Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2013 RegularMINUTES 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 TYP4 1 1 -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 reviewer] 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�acket, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this package of amendments on October 15R. 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 17'' 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 I 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 2 "d 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 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. 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. I 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:OOPM 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 / x-! Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: City Pecoider