HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/2014 JEO Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL,
AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2014
A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield and Lane County was held in the Library
Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall, 225 5 Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 27,
2014 at 7:09 p.m. with Mayor Christine Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council.
Board Chair Farr opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners
Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore,
Ralston, and Woodrow. Councilor Wylie was absent (excused). Springfield City Manager Gino
Grimaldi and other Springfield staff were also present.
Present from Lane County were Board Chair Farr and Commissioners Bozievich, Leiken, Stewart and
Sorenson. Lane County Administrator Steve Mokrohisky and other Lane County staff were also
present.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase I Amendment (Springfield File Nos. TYP414-00002 &
TYP414-00004 Lane County File No. 509-PA14-05471)
SPRINGFIELD ORDINANCE NO. 1 (FIRST READING) AND LANE COUNTY ORDINANCE
PA1309 (SECOND READING) — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING: THE GLENWOOD
REFINEMENT PLAN (PHASE 1) TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER TEXT AND FIGURES TO
ADJUST THE FRANKLIN BOULEVARD PROJECT CONCEPT CURRENTLY IN THE PLAN
TO MATCH THE PROPOSED PROJECT DRAFT DESIGN SO THAT IT IS GENERALLY
CENTERED ALONG THE EXISTING FRANKLIN BOULEVARD CENTERLINE: THE
PROJECT ENVELOPE TO EXTEND FIVE FEET TO THE NORTH AND FIVE FEET TO THE
SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT DESIGN• AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT
CODE, APPENDIX 3, GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN POLICIES AND
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES — PHASE 1 AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
LANE COUNTY ORDINANCE 14-13 —IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING LANE CODE
CHAPTER 10 TO REFLECT ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT CODE, APPENDIX 3 GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN POLICIES AND
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES — PHASE 1 (LC 10 600-15) AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE (SPRINGFIELD FILE NOS TYP414-00002 & TYP414-00004,
LANE COUNTY FILE NO. 509-PA14-05471)
Springfield Senior Transportation Planner David Reesor presented this item. He gave a power point
presentation.
October 27, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing
City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 2 of 7
This proposed amendment went before the Springfield Planning Commission on September 2, 2014.
Following public testimony and deliberation, the Planning Commission made a recommendation that
the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners co -adopt the ordinance.
Mr. Reesor said Franklin Boulevard will serve as a multi -way boulevard, serving all modes of
transportation. They hoped it will have a catalytic effect on land redevelopment in the Glenwood area.
He highlighted the project area on a map which included about a 3/4 segment of Franklin Boulevard
from Main/McVay intersection to Glenwood Boulevard.
Mr. Reesor noted some of the key milestones on this project:
• 2004: Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan
• 2008: Franklin Boulevard Study
• 2009: TIGER Grant Application
• 2012: Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) Adopted
• 2013: Franklin Blvd Annexed
• 2014: Environmental Analysis, Preliminary Design &Jurisdictional Transfer
• Current Status: Finalizing draft statement of work with final design consultant team
Amendments to the GRP are needed to address changes in the project envelope originally adopted.
The City has gone through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) work for preliminary
design. The goal of the design iterations was to reduce property impacts while staying true to the
project. Through the design process, the impacts went from 27 businesses and 5 residential, to 19
businesses and 0 residential. The January 2014 iteration was reviewed by the Council in February of
2014 and was approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) in August 2014. Mr. Reesor referred to photos of the Franklin Boulevard Study Concept (2008),
the Glenwood Refinement Plan concept (2012), the NEPA iteration (December 2013), and the final
NEPA iteration (January 2014).
Mr. Reesor said public outreach was done during the process. It was important for the City to make
sure the public outreach is meaningful, inclusive, transparent and realistic. He and the City's
consultant went door to door to speak with property and business owners. They also met with people
outside that process in order to remain inclusive.
Some of the key public outreach aspects for the Glenwood Refinement Plan included:
➢ 2008 - 2012 Glenwood Refinement Plan:
✓ Stakeholder Committee input throughout multi-year planning process
✓ Public Open Houses
✓ Website
✓ Public hearings held during adoption process
➢ NEPA Design Iterations:
✓ October 2013 — Staff in-person employer data gathering
✓ February 2014 — Council work session review of NEPA design iterations
✓ February 2014 — April 2014 — Business and property owner mailings and staff in-person
outreach
✓ Newsletter outreach
✓ Interested Parties List
October 27, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing
City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 3 of 7
✓ Website
✓ Community presentations (i.e. Rotary)
Key Elements of Franklin's Public Outreach Plan:
➢ Consistent reliable information and city contact person
➢ Mailings, e -mailings, phone calls to property/business owners
➢ Comprehensive support services for 19 businesses to be displaced
➢ Multiple in-person meetings with each and all corridor property/business owners
➢ In-person meetings with residents of 12 dwelling units adjacent to Franklin Blvd
➢ Small issue -focused meetings, such as bicycle/pedestrian concerns
➢ Up to two Open Houses held on corridor to share design
➢ Non-traditional outreach targeted to low-income, disabled and senior populations
➢ E -Updates to Interested Parties List
➢ Timely response to all submitted comments & questions
➢ Project information posters at high visibility locations
➢ Select speaking engagements at civic organizations
➢ Updates to Glenwood Redevelopment Advisory Committee & Glenwood Water District's
elected Board of Directors
➢ New Franklin Boulevard website with comment function
➢ Media (print, radio, TV)
Mr. Reesor asked for questions.
Commissioner Bozievich said when the road was initially designed it was likely to optimize the
function of the road. He asked what the trade-offs were in trying to reduce the impacts in terms of
capacity, congestion, safety, cost, etc. He also asked for information on Lane Transit District's (LTD)
involvement with the EmX route and the future EmX route to Lane Community College (LCC).
Mr. Reesor said the City was doing a Main McVay transit study which included a diverse group on the
Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC). They just finished the Tier I screen high level and are ready
to move into Tier I1. They are looking at all transit improvement options. That relates to Franklin
Boulevard as an existing EmX route. They are looking at LTD's current service to see how other
transit improvements would tie into future routes.
Springfield Principal Engineer Kristi Krueger said the 2008 version of the design included
roundabouts at each end, with signals in between. At that time, they looked at how they could reduce
the impacts to the area near the U -Haul business and EmX lines. Through the experience with EmX
on Pioneer Parkway, they learned that because of the use of the roundabout, an exclusive lane was not
needed for EmX. They looked at different designs for roundabouts and changing the signaled
intersections to roundabouts, keeping EmX in mixed traffic. The also looked at the cross section for
future needs for growth and capacity. The most western roundabout was also moved slightly to
preserve a potential historic building, which created less impact on other areas. During the NEPA
process, they learned that in order to proceed with the Categorical Exclusion (CE), the envelope
needed to be moved so both the north and south sides were impacted equally.
October 27, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing
City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 4 of 7
Commissioner Leiken asked if they would have the ability to create a designated lane for EmX in the
future if the Glenwood area became a major destination.
Ms. Krueger said in the proposed roundabout design, the EmX stations are at the roundabouts with
exclusive lanes. As part of the design, they are looking at a space on the outside, leaving the stations
and adding exclusive lanes if needed.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing for the Springfield City Council
Board Chair Farr opened the public hearing for Lane County.
Dan Egan, Director of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce Springfield, OR. Mr. Egan
said the Chamber spent a number of years and hours looking at the Glenwood Refinement
Plan (GRP) and the City took their comments into consideration. When looking at it from a
business point of view, they had asked for the City and the plan to have flexibility. They
assumed when private development came, adjustments to the plan would be needed. This is a
good thing and this may not be the last time the Plan is changed as other things change. The
Springfield Chamber supports this amendment. The City had done well in checking with
businesses and although not every one of them is happy, we have a good public process in
Springfield. This is a small, but important adjustment and the Chamber supports the
amendments so planning for the roadway can go forward. He looks forward to coming back
for additional adjustments as private developers come into the area.
Commissioner Stewart asked about the action to be taken by the Board.
Any action will take place after the public hearing is closed.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing for the Springfield City Council.
Board Chair Farr closed the public hearing and public record for Lane County
IT WAS MOVED BY BOARD MEMBER STEWART WITH A SECOND BY BOARD
MEMBER LEIKEN TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. PA13-09.
Commissioner Sorenson asked about process if the City changed the ordinance. He felt it might be
best to have the City adopt the ordinance prior to the County since it was initiated by the City.
Lane County Counsel said the City and County want to adopt the same ordinance and code
amendments. If changes are made by the City before they adopt the ordinance, they would need to
conduct another reading, but not public hearing.
Commissioner Bozievich said this discussion occurred whenever they co -adopted an ordinance.
Generally, the group initiating the ordinance prefered to adopt last to defend an appeal.
Lane County Counsel said that is often the process for that reason
October 27, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing
City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 5 of 7
THE MOTION PASSED WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
COMMISSIONER LEIKEN — AYE
COMMISSIONER SORENSON — AYE
COMMISSIONER STEWART — AYE
COMMISSIONER BOZIEVICH — AYE
COMMISSIONER FARR - AYE
Mayor Lundberg noted that the Springfield City Council also closed the public record.
Chair Farr opened the public hearing for Lane County for LANE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 14-13
—IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING LANE CODE CHAPTER 10 TO REFLECT ADOPTED
AMENDMENTS TO THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE APPENDIX 3 GLENWOOD
REFINEMENT PLAN POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES — PHASE 1
(LC 10.600-15) AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE (SPRINGFIELD FILE NOS.
TYP414-00002 & TYP414-00004. LANE COUNTY FILE NO 509-PA14-05471).
Lane County Senior Planner Keir Miller said this was an additional piece to the previous ordinance. It
would enable the County to co -adopt the provisions in the Springfield Development Code that are
applicable within Springfield's urban transition area (UTA), pursuant to an intergovernmental
agreement between the City of Springfield and Lane County.
No one appeared to speak
Chair Farr closed the public hearing and public record for Lane County..
IT WAS MOVED BY BOARD MEMBER STEWART WITH A SECOND BY BOARD
MEMBER LEIKEN TO ADOPT LANE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 14-13.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
COMMISSIONER LEIKEN — AYE
COMMISSIONER SORENSON — AYE
COMMISSIONER STEWART — AYE
COMMISSIONER BOZIEVICH — AYE
COMMISSIONER FARR - AYE
2. Resolution to Expand the Springfield Community Rural Enterprise Zone.
SPRINGFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 2014-34 — A RESOLUTION OF SPRINGFIELD
REQUESTING THAT THE SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE ZONE BE
EXPANDED AND AUTHORIZING THE SPRINGFIELD CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT
THIS RESOLUTION TO THE STATE OF OREGON FOR APPROVAL
Springfield Community Development Manager John Tamulonis presented the staff report on this item.
Lane County Community and Economic Development Manager Glenda Poling was also present.
October 27, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing
City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 6 of 7
The City of Springfield would like to expand the city's Enterprise Zone designation. To do this
requires a public hearing and action by the City and County.
The County is being asked to co-sponsor the application for the expansion of the City of Springfield
Enterprise Zone. The expansion as proposed includes industrial lands in Goshen, which belong in the
GREAT (Goshen Regional Employment and Transition) Plan. Staff believes this is an excellent tool
in building that plan and getting good development in the Goshen area.
Commissioner Farr said tonight's action does not preclude the topic for discussion tomorrow
regarding Goshen and Springfield's urban growth boundary (UGB).
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing for the Springfield City Council.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing for the Springfield City Council.
Lane County did not have a public hearing on this item.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-34. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. (1 ABSENT — WYLIE)
LANE COUNTY ORDER 14-10-27-01 — IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR AN
EXPANSION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ENTERPRISE ZONE TO INCLUDE
ADDITIONAL LAND IN LANE COUNTY (GOSHEN) AND THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.
IT WAS MOVED BY BOARD MEMBER BOZIEVICH WITH A SECOND BY BOARD
MEMBER LEIKEN TO APPROVE ORDER 14-10-27-01.
Commissioner Stewart said when he first embarked on the idea of Goshen, he didn't think they would
have to consider Enterprise Zones or other tax programs. After listening to staff and also talking with
a land owner (Umpqua Dairy) in the area, he found this is an important tool to help businesses come
into Goshen. He now understands the need for it and that these things do help businesses make
decisions. He was originally concerned about the effect in regards to taxes with the Goshen Fire
District, but spoke with the Fire Chief and now feels comfortable with this program.
Ms. Poling said Lane County staff met with Umpqua Dairy in 2012 to discuss building a warehouse
distribution in Goshen. They have outgrown their property on Airport Road and need to move. One of
the critical components in moving to the Goshen location is being in an Enterprise Zone.
Commissioner Leiken said he had seen the Enterprise Zone as a good tool. He spoke regarding Sony
in Gateway and the growth that followed. The Enterprise Zone creates investment and has been a
good tool for the City of Springfield and he is supportive of this addition.
October 27, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing
City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 7 of 7
Commissioner Farr said Commissioner Leiken had often said that although Sony left, they left behind
a building and infrastructure that has served the area well over the years, and given the public a return
on their investment.
Commissioner Bozievich said he supports the motion. They have had recent experience in trying to
grow business in an area that didn't have an Enterprise Zone and were able to keep the businesses with
lottery dollars. An Enterprise Zone would have been easier. The Enterprise Zone had been
controversial, but he noted that Hynix Semiconductor, who came in using the Enterprise Zone
program, is still the ninth highest tax payer in the City of Eugene.
Commissioner Farr agreed and said video lottery funds would have been available elsewhere if an
Enterprise Zone had been used. Springfield uses this tool admirably.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lundberg thanked the County Commissioners for coming to the meeting and adjourned the
Springfield City Council at 7:50 p.m.
Board Chair Farr adjourned the County Commissioners at 7:50 p.m
Minutes Recorder
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
L�
Christine L. Lundb rg
Mayor
Attest:
City Rec r er