Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/2015 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD OCTOBER 19, 2015 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday October 19, 2015 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Urbanization Element: Potential Land Use Planning and Development Policies to Guide Efficient Urban Transition within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). (Metro Plan Amendment File No. LRP 2009-00014). Linda Pauly, Principal Planner, presented the staff report on this item. On October 5, Council looked at Urbanization Element Part 1 and tonight's work session is Part 2. This element of the Springfield 2030 Plan addresses Statewide Goal 14: Urbanization. Because the City is proposing to amend the urban growth boundary (UGB), the City is required to adopt land use policies to guide orderly and efficient transition of land from rural to urban. Those policies must also ensure efficient use of the land supply and provide for livability. Ms. Pauly referred to Attachment 2 of the agenda packet, a map showing the existing UGB, City Limits, and the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay Zone. It also showed the proposed zoning for the proposed growth areas. The purpose of tonight's work session is to review draft policies that staff has compiled. The 2030 Urbanization Element also includes some existing Metro Plan policies. Those policies are highlighted in blue print within the policy document. The 2030 Urbanization Element is a combination of existing Metro Plan policies that have been refined to be directed at Springfield only, and the new policies to address any new land that is brought into the UGB. She referred to Attachment 3 in the agenda packet which included the existing Metro Plan policies (Chapters IIC and IIE) the Springfield 2030 Urbanization Element will replace. Ms. Pauly said the Council has adopted and the State acknowledged the Residential Land and Housing Element of the 2030 Plan. The Economic Element and Urbanization Element are the next two chapters to be moved forward for adoption. They will continue to rely on the other elements of the Metro Plan until Springfield adopts their own elements if needed. Council had three work sessions on the Economic Element several years ago. The final document will come to Council for consideration and adoption. Ms. Pauly said she would go through each Urbanization Goal and associated policies and ask for Council input on each. A couple of items have been flagged for consideration as well. There were five goals reviewed by Council on October 5. She noted two minor revisions on those goals following Council input. There were 52 policies: 15 were existing Metro Plan policies that are not being changed; no change to Springfield's annexation policies; four Metro Plan policies regarding greenway, City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 2 river corridors and waterways based on existing plan policy and City's practice; and policies to address Springfield's 2030 land needs and the planning required to prepare the land in the UGB expansion areas for development. UG -1: Promote compact, orderly and efficient urban development by guiding future growth to vacant sites and redevelopment areas within the established areas of the city, and to urbanizable lands where future annexation and development may occur. Policy #1: Urbanizable lands within the 2030 UGB shall be converted to urban uses as shown in the Metro Plan Diagram and as more particularly described in the neighborhood refinement plans, other applicable area -specific plans, and the policies of this Plan. Ms. Pauly said the Metro Plan diagram shows where the proposed land uses for the future are in Springfield. The City is still relying on the old plan designations for the 2030 Plan. She noted the different Refinement Plans throughout the City as shown on the map. The map also showed the proposed plan designations for areas Council is proposing for the UGB expansion area. Councilor Woodrow referred to policy #11 under the first goal. She suggested changing the wording to "economic development in e4ese convenient proximity ..." to match a previous goal. She also referred to policy 414 and suggested they switch the wording around so it starts with the assertive section, and not the conditional to match other policies. Ms. Pauly said # 14 is an existing policy in the Metro Plan. They were trying to leave as many existing policies alone as possible so as not to raise more issues. If Council would like those policies wordsmithed, staff can do that. Councilor Pishioneri asked about the spacing for an overpass in north Springfield and if it was convertible to an on/off ramp. He is concerned about expanding in that area and having more congestion. It would be nice to have another access from I-5. Mr. Boyatt said it is a three mile spacing standard so would not be eligible. Before converting to an urban holding area to a zone that will allow urban development, the City will need to address the problems with GatewayBeltline and also I-5 Beltline. Staff is still discussing how to address that issue. Splitting the traffic might be a potential solution, but doesn't meet the standard. Mayor Lundberg said that area also has the Eugene side and they are busy building out a number of things including the Veteran's Administration (VA) hospital. Those developments will impact the Springfield side of the freeway. There is a lot to consider and they have thought about it for many years. Councilor VanGordon said Policies #8 and #9 seem to be saying the same thing. This might be a good opportunity to use a table or combine the two goals. Ms. Pauly said the policies were to distinguish that north Gateway had larger parcels over 50 acres, and the Mill Race had smaller parcels. Policy #8 is just for North Gateway and #9 is for both. Mayor Lundberg said a table might clarify things and make it easier to compare. Ms. Pauly referred to Policy #10 and #13, policies that ensure development of employment uses in the two new areas would be coordinated with existing and future development. She reviewed the language City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 3 of Policy #10 which was a commitment for the Council. This policy is one way the Council could provide incentives for development. The advantage is that areas could be planned as a whole. It is harder to do that when they respond to development proposals. This would still allow a developer to submit a proposal, but gives the City a way to incentivize. Mayor Lundberg said there are many opportunities where the plan for development fits into the area. When it doesn't fit, it can be a big problem. They need to keep some flexibility so it is not too limiting. Ms. Pauly said they know the stakeholders in the expansion and adjacent areas and have an existing Gateway Refinement Plan with development policies. This would be a broader process than the Glenwood Refinement Plan. The flexibility comes from whatever plan designation is assigned to the sites to allow target industries. The City will be in the driver's seat as the approver, but having a process would incentivize development more. Mr. Grimaldi said this provides an alternative or option, not a requirement. Mayor Lundberg said she is more a proponent of flexibility and incentivizing. Councilor Ralston said the last thing he wants is to be too prescriptive of what is developed. He is concerned that that wording states the "Council will conduct". He wants to make sure they have flexibility. Mr. Grimaldi said the advantage of having it City initiated is working with the property owners to have some type of agreement. That way when development occurs, there is something in place. If we wait for the opportunity to be presented, there may be a delay and we could lose the opportunity. Ms. Pauly said with the UGB expansion, the City will be bringing in land that doesn't have infrastructure planned. The City will have to adopt amendments to the Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) after the land is brought into the UGB to describe how it will be served. We need to establish a framework for infrastructure as part of the Refinement Plan process. Councilor Pishioneri asked if there would be a way to prevent the undesirable outcome of a business wanting to come in that is not desirable in terms of providing adequate employment. Ms. Pauly said the plan designation and zoning will determine what uses can be on the site. Those use lists can be as flexible or rigid as Council would like, as long as they implement the needs of the expansion. That is one of the reasons staff is not recommending to plan and zone the land now. They have instead created the flexible holding area concept. Councilor Moore said on Policy #I I she appreciates all of the comments about water, riparian areas, and wetlands. She also appreciated Policy # 12 mentioning clean manufacturing uses. It's important for the public to know we want to protect our water. Mayor Lundberg said the term "clean manufacturing" in Policy #12 is very ambiguous. A definition of that term would be helpful. UG -2: Promote efficient and economical patterns of mixed land uses and development densities that locate a variety of different life activities, such as employment, housing, shopping and recreation in convenient proximity; and where accessible by multiple modes of transportation — including walking, City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 4 bicycling, and transit in addition to motor vehicles — both within and between neighborhoods and districts. Ms. Pauly said Policies # 18-23 implement existing policies, including Springfield's TSP. Policy #24 talks about amending the Gateway Refinement Plan to include the North Gateways site. Staff is recommending this policy because planning for that area is crucial. The best way to do that is to amend the Gateway Refinement Plan boundary and then go through the process to determine how those policies would affect that area. Councilor Woodrow asked how flexible the language was under Policy #22. Ms. Pauly said this is typically done during site plan review and is a current policy in the Metro Plan. The City Attorney's office added "As permitted under Oregon law". An example of this would be an annexation agreement. City Attorney Lauren King said with or without the language "As permitted under Oregon law", the City would still need to comply with Oregon law. When property is annexed or improved, there are requirements which are proportional to the use. The policies will inform how future refinement plans and codes will be developed. Mr. Grimaldi said it could be as simple as requirements of bike racks, lane widths, etc. Mayor Lundberg said this reminded her of the process of the Beltline/I-5 interchange when they had to do a number of things to accommodate traffic. It is crucial to have something like this as a reminder of what is required. UG -3: Provide an adequate level of urban services, including but not limited to public water, wastewater, and stormwater management systems, environmental services and an urban multi -modal transportation system as urban development occurs within the Springfield UGB. Ms. Pauly said mostly policies in this section are existing policies in the Metro Plan. Councilor Wylie asked for clarification on environmental services. Environmental Services Manager Matt Stouder said it includes wastewater, stormwater, discharge, and administration of permits through the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Councilor Wylie said that could be changed to say "and other environmental services". UG -4: As the City grows and as land develops, maintain and reinforce Springfield's identity as a river - oriented community in the City's land development patterns and infrastructure design, emphasizing and strengthening physical connections between people and nature. Ms. Pauly said this had been wordsmithed since Council review. Councilor Ralston said the City needs to protect the scenic qualities. Ms. Pauly said Policies #42 through #47 emphasize the importance of the river corridors and waterways, and Springfield's livability. They are existing Metro Plan policies that were made Springfield specific. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 5 Mayor Lundberg said this was a great goal, especially now that we are focusing on river districts between Springfield, Eugene and Lane County. We are bound by and have opportunity to emphasize and experience our rivers. Ms. Pauly said Policies #48 and #49 say the City needs to do Goal 5 natural resource updates. We have not yet done that work as part of the 2030 Plan, but will do that after the UGB is adopted. The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has concurred with that approach. Mayor Lundberg said she would like more of an explanation of the term "clean" technologies. Ms. Pauly asked for Council's input on the term "eco -district". Discussion was held regarding an appropriate term and how to recognize the importance of our rivers. Mr. Boyatt suggested rewording to "be planned and zoned ase" economic districts to that provide suitable sites ..." UG -5: Increase Springfield's capability to respond to natural hazard impacts to enhance public safety, health and robustness of the economy and natural environment by creating opportunities for innovative urban development and economic diversification. Ms. Pauly said this goal had been slightly wordsmithed. Councilor Woodrow noted an extra word in Policy #51. Council decided to have staff remove the word "to" so it will read "... in ways that will ensure the stability ..." Council had no need for the second work session on this topic. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: a" 4neA- Amy Sow City Recorder