springfield City Council.
Board Vice-Chair Bozievich opened the public hearing for the Lane County Commissioners.
1. Gregory James, Springfield, OR. Mr. James said the Planning Commissions, City Council
and Board of Commissioners thoroughly examined this plan through the public hearing process during 2011 and 2012 and it was well vetted throughout the community. What was
before the Council and Board were amendments that addressed items which LUBA issued
remand on and represented reasonable modifications to the Plan necessary to bring the Plan into compliance with all legal technicalities of statewide planning goals. On October 15, 2013,
the Springfield Planning Commission unanimously recommended the elected officials adopt the amendments. Adopting these amendments to address the LUBA remand was imperative to providing certainty to the development community and ensuring the vision of establishing the
Glenwood Refinement Plan could be achieved. He appreciated the elected officials taking the
time to hear the public comment as it was extremely important for this community.
2. Steve Moe, Glenwood, Eugene, OR. Mr. Moe said after the interstate bypassed Glenwood, the area took a downward spiral and became a place to be avoided. Glenwood eventually became part of the Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB) and the City quickly took notice
of the potential redevelopment in existing areas and potential new development in
November 18, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 4 of 7
undeveloped areas. State land use laws and the Metro Plan stated that a Refinement Plan in Glenwood would be created. Springfield began to meet with citizens and property owners to
get ideas of how they envisioned the future of Glenwood. Outside studies, application of State land use laws, and input from area residents, business owners, and property owners provided factors to consider. Every idea was considered and molded into the Glenwood Refinement
Plan before the Council and Board tonight. The City put together some visions and met with the public to get more comments and thoughts. The Glenwood Refinement Plan was created in that process and submitted to Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions.
All Planning Commissioners approved the Plan and forwarded it to the City Councils and County Commissioners. At that time, one landowner stepped forward and wanted a zone
change to accommodate his particular property. That would have meant that the entire public
process would need to be repeated, but it was too late. The Plan was submitted to the City Councils and Commissioners in public hearings and was approved. Now Glenwood could
move forward and attract builders and developers to shape our community, but the property
owner appealed the Glenwood Refinement Plan to LUBA making it unusable for a year and a half. LUBA recommended changes and the City made those changes. The elected officials
now had the revised Glenwood Refinement Plan and it should be approved, although the unhappy property owner was still not pleased. He hoped that further appeals and legal issues didn’t happen. When the Refinement Plan was under an appeal, even for a small issue, there
were those that believed the entire Plan could be challenged. Some developers may see that as a problem and look elsewhere to develop. They had worked many years to get Glenwood to where it was now; an attractive community respected by the surrounding cities. He asked them
to please pass the amendments and ask those that were not entirely pleased to join in and make Glenwood a place they all could be proud of.
3. Rick Satre, Springfield, OR Mr. Satre distributed a copy of his testimony to the elected officials. Tonight he was speaking as a twenty-plus year small business owner, thirty-plus year Springfield resident, with nearly forty years of experience as a land use planner. He was
speaking in favor of the proposed amendments. The Glenwood Refinement Plan was an excellent example of community planning. Development of the Plan involved three years of
extensive public involvement. The Planning Commissions, City Council and Board of
Commissioners thoroughly examined the Plan through a public hearing process throughout 2011 and 2012. Since adoption of the Plan in September 2012, momentum had continued to
build in the Glenwood Refinement Plan area. Since then, Council had annexed Franklin
Boulevard, including NEPA and initial designs. A capital improvement project was underway extending sanitary sewer service along McVay Highway and private sector property owners
were stepping forward. There had been one private property annexation completed since adoption of the Plan, and there were three others in process in the riverfront area. The development community had noticed the Plan, liked the Plan and was beginning to invest their
hard-earned dollars to help implement this community vision. No plan was perfect and all
plans were at risk of legal challenges. The appeal before them represented an individual property owners’ point of view. That property owner had a right to that point of view. While
development of the Plan represented the perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders, everyone needed to have their due opportunity. In his opinion, the appeal was a hiccup in the road to acknowledgement. The package of amendments addressed the items upon which
LUBA issued its remand. These proposed amendments represented reasonable modifications
November 18, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 5 of 7
to the Plan that were necessary to bring the Plan into compliance with the complexity of Oregon land use law and statewide planning goals. Adoption of the amendments would bring
the Plan one step closer to acknowledgement. In the end, it was all about success, finding balance, and bringing certainty to the development community, property owners, business owners and the City. He was in favor of the proposal before the elected officials.
4. Bill Kloos, Eugene, OR. Mr. Kloos distributed a ten-page letter to the elected officials. He was representing Shamrock Mobile Home Park and Yoon Shin. A year ago his client asked to
be left out of the Plan, but was told no. They identified in a letter to the City the shortcomings of the Plan and filed an appeal. Ten issues came back from LUBA and city staff had addressed
each of them in a systematic fashion. The letter being provided was the initial take of he and
his client of the legal shortcomings in the City’s response. They didn’t have time to prepare this letter for the Planning Commission due to a short turn-around time. They did ask for
more time, but were again told no. He also provided a CD with a study that staff was relying
on, but was not in the record. The ten issues were laid out in the letter. Mr. Kloos referred to a comment from Mr. Moe and said his client didn’t ask for a change, but asked to be left alone.
His client had an 11-acre mobile home park fully built out. Under the original scheme, his
property was split-zoned between medium density residential and commercial. His long-term plan was to recycle that mobile home park and develop some retirement housing. Under the
old zoning, he could do that; under the new designation of mixed-use employment, his site was destined to remain what it was for decades because his client believed there wouldn’t be a market for the kind of uses allowed in mixed-employment for decades at that location. That
meant he would not be able to redevelop and that his existing use would stay. That was counter to the City’s objectives. The City wanted to see that site renovated into something more functional for the City. If his client’s property were left alone, that would likely happen.
Mayor Lundberg asked the Council if they wanted to keep the record open. They did not.
Commissioner Sorenson asked if the documents submitted would be part of the County record. Yes.
Vice-Chair Bozievich asked the Commission if they wanted to keep the record open. They did not.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing for the City of Springfield.
Vice-Chair Bozievich closed the public hearing for Lane County. He asked Mr. Laird to explain why a third and fourth reading was needed for this item due to a minor change in a County ordinance.
Mr. Laird said they needed to have a third reading to announce a fourth reading on December 17, 2013, due to another ordinance that was needed to amend Chapter 10 which referenced the Glenwood
Refinement Plan. That was not in the original packet, so would be added on December 3, and again on
December 17.
County Counsel said what was in front of the Board of Commissioners was an ordinance which amended the Refinement Plan. They recently found that they were missing the ordinance that amended the Lane Code in Chapter 10 which referenced the City of Springfield Code. That needed to be
referenced in Chapter 10 so a separate ordinance was needed. The first reading on the new ordinance
November 18, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 6 of 7
would be December 3, with a hearing and adoption on December 17. This didn’t affect the substance of anything, but was needed to allow the decision on both to be done at the same time.
Discussion was held regarding the readings and adoption dates of the current and new ordinances.
Vice-Chair Bozievich clarified that tonight they needed a motion to accept the second reading, setting a third reading for the December 2 joint meeting, knowing that the County would need a fourth reading for final action on December 17. Separate from that, the County would need a first reading of
a separate ordinance on December 3, and set the second reading for December 17.
Commissioner Sorenson asked about the Board schedule and an Executive Session. It was noted that
the notice for that meeting had gone out today.
Commissioner Stewart asked if City staff had a chance to review the letter provided by Mr. Kloos. No.
After staff reviewed the letter, he would like to have information brought back for the next reading. If there were substantive changes from that information, additional readings could be required.
Councilor Ralston asked about information that was handed out by Mr. Kloos. He asked what the difference was between leaving Mr. Kloos’ clients’ land zoned the way it was and changing it with the
new Plan. Ms. Markarian said it was being re-designated to employment mixed-use, which was similar to the
campus industrial zoning in Gateway. That was a use that would permit light manufacturing and also offices compatible to light manufacturing. There could also be support commercial services.
Councilor Ralston asked if no one had talked to the owners during this process.
Mr. Grimaldi said there was an extensive process of public hearings and opportunities to comment and
notices over three years.
Councilor Ralston said the property owner had the opportunity. The unfortunate thing was that it had
caused this delay and could cause another delay.
Councilor Moore asked a question about a comment in the letter. Mayor Lundberg said the record was closed. The letter would be responded to by staff once they had a
chance to review the letter. Mr. Laird said they were not required to hold a joint meeting on December 2 since the record was
closed. They could meet individually if they chose. Commissioner Stewart said because Springfield would bring back information regarding the letter, he
would prefer a joint meeting to have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and hear their responses.
November 18, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 7 of 7
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FARR TO MOVE THE SECOND READING AND SETTING A THIRD READING FOR ORDINANCE PA 1308 TO A JOINT MEETING ON DECEMBER 2, 2013 7:00PM AT SPRINGFIELD CITY HALL. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR
AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – LEIKEN) ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at7:35 pm.
Commissioner Leiken adjourned the Lane County Commissioners at 7:38 pm.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
City Recorder
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor Attest:
____________________
City Recorder