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