HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03 Glenwood Priority Discussion AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 9/8/2014
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Jeff Towery, Assistant City Manager
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3627
Estimated Time: 30 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Encourage Economic
Development and Revitalization through Community Partnerships ITEM TITLE: GLENWOOD PRIORITY DISCUSSION
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and discuss the summarized projects, indicating which Council might
desire further detail on in order to make future decisions related to priorities and
resources. Authorize staff to seek a consultant to assist with the initial scoping of the Riverfront Path acquisition , design and development strategies.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
On May 27th, staff presented to Council key areas for future project investments
which might stimulate development at a greater pace in Glenwood. During that meeting, Council directed staff to provide further detailed information on several
specific projects. During the July 21st Council meeting, staff was directed to further
refine the specific projects and present them as a work session topic. These projects are provided here for discussion. The Vertical Housing Zone topic will be
addressed during an October work session.
ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Glenwood Priority Project Council Briefing Memorandum 2 – Project Area Map
3 – Project and Resource Summary Table
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
During their May 27th Work Session, Staff presented Council with a list of possible
projects to be pursued which might further stimulate the redevelopment of
Glenwood, specifically the Phase I Riverfront Area. Council identified several key projects which were further discussed during a July 21st Council meeting. These
projects included the development of the Riverfront Linear Park and Path, the
establishment of the Greenway Setback line, implementation of a Vertical Housing Zone, and the update of City engineering specifications and design standards.
During the July 21st meeting, staff was directed to further refine the proposed projects for a future work session discussion.
This is discussed in greater detail as part of Attachment 1. Additionally, to aid in this conversation, Attachment 2 is included to illustrate the impact areas of the proposed projects. Attachment 3 provides a comparison table overview of the
projects discussed in the Glenwood Priority Project Council Briefing Memo (Attachment 1).
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield 9/4/2014Page 1
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 5
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 9/8/2014
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Jeff Towery, Assistant City Manager BRIEFING
Subject: Glenwood Priority Discussion MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: On May 27P
th
P, staff presented to Council key areas for future project investments which might
stimulate development at a greater pace in Glenwood. During that meeting, Council directed staff to
provide further detailed information on several specific projects. During the July 21P
st
P Council meeting,
staff was directed to further refine the specific projects and present them as a work session topic.
These projects are provided here for discussion. The Vertical Housing Zone topic will be addressed
during an October work session.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Encourage Economic Development and Revitalization through Community Partnerships
BACKGROUND:
During the May 27P
th
P Work Session, staff presented Council with a list of possible projects to be
pursued which might further stimulate the redevelopment of Glenwood, specifically the Phase I
Riverfront Area. Council identified several key projects which were briefly discussed during a July
21P
st
P Council meeting. These projects included the development of the Riverfront Linear Park and Path,
the establishment of the Greenway Setback line, implementation of a Vertical Housing Zone, and the
update of City engineering specifications and design standards. During the July 21P
st
P meeting, staff was
directed to further refine the proposed projects for a future work session discussion.
Further detail on these projects, with the exception of the implementation of a Vertical Housing Zone,
are discussed below, including staff recommendations and required resources, and anticipated impacts.
The staff recommendations included in each project description are actions recommended pending
Council’s selection of the particular project as a priority. Discussions related to required resources and
anticipated impacts reflect the needs and impacts for implementing the project, not those required for
policy discussions as to whether the project should or should not be pursued. Time and ‘full time
equivalency’ (FTE) are estimated broadly to capture a sense of project scale and reflect combined totals
of the many staff each project impacts. It is staff’s intent to further refine these numbers, providing
more detailed scoping, based on Council’s indication of project preferences.
URiverfront Multi-Use Path Acquisition, Design, and Development StrategiesU-
What:
Extension of the regional riverside multi-use path system through Glenwood has been a
community transportation and open space planning goal for many years, and the Phase I
Glenwood Refinement Plan included policies and implementation strategies to make that
vision a reality as redevelopment occurs. .
Why Pursue:
The City’s leadership role in acquisition, design, and development of the Riverfront Multi-Use
Path would help private development as the built path and later developed open space not only
sets firm anchors for future development to develop around, but it lessens the burden on private
development to handle acquisition, design, and construction. It also alleviates the burden to
developers of navigating path-related environmental issues and required mitigation actions.
Specifically, in the case of the Riverfront Multi-Use Path, acquisition and development also
ensures a connected riverfront access for the community. The development and construction of
MEMORANDUM 9/4/2014 Page 2
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 5
the path also creates an existing amenity to assist in attracting development to the Riverfront
area. If the City does not assume a leadership role in acquisition and development of the
Riverfront Multi-Use Path, in partnership with Willamalane, the path would develop as private
property owners along the river develop their properties. This would mean the path would be
built in segments, not necessarily contiguous to other constructed segments, and over an
unknown timeline.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends working with a consultant over the next several months to scope out the
project in detail, developing a reasonable timeline for implementation, identifying strategies for
coordinating the public process, property acquisition, annexation, and design, as well as
navigating the NEPA process. The acquisition, design, and development strategies of the
Riverfront Multi-use Path are extremely complex and involve a significant number of sub-
projects to be coordinated, including the establishment of the Greenway Setback line. The
development of a detailed scope and critical path will help clarify the most effective next steps
for the project. This project will require a significant amount of time, funds, and partners. Due
to the importance of funding and design partnership with Willamalane on this project,
generating clarity of project scale and priority is imperative to successful agency coordination.
How:
The development of the Riverfront Multi-Use Path includes extensive amounts of funding,
negotiation, partnership, coordination, and design. Staff would work with a consultant to
outline the broad complexities of what is needed, seeking the development of a detailed project
scope for the coordination of this project. Initial conversations with consulting firms would
indicate this scoping work to cost approximately $20k and require 45 days.
Path design and construction will require some percentage of design completion for the
adjacent linear park as well, as the path’s location is directly related to the design of the park.
Because the path itself would be developed prior to park construction or the construction of
surrounding development, it is likely that portions of the path may be later removed and
reconstructed to accommodate site-specific stormwater needs. Because of this, the initial
construction of the path possibly could be completed with modified standards to lessen the loss
of reconstructing path segments in the future.
Resources & Impacts:
Due to the complexity of this project, activities are broken up here into an initial phase
consisting of planning, public outreach and some acquisition, and a second phase consisting of
design, completed acquisition, secured funding, and construction. Staff anticipates the
development of the Riverfront Linear Park and Path as a whole to require approximately 2-4
years and 2.5 FTE during the initial phase and another 5+ years to secure funding and complete
acquisition and construction. However, the Riverfront Multi-Use Path might be developed
without completing full design and acquisition of all surrounding park areas. The path design
itself is believed to require 16-18 months and will require some percentage of park design to
also be completed in order to effectively set the envelope for the path. Acquisition of path
right of way (ROW) is unknown and might require the use of eminent domain to ensure
continuity of path construction.
The impacts of completing this project will affect staff throughout DPW, including Planning,
Engineering, Survey, and GIS. City Manager’s Office staff will be significantly impacted with
the negotiations and partnerships with affected property owners. These numbers and impacts
do not include those impacts to Willamalane staff, which are also estimated to be significant.
This project will require extensive consultant services for management of process and design
and construction, as well as involvement from the City Attorney’s Office. This project will
also require a significant partnership from Willamalane in the coordination of design and
construction. This project would require the establishment of the Greenway Setback line. This
priority project would require the largest financial burden to the City and Urban Renewal
Agency of those projects proposed in this memo.
MEMORANDUM 9/4/2014 Page 3
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 5
o To begin working on this project, other areas of focus within the City would require
backfill or project delay. These focus areas and numbers are estimates and will require
further refinement.
Due to the complexity and extensive timelines for completion of this project,
this work would not likely shift current workloads as tasks would be built into
future work-plans. Future workloads and tasks would be impacted in areas
like management of the Historic Commission, Bike/Pedestrian Committee, the
Emergency Management Program development, the ADA Transition Plan,
TSP Implementation, 2030 Plan and implementation, Gateway/Beltline
project, and development review. The extent of these impacts will depend on
the staff member(s) assigned to the project.
Strategic Financing:
Rough estimates for the design and construction of the Riverfront Multi-Use Path from the I-5
Bridge to the Downtown Springfield bridges are approximately $2.5 Million, and extending
from the Downtown Springfield bridges south along the McVay Hwy riverfront another $2.9
Million. These numbers are estimates generated as part of the planning process for the
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP), adopted in March of 2014. Willamalane has
established the path as a high priority project with possible bond funds available to expedite
construction, assuming the Council’s equal prioritization of the project. Because
Willamalane’s funds are time-sensitive, the longer the City takes to determine priority on this
project, the less opportunity Willamalane will have to dedicate bond funds. These cost
estimates do not include costs associated with property acquisition and planning fees, which
are estimated at $1 – $3 million.
UGreenway Setback EstablishmentU –
What:
Statewide Planning Goal 15 strives to “protect, conserve and maintain the natural, scenic,
historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River
as the Willamette River Greenway.” It requires the inventory of, among other items, fish and
wildlife habitat for the purpose of determining which lands are suitable or necessary for
inclusion into a greenway setback line. Within this line, only water-related or water-dependent
uses may be permitted.
Why Pursue:
All properties developed in the Glenwood area along the Willamette River will be required to
establish the Greenway Setback line, typically at the developer’s cost. For a developer,
understanding where this line is located is not only required, but pivotal to site design and
organization.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends establishing a Greenway Setback line for the entire Glenwood Riverfront
area in advance of development.
How:
Staff would notify impacted property owners and seek permission to access the property for the
purpose of conducting the required surveys. This work would be completed at no cost to the
property owner. Establishing a Greenway Setback line is processed through a typical Type III
land use application process and would require decision by the Springfield Planning
Commission in incorporated areas and a Hearings Official in the unincorporated areas.
Resources & Impacts:
Staff anticipates the establishment of a Greenway Setback line to require approximately 9
months and 0.5-0.75FTE. The impacts of completing this project will affect staff throughout
the organization, including Planning, Survey, GIS, and possibly Police for access and safety
issues. City staff has limited experience preparing land-use applications of this nature, so it
may benefit the project and staff to contract some portion of the work to a consultant to assist
MEMORANDUM 9/4/2014 Page 4
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 5
in the preparation of the application on behalf of the City. In addition to staff and consultant
costs, the land use application process carries a cost estimated at approximately $10k. This
work could be completed concurrently with other Glenwood projects and is a predecessor to
any ability to develop the Riverfront Multi-Use Path.
o To begin working on this project, other areas of focus within the City might require
backfill or project delay depending on the staff assigned. Project and task areas
include development review and approval, Metro Plan amendments, and the 2030 Plan.
These focus areas and numbers are estimates and will require further refinement.
2030 Comprehensive Plan requires 1.1 FTE to complete
Needed to complete setback work: 0.25 FTE of 1.1 FTE
Current Development Review requires 4.75 FTE to manage
Needed to complete setback work: 0.75 FTE of 4.75 FTE
UVertical Housing Zone (VHZ) U–
What:
A VHZ is intended to incentivize, through subsidies, mixed-use projects consisting of ground-
floor commercial with one or more upper floors of residential housing. This type of
development is already required for new development in the much of the Riverfront area in
Glenwood. Once established, a VHZ offers a 10-year property tax exemption on the new
structure, or incremental change in the property value of the building that comprises the
project. An eligible and approved project is granted a tax exemption of 20% for each floor of
housing that is incorporated above ground floor commercial, with a maximum tax exemption
of 80% for any single project. It should be noted that a VHZ is a form of tax abatement which
would remove some portion of the private development’s tax increment from the Glenwood
Urban Renewal District, a tax increment funding district.
This topic will be further addressed in detail during an already scheduled October Council
Work Session
UUpdate of City Specifications and Design GuidelinesU –
What:
The City of Springfield utilizes multiple documents to standardize how construction of
facilities is completed, how they should function, and what they should look like. Examples of
these documents include the Springfield Development Code (SDC), the Minimum
Development Standards (MDS), Standard Construction Specifications, and the Engineering
Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). Ideally, these documents should all align
with each other and with the adopted refinement plan language in Glenwood. This alignment
creates a seamless message and process for the development community and City staff.
Why Pursue:
At this time, review and changes are needed to align all development specification documents.
Specifically, the Standard Constructions Specifications are significantly dated and in need of
updates, independent of the impact of Glenwood development. The EDSPM document needs
additional provisions to support Glenwood riverfront development. These documents do not
currently provide the flexibility to support or encourage some of the desired built environment
features suggested in the Glenwood Refinement Plan like curb-less streets, roundabout
configurations, and pervious pavement maintenance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the comprehensive review of City standardized construction documents with
an initial priority on creating alignment with desired development as outlined in the Glenwood
Refinement Plan.
How:
City guidelines and development codes are approved and adopted by Council. The update of
MEMORANDUM 9/4/2014 Page 5
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 5
these documents and manuals would require Council action.
Resources & Impacts:
Due to the complexity of reviewing multiple documents and alignment of development
standards and land use requirements, staff anticipates the update of city specifications and
engineering design standards to require approximately 12 months and 1.0 FTE. The impacts
of completing this project will affect staff throughout DPW. While this work would not
require consultant services, it might benefit from the use of consultant time to carry some of
the load related to document review. This work could be completed concurrently with other
Glenwood projects.
o To begin working on this project, other areas of focus within the City might require
backfill or project delay depending on the staff assigned. Project and task areas like
Downtown Design Plan Update, Capital Improvement Projects, ADA Compliance
planning, Emergency Management and Floodplain Mapping. These focus areas and
numbers are estimates and will require further refinement.
Downtown Design Plan requires 1.1 FTE to complete. Of this 1.1 FTE, 0.2
FTE would be reassigned to the update of specifications and guidelines.
If Council determines to begin this project now, current Capital Improvement.
Projects might experience delay. This is not necessarily work which could be
backfilled in time to avoid delay. That said, staff is already planning to begin
this work at the end of this calendar year, after the close of the construction
season, avoiding construction delay or need for backfilled FTE.
Summary
Each of the projects discussed in this memo carry impacts to City resources, both staff time and
financial, and projects and priorities elsewhere in the City. Specific areas of impact to other City
priority projects include, but are not limited to, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, the development
of Downtown Design Standards, administration of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program and the delivery of multiple currently budgeted capital improvement projects (CIP). These
impacts are acknowledged as a way to continue managing existing resources and workloads in
relationship to current and future priority projects.
Of the projects discussed in detail in this memo, staff recommends strategically pursuing the Riverfront
Multi-Use Path project. To maximize project effectiveness, staff proposes to seek consultant assistance
in beginning the process of scoping out the necessary steps to complete this work. Ultimately, the
remaining projects would be delivered in tandem with the Multi-Use Path project, as resources allow.
.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and discuss the summarized projects, indicating which
Council might desire further detail on in order to make future decisions related to priorities and
resources. Council might also authorize staff to seek a consultant to assist with the initial scoping of
the Riverfront Multi-Use Path acquisition, design and development strategies.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Gl
e
n
w
o
o
d
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Lo
c
a
Ɵ on
s
Ve
r
Ɵ ca
l
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Zo
n
e
Gr
e
e
n
w
a
y
Se
t
b
a
c
k
Li
n
e
Mu
l
Ɵ‐
Us
e
Li
n
e
a
r
Pa
t
h
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
2
POTENTIAL FUTURE GLENWOOD PROJECTS – Comparison Table
On May 27th, staff presented to Council key areas for future project investments which might stimulate development at a greater pace in Glenwood.
During that meeting, Council directed staff to provide further detailed information on several specific projects. During the July 21st Council meeting, staff
was directed to further refine the specific projects and present them as a work session topic. These projects are provided here for discussion.
Summarized here are rough estimates of impacts and resources anticipated for each project. ‘Time to Complete’ and ‘Staff Impact[s]’ reflects the needs
and impacts for implementing the project, not those required for policy discussions as to whether the project should or should not be pursued. Time
and ‘full time equivalency’ (FTE) are estimated broadly to capture a sense of project scale and reflect combined totals of the many staff each project
impacts. It is staff’s intent to further refine these numbers, providing more detailed scoping, based on Council’s indication of project preferences.
PROJECT TIME TO
COMPLETE
STAFF
IMPACT
CONSULTANT
SERVICES PREDECESSORS PARTNER
AGENCIES
AREAS OF IMPACT TO
OTHER CITY PRIORITY
PROJECTS
Riverfront Multi-Use Path
Phase I
2-4 years
Phase II
5+ years
Phase I
2½ FTE
Phase II
unknown
Yes – Project
planning and
approach
Yes – Greenway
Setback Line
Willamalane
Property Owners
Due to the complexity and
extensive timeline, this project
would not likely shift current
workloads as tasks would be built
into future work-plans. Future
workloads and task impacts
might include management of
the Historic Commission, CDBG
Programs, Bike/Ped Committee,
and plan review
Greenway Setback Line 9 Months .5-.75 FTE Possibly – Land-
use application No Property Owners
Lane County
• 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Update
• GIS Resources – Staffing
• Metro Plan Amendments
• Current Plan Review
City Specifications and Design
Guideline Update 12 Months 1 FTE
Possibly –
Document
review
No
• Delayed Delivery of Current
Budgeted CIPs
• Downtown Design Standards
• Floodplain Mapping
• Emergency Management
ATTACHMENT 3