Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 03 16 AIS Springfield Refineent PlanMEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE OF REGULAR SESSION: March 16, 2010 TO: Springfield and Lane County Planning PLANNING COMMISSION Commissions TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM FROM: Greg Mott Linda Pauly SUBJECT: Metro Plan Amendment: Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan LRP 2009-00014/ PA 09-6018 and Springfield Development Code Amendments LRP 2009- 00015/PA 09-6018 ACTION REQUESTED: Continue the public hearing to receive additional testimony on the proposed Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) and proposed Springfield Development Code Amendments. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commissions are asked to begin their deliberation on the merits of the proposals and/or to request additional information from staff to assist them before preparing recommendations to their respective elected officials regarding co-adoption of a land use policy package that includes: 1. a parcel-specific plan diagram for Springfield (Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Diagram); 2. selection of a preferred alternative for Springfield’s separate Urban Growth Boundary; 3. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan text and appendices: Residential Land Inventory and Housing Needs Analysis, Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis, Economic Development Objectives and Strategies; 4. amendments to the Springfield Development Code to implement Land Use Efficiency Measures. ISSUE: The City of Springfield and Lane County propose to: 1) Co-adopt amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan to implement 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650 (HB 3337) and ORS 197.295 to 197.314, establishing a separate Springfield urban growth boundary, demonstrating that Springfield's comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary established pursuant to statewide planning goals and rules to accommodate estimated needs for 20 years, and adopting related goals, objectives, findings, policies, designations, measures, analyses, determinations, and inventories for the metropolitan area east of Interstate Highway I-5. The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) includes a site specific plan diagram and plan provisions applicable to Springfield only. The SRP diagram and text supplements and supports the existing policies and provisions of the Metro Plan. 2) Co-adopt amendments to the Springfield Development Code to implement Land Use Efficiency Measures; DISCUSSION: On February 17, 2010 the Joint Planning Commissions conducted a public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan Amendment. The Commissioners elected to continue the hearing to March 16, 2010. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Minutes from February 17, 2010 Regular Session Attachment 2: Springfield Public Schools Administrative Facilities Plan – Executive Summary Attachment 3: Written testimony received since the February 17th hearing Minutes approved by:  Springfield Planning Commission:   Lane County Planning Commission:   M I N U T E S JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF SPRINGFIELD AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS City Council Chambers 225 Fifth Street—Springfield February 17, 2010 7:00 p.m. SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION: Frank Cross, Chair; Johnny Kirschenmann, Vice Chair; Lee Beyer, Eric Smith, Sheri Moore, Steve Moe, Sean VanGordon, members; Linda Pauly, Greg Mott, Bill Grill, staff. LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Robert Noble, Chair; Tony McCown, Vice Chair; Lisa Arkin, Steve Dignam, George Goldstein, Nancy Nichols, Joseph Siekiel-Zdzienicki, John Sullivan, members; Kent Howe, staff. Mr. Cross convened the meeting. He explained the purpose of the meeting was to conduct a public testimony to receive testimony on the proposed Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) and proposed Springfield Development Code Amendments. The Planning Commissions were asked to forward recommendations to their respective elected officials regarding co-adoption of a land use policy package that included: 1. A parcel specific plan diagram for SRP Diagram; 2. Selection of a preferred alternative for Springfield’s separate urban growth boundary (UGB); 3. SRP text and appendices: Residential Land Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis, Economic Development Objectives and Strategies; 4. Amendments to the Springfield Development Code to implement Land Use Efficiency Measures. Mr. Cross stated the public hearing would be continued on March 16, 2010 due to the complexity of the proposals and the anticipated community interest. He explained the logistics of how the meeting would be conducted adding the record would be held open through March 16. People were welcome to offer public testimony and/or complete comment cards available this evening, to submit written testimony. Mr. Noble said people could offer public comment on issues that were not before the commissions this evening. Mr. Cross said commissioners would not be able to answer specific questions this evening, but staff would prepare a summary of responses to all testimony received tonight and March 16. He called for public comment. There was no public comment. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions— February 17, 2010 Page 1 City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County Attachment 1-1 MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions— February 17, 2010 Page 2 City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County 1. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE There was no business from the audience. 2. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Cross opened the public hearing for the Springfield Planning Commission. Mr. Noble opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission. A. EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA PLAN (METRO PLAN AMENDMENT): • SPRINGFIELD 2030 REFINEMENT PLAN LRP2009-00014 AND SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS LRP2009-00015. • LANE COUNTY PA 09-6018. Mr. Mott said the City of Springfield had proposed, and the City and Lane County needed to approve an amendment to the Metro Plan for all of the area east of I-5 currently in the Metro Plan UGB. A new UGB would be established for Springfield, as enacted by the Oregon State Legislature in 2007 that required the City of Springfield to have its own UGB. The Planning Commissions would listen to testimony, deliberation and forward recommendations to the City of Springfield City Council and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The Metro Plan amendments and UGB expansion would be forwarded to Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for approval following BCC action. Linda Pauly offered a PowerPoint presentation, reviewing the history, public participation process and timeline for the project. The plan contained the following elements: urbanization element, land use and urban design element, residential land and housing element, and the Springfield residential land and housing needs analysis. The plan contained an economic element accompanied by the Springfield commercial and industrial lands study, which included an economic opportunities analysis and economic development strategies. Bob Parker, ECONorthwest, provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Springfield UGB Concepts: Joint City and County Planning Commission Hearing, February 17, 2010, copies of which had been distributed to commissioners. He reviewed the Process Steps for the project, the UGB Expansion Alternatives Analysis, and Draft Land Use Concepts. Ken Vogeney, City of Springfield City Engineer, directed commissioners to Attachment 3-38 in the agenda packet, a document entitled: DRAFT Provision of Transportation, Stormwater, and Wastewa- ter Service UGB Expansion Areas Employment Lands Only Commercial/Industrial/Public Zoning. Mr. Vogeney briefly reviewed the document for commissioners. Mr. Dignam arrived at 8:05 p.m. The commissioners took a short break. Mr. Cross called for public testimony. Attachment 1-2 MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions— February 17, 2010 Page 3 City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County Cosetta Reese, 37901 Shenandoah Loop, Springfield, was the chair of Economic Development Committee of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce. Her comments were related to the residential lands study. The chamber had closely followed the process. The committee and the chamber’s board of directors were interested in the topic as the ability for economic development in Springfield depended upon it. The UGB was created to encourage smart development and to discourage urban sprawl. The current consideration included no allowance for an expansion of the residential land supply. The chamber encouraged the City to be bold and do what was right rather than what was easy. She submitted a copy of her comments for inclusion in the public record. Rick Satre, 101 East Broadway, Suite 480, Eugene, offered comments on residential lands. He said the Residential Lands Study assumed future residential construction would occur at higher densities than had occurred historically. Development on sloped ground was expensive and impractical at projected densities and probably not achievable under the Hillside Ordinance. The marketplace may not support housing on small and infill lots and people would look elsewhere to the outlying communities. He asserted the population forecast of about 0.9 percent was not realistic when looking at historic data between 1950 and 2007. Under projecting population demand would further contribute to pushing growth to outlying communities. The proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and Springfield Development Code were contrary to land use and trip reduction objectives, and efficient provision of public services. He encouraged the Planning Commissions to keep the record open and take their time in the decision making process. He submitted a copy of his comments for inclusion in the public record. Mike Miller, 3330 Hayden Bridge Road, Springfield, owned property north of Hayden Bridge Road that had not been considered for inclusion in the UGB. A portion of his property was within the UGB and a portion of it was in the county’s jurisdiction. He asked the commissioners to considering expanding the UGB north from Hayden Bridge beyond 300 feet, and to the McKenzie River. Much of the land he referred to was above the flood plain and the floodway. The river was an asset to the City and the area would provide land for open space, mixed use, residential and commercial activity. As a real estate professional and developer, he said building in the Thurston Hills was not desirable in today’s market. If flat, level ground was not provided, buyers would go to other areas. He asserted the Residential Lands Study was flawed. Blake Hastings, 5790 Highbanks, Springfield, was a real estate professional and property owner. While supportive of the process, he said the land study was flawed. He encouraged the commissioners to be as flexible as possible and to reexamine the residential component of the study. George Grier, 1342½ 66th Street, Springfield, served on the Lane County Farm Bureau, Oregon Farm Bureau State Land Use Advisory Committee, and recently served on Springfield’s Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Stakeholder Committee and the System Development Charge Citizens’ Advisory Committee. Springfield had experienced growth during the last 20 years that it was unlikely to see again. Much of the remaining land was in the flood plain or agricultural land. He was concerned that agricultural land continued to be developed as food security and food safety issues grew. He urged the commissioners to look at all of the alternatives to protect agricultural land before increasing the UGB. It did not make sense to move to constrained areas in the flood plain because it was expensive to provide urban services and the City did not have the resources to do so. It made more sense to develop within the existing UGB. He said he would submit written testimony for inclusion in the public record. Walt Johnson, 89733 Armitage Road, Eugene, said his family had farmed the area east of I-5, north of the Royal Caribbean facility, for many years. The area had both high and poor quality agricultural land, the floods channeled through the land during rainy periods and the land had an irregular contour. He Attachment 1-3 MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions— February 17, 2010 Page 4 City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County asked that the land be zoned for non-agricultural purposes. He added the best neighbor for farmland was commercial/industrial uses. Residential was least compatible due to dust and noise issues. Frank Light, 3515 Valentine Court, Springfield, owned land adjacent to the Mohawk nodal develop- ment, and asked that it be rezoned from low density residential to commercial, as it was bound on the north, south and west by commercial development, and was the last piece of property in the area that was zoned residential. Gail Combs, 1536 Vera Drive, Springfield, said her point of view had already been expressed. Bill Kloos, 375 West Fourth Avenue, #204, Eugene, representing the Willamette Water Company, supported Concept 1, which proposed to expand the Springfield UGB to include 235 acres for employ- ment use in the Seavey Loop/Goshen area. He asserted the staff report downgraded this area for inclusion in the UGB because it did not have water and fire service, which was not correct. Willamette Water Company provided water service and the Goshen Rural Fire Protection District provided fire protection. Mr. Kloos submitted a letter containing his testimony dated February 17, 2010, regarding Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, for inclusion the public record Bill Kloos, 375 West Fourth Avenue, #204, Eugene, representing the Home Builders Association (HBA), stated a letter dated February 17, 2010, regarding Springfield Refinement Plan and Related Documents; File LRP 2009-00014 Testimony of Home Builders Association of Lane County, had been distributed previously to commissioners. He said the plan amendment process was moving forward on the premise that there was sufficient residential land. Although Springfield a sufficient quantity of raw land for 20 years, the City needed to comply with other statewide planning goals, the most important of which was Goal 12. He encouraged commissioners to think about what it meant to comply with Goal 12. Don Grant, 80886 Mahogany Lane, Springfield, encouraged Springfield to look at Eugene’s mistakes. Eugene had refused to expand its UGB and forced infill and development of hillside lots which was expensive, and had fueled the expansion of Creswell, Veneta, Springfield and Junction City. This caused traffic problems and forced many people of middle income to leave Eugene, leaving the City with crime and enforcement problems. He questioned the accuracy of a chart in the City’s materials that indicated a portion of his land was agricultural. Ken Schmidt, 605 Fair Oaks, Eugene, was born and raised in Springfield, and had commercial and residential investments in Springfield. He served on the Glenwood CAC, the Economic Development Committee and was involved with the Chamber of Commerce. He was the owner of a commercial property at 42nd Avenue and E Street, which contained a building. One-half of the building was cited on heavy industrial property and one-half was cited on community commercial property. He asked to have the entire site plus an adjacent parcel zoned community commercial. The sites were small and he did not believe heavy industrial could be built on the properties. He supported Mike Miller’s request, noting it was difficult to sell and build on properties on the hillside. Ms. Pauly said letters from the following people had been received for inclusion in the public record: Richard Proulx, Ralph Wheeler, Bill Kloos on behalf of the HBA, Jim Spickerman on behalf of Puzzle Parts, LLC, Marcia Sexton on behalf of Parkway Manor Homeowners Association, Michael Kelly and Randall Hledik, Ted Corbin on behalf of the Springfield Historic Commission, Walter Johnson of Johnson Farms, Hugh Hiller and Phyllis Hiller, Eugene Murr and Emma Murr, Gregory, Lorrisa Leno, and Frank M. Light. Ms. Moore thanked the members of the public for attending the public hearing. Attachment 1-4 MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions— February 17, 2010 Page 5 City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County Mr. Cross said the public record would be held open until March 16, 2010. When all of the testimony had been received, staff would create a summary of responses to questions raised during the public hearing. Mr. Cross adjourned the Springfield Planning Commission at 9:10 p.m., adding the commission would reconvene at 6:00 p.m. on March 16, 2010. (Recorded by Linda Henry) Attachment 1-5 Attachment 2-1 Attachment 2-2 Attachment 2-3 Attachment 2-4 Attachment 2-5 Attachment 3-1 Attachment 3-2 Attachment 3-3 Attachment 3-4 Attachment 3-5 Attachment 3-6 Attachment 3-7 Attachment 3-8 Attachment 3-9 Attachment 3-10 Attachment 3-11 Attachment 3-12 Attachment 3-13 Attachment 3-14 Attachment 3-15 Attachment 3-16 Attachment 3-17 Attachment 3-18 Attachment 3-19 Attachment 3-20 Attachment 3-21 Attachment 3-22 Attachment 3-23