HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 03 01 Comprehensive Planning Work ProgramMEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF HEARING: March 1, 2011 PLANNING
TO: Springfield Planning Commission COMMISSION
FROM: Bill Grile, Development Services Director TRANSMITTAL
MEMORANDUM
ITEM TITLE:
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PLANNING DIVISION’S COMPREHENSIVE
PLANNING WORK PROGRAM.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Receive a briefing about the Planning Division’s comprehensive planning work program, ask
questions, and offer feedback.
ISSUE:
The Planning Division’s comprehensive planning work program guides Springfield’s long-range
planning projects. From time to time, it is prudent for staff to brief the Planning Commission about
these projects and their scheduled targets, providing an opportunity to address questions and hear
feedback.
DISCUSSION:
The Development Services Department’s Planning Division is comprised of two administrative
divisions. One is the Comprehensive Planning Section, which is responsible for long-range planning
projects. The Other is the Urban Planning Section; it administers and maintains the Springfield
Development Code, which includes processing land use applications to develop and use property.
Planning staff are assigned to each section but accept interchangeable assignments based on
priorities, work load and expertise/skill sets.
Planning Division Manager Greg Mott relies on Linda Pauly to supervise the Comprehensive Planning
Section and on Jim Donovan to supervise the Urban Planning Section. Five professional planners
and technical support staff assist these three with work program responsibilities. Public Works staff,
the City Attorney’s Office and occasionally consultants also make important contributions.
This work session item will provide the Planning Commission with an update about the status of the
Division’s comprehensive planning work program priorities.
Comprehensive planning work program priorities at present are:
(1) Completing the proposed Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and
HB3337-mandated urban growth boundary (UGB);
(2) Updating the Glenwood Refinement Plan; and
(3) Implementing the Downtown Springfield Urban Design Plan.
Staff will address questions and welcomes feedback.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Overview
2. Glenwood Refinement Plan Overview
3. Downtown Springfield Urban Design Plan Overview
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Overview
• The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (aka, the Metro Plan) is nearly
30 years old. It was acknowledged (ie., approved) by the State in 1982 and since then has
undergone only limited updates. Springfield and Eugene currently share a single UGB
which cannot be modified without the consent of the other, along with Lane County’s
approval.
• By 2005, it was clear that Springfield and Eugene held different views about approaches
to growth management, and that the Metro Plan’s single UGB prevented Springfield from
meeting its planning needs for residential, commercial and industrial lands.
• HB3337 was enacted by the 2007 Legislature. The law was needed in part because the
Metro partners held different viewpoints about when to plan … and because the
Springfield City Council felt strongly that it needed to proceed with addressing land
needs sooner rather than later … and independently from Eugene.
• HB3337 requires the City to address and provide a 20-year supply of lands suitable for a
variety of housing types and density mixes. And it requires Springfield to establish a
discrete UGB, separate from the one in place in the Metro Plan for nearly 30 years.
• Springfield hired EcoNW to conduct a residential land needs analysis at the same time
City undertook a study of the amount of residentially zoned lands available for a mix of
housing types at various densities. These two studies merged into what has become the
Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. The City Council adopted
this in December 2009 to fulfill part of the mandated requirements of HB3337.
• At the same time, Springfield also asked EcoNW to evaluate the City’s inventory of
employment lands … lands planned and zoned for commercial / industrial uses … and to
update its so-called Goal 9 element based on contemporary factors and the need to
provide jobs for its residents. So this work began as well and concluded with action by
the City Council to adopt the Springfield Commercial/Industrial Inventory and
Economic Opportunities Analysis in January 2010.
• These two studies … the Residential and Commercial/Industrial evaluations … were
guided by technical advisory and citizen oversight committees. Over a dozen public
meetings helped inform the public and guide outcomes. The studies produced two
general conclusions:
1. Springfield can meet its residential needs within the existing UGB area except for a
shortfall of about 30 acres of High Density Residential lands (HDR) … which can be
met in Glenwood by redesignating lands for higher density housing.
Attachment 1-1
2. Springfield needs roughly 640 more acres of employment lands … and that even after
planning for substantial redevelopment of existing lands within the City and UGB …
it is impossible to find these without expanding its UGB.
• Knowing that a UGB expansion must be considered, the City then commenced an
analysis of alternative growth areas … applying strict criteria established by Goal 14 and
accompanying ORS priorities for selection of growth lands. This work led to more
public input about the criteria and alternative areas …
… and then to a pair of work sessions with the City and Lane County Planning
Commissions about a year ago, with a public hearing in the spring and then a pair of
meetings deliberating. Last May the Planning Commissions forwarded a pair of
separate recommendations to their respected elected bodies.
Springfield PC:
1. Agreed that about 30 acres of HDR could be designated in Glenwood and
that, at least statistically, a 20-year supply of residential lands could be
established without expanding the UGB.
2. Fully supported the recommendation to identify 640 acres of needed
employment lands, but recognized that additional public input, analysis and
hearings would be needed to select the best areas for an expansion of the UGB
for employment lands.
Lane Co PC:
1. Agreed with the residential findings and the Glenwood solution for additional
HDR.
2. Agreed that additional employment lands are needed and that some expansion
of the UGB will be needed to designate these lands, but stopped short of
agreeing that it should be the full amount of acreage needed to fulfill the
identified 640 acres of needed employment lands.
• Since May, the City and its consultant team have been working to evaluate and address
the extensive comments received in the Planning Commissions’ record from last spring,
and to conduct additional analysis about the suitability and constraints appurtenant to
several alternative growth areas east of I-5 and near to Springfield. The public hearing
testimony about employment lands and alternatives required us to conduct considerably
more analysis than we’d anticipated would be necessary, but that work is now nearly
complete.
Attachment 1-2
3 | Page
• Given this background … a three-step process has been developed to come before the
City Council and Board of County Commissioners to consider what we understand can
be an overwhelming amount of information and analysis.
STEP 1 began with the Joint Springfield / Lane County Work Session on
February 22nd. This step simply asks both elected bodies to fulfill the
requirements of HB3337 by doing two things: (1) adopting the Springfield
Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis, (2) adopting the discrete
Springfield UGB … which is a site specific precise line where the existing UGB
east of I-5 exists today. Nothing more. An April 4th JEO hearing is
scheduled to take testimony about STEP 1. If is the City’s and County’s
respective pleasure, adoption can occur as early as April. Adoption of the discrete
UGB for Springfield represents the beginning of the Springfield 2030 Refinement
Plan.
STEP 2 recognizes that adoption of the STEP 1 action does not alter the
fundamental relationship created by the Chapter 4 in the Metro Plan requiring
concurrence by Springfield for a major plan amendments in Eugene, and vice
versa … in addition to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Part of
HB 3337’s intent was to have City UGB and major land use decisions proposed
by one city to be a matter for decision by that City and the County … without
requiring the 3-way concurrence in place here for nearly 30 years.
Amendments to Chapter 4 have been drafted by Springfield and are currently
under review by Lane Co.’s and Eugene’s planning and legal teams. A 3-party
Metro Plan amendment process will commence soon with formal notice to DLCD
… and we’ll schedule one or more JEO work sessions about the proposed
amendment to Chapter 4 before the matter is presented for public hearings and
adoption.
Adoption of STEP 2 will fulfill the intent of HB3337 by redefining the
planning relationship that each city has with the County. Springfield hopes to
see this step completed by this summer, so you’ll have plenty of time before
then to consider the matter.
STEP 3 addresses Springfield’s identified need for 640 acres additional
employment lands. This consideration is scheduled to come before the City
Council and Lane County Commissioners after completion of STEP 2 … and
would not involve Eugene as a decision-maker. City staff and consultants are
continuing to evaluate alternatives and as such, no firm dates are set for either
work sessions or hearings on STEP 3 … but it’s reasonable to think that a firm
recommendation could be circulated for public review, town halls, and joint
Planning Commission hearings next winter.
<AIS ATTACHMENT 1.docx>
Attachment 1-3
Glenwood Refinement Plan Overview
¾ In February 2008, the City Council directed staff to make updating the Glenwood Refinement
Plan a priority work item. To best manage the complexity of updating the Glenwood
Refinement Plan, Council directed staff to undertake this project in three phases.
¾ In October 2008, City staff initiated Phase I, which is being led by a City staff team with
representatives from various divisions and departments. The Planning Commission also
approved a Citizen Involvement Plan for the project at this time.
¾ In January 2009, a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), comprised of 20 individuals representing a
wide variety of interests, was appointed by the Planning Commission to provide input, feedback,
and guidance to staff and elected officials throughout the duration of the project. The CAC has
met 12 times to date. CAC Participant categories are: Glenwood residents; Glenwood
business/property owners; Glenwood employees; general public; developers; designers;
realtors/lenders; chamber of commerce; and affordable housing advocate.
¾ A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was also selected to provide a sounding board for staff
regarding more technical aspects of the project and to ensure interagency and
interdepartmental coordination. TAC members represent: Willamalane; SUB; ODOT; LTD; Lane
County Transportation; Glenwood Water District; Springfield School District; and Springfield
Police, Fire, and City Manager’s Office.
¾ Phase I accomplishments to date:
o Inventoried and analyzed existing conditions and policies governing land use,
transportation, housing, economic development, public facilities, and natural and
historic resources in all of Glenwood; produced Existing Conditions Report Aug 2009.
o Collaborated with CAC to develop a vision for all of Glenwood; produced Visioning Goal
Statements Sept 2009.
o Developed draft policy language, plan concepts, and development code language for the
Glenwood Riverfront. The urban design firm, Crandall Arambula, was also hired to
provide recommendations regarding land use and circulation for the Franklin portion of
the riverfront in coordination with the concurrent Downtown planning project;
produced final recommendations April 2010.
o Developed draft Land Use chapter and draft Transportation Chapter (includes context
information, figures, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies). The CAC
recommended moving the draft Land Use chapter forward in Oct 2010, and it
recommended moving the draft Transportation Chapter forward in Feb 2011.
Attachment 2-1
Page 2 of 2
o CAC issues of concern to date: minimum density for the Residential Mixed‐Use
designation; Franklin Boulevard right‐of‐way width and roundabout size (affected
property owners); park block locations and size (affected property owners).
¾ Upcoming tasks March 2011 – December 2011:
o Complete development of draft chapters for Open Space, Housing, Economic
Development, Public Facilities & Services, Historic Resources, and Annexation.
o Complete draft development code text amendments and amendments to the
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures manual.
o Complete staff report.
o Hold public open house(s).
o Hold work sessions with Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions, Council,
and Board of Commissioners.
o Hold public hearings with Springfield and Planning Commissions, Council, and Board of
Commissioners.
¾ Future work plan tasks:
o Complete Phases Two and Three (Glenwood Boulevard Corridor & Glenwood Core)
Attachment 2-2
Attachment 3-1