HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 09 02 RSCity of Springfield
Regular Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes approved by the Springfield
Planning Commission: ____________________
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD
TUESDAY, September 2, 2014
The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in a regular session in the City Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 7:00 p.m., with Commissioner James presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Chair James, Vice Chair Nelson, Commissioners Kirschenmann, Moe, Vohs, Salladay and Pishioneri. Also
present were, Current Development Manager Greg Mott, , City Attorney, Lauren King, and Management Support
Specialist Brenda Jones and members of the staff.
ABSENT
None
• Springfield Chair Greg James opened the Regular Session
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Commissioner James
Commissioner James asked Legal Counsel if they had anything they would like to state in relation to the Legislative
Hearing. Legal Counsel Lauren King stated that she did not, but stated that it might be helpful if the Commissioners
wanted to disclose any conflict of interest. None of the Commissioners had a conflict of Interest with the exception of
Commissioner Moe
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
\
• July 22, 2014 Public Hearing Minutes: Commissioner Moe motioned to approve the July 22, 2014 Minutes,
Commissioner Kirschenmann seconded. 6:0:1.
• July 29, 2014 Public Hearing Minutes: Commissioner Moe motioned to approve the July 29, 2014 Minutes,
Commissioner Kirschenmann seconded. 6:0:1.
Note: Commissioner Pishioneri was unable to vote, September 2, 2014 was Commissioner Pishioneri first official
meeting.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT
• All Commissioners declared no conflict of Interest with the exception of Commissioner Moe. Commissioner
Moe may have a conflict of interest due to the property he owns in Glenwood, but states that he can be impartial
in the decision making about the application being discussed tonight. It has been his goal to make Glenwood a
better place, will he gain from decisions made, he answered yes, and that is why he is here. He does have property
in Glenwood that could be affected, but it is his feeling that 10-years down the road, he feels like he can make a
decision impartial.
LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
1. Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase I Amendment –
Molly Markarian Senior Planner entered into the record two (2) documents, emails Molly received from Shaun
Nugent and John Brombaugh.
City of Springfield Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 2, 2014
Page 2
The reason Molly is here tonight is to talk about an amendment to the Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan,
specifically to address some of the design changes for Franklin Boulevard and also to request that the Planning
Commission forward a recommendation of approval to both the City of Springfield City Council and the Lane County
Board of Commissioners to adjust the Franklin Boulevard project concept as currently depicted in the Glenwood
Refinement Plan and the associated Springfield Development Code text.
Molly is confident that the Planning Commissioners are aware of the Franklin Boulevard re-development Project
which has been developed with the objective of transforming the Franklin Boulevard from its auto oriented roadway
into a multi-way, multi modal boulevard, which the community hopes will have a catalytic effect on land re-
development in Glenwood.
Molly would like to remind the Commission the Franklin Boulevard project stems from the Springfield Bridges at the
intersection of Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway west to the intersection of Franklin Boulevard and Glenwood
Boulevard.
A couple of milestone: The Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan was adopted in 2004 following a public vote to create the
Glenwood Urban Renewal District. In 2008, the City embarked upon the Franklin Boulevard Study at the end of
which the City Council endorsed a highbred Multiway Boulevard concept. One-year later the City applied for a
Federal Tiger Grant, which was not successful, but it helped push forward the design and concept with the public.
Franklin Boulevard is the main arterial street connecting downtown Eugene, the University of Oregon, and downtown
Springfield. The EmX bus rapid transit (BRT), travels along Franklin Boulevard, serving the Glenwood area. The
Phase 1 Update has been acknowledged by DLCD and includes a discussion of future improvements to Franklin
Boulevard and existing and proposed connecting local streets. Specifically, the Transportation Chapter of the
Glenwood Refinement Plan discusses modernization of Franklin Boulevard by converting the existing roadway into a
multi-modal boulevard with provisions for both local and through traffic, pedestrians, bicycles and transit. The
Franklin Boulevard Project will include wide sidewalks well separated from through traffic; improved spacing for
pedestrian crossings; pedestrian refuges; calmed and slowed traffic; improved access to transit; and buffered bike
lanes. These Project features will improve the safety and attractiveness of the corridor for all users and improve
mobility for the population that lives and works in the corridor. In 2012, the City and the County adopted the Phase I
Glenwood Refinement Plan, one-year later Franklin Boulevard right-of-way annexed to the city limits, in 2014, the
City completed its NEPA environmental review and in 2014 jurisdictional transfer of Franklin Boulevard occurred
transferring from the State to the City. Right now, the Franklin Boulevard re-development project is in the final
stages of drafting their statement of work with their final design consultant team, which will proceed through the rest
of 2014 into 2015.
In the Glenwood Refinement Plan, if you recall, staff included a building envelope for future reconstruction of
Franklin Boulevard. As the City went through the NEPA process, the original concept design was refined and the
building envelope was shifting to reduce impact to properties, so at this time, now that we have a refined design and a
refined envelope the City would like to go back into the Refinement Plan and amend it to accurately depict the current
concept.
Starting in 2008, the design looked like (Molly pointing to a diagram) in the pink. It shows you the buildings that the
project would have impact on under the 2008 design. In the Refinement Plan, as the design was refined, staff showed
an envelope within which a design would occur. In 2013 as the City went through the NEPA process it was refined to
lessen the impact to buildings, which you can see in this diagram. In the final concept we have now, the impact has
been minimized even more.
Commissioner Moe asked if this is the current impact, from the previous slide (not audible). Molly replied that in
2008 shows the original impact. Then there was an interim impact and the new slide shows the current impact today.
Tom Boyatt can talk about the specifics of that process. Tom Boyatt Community Development Manager, added that
there are a couple of key takeaways. The original concept was really a follow up of work that was part of the
Glenwood Refinement Plan amendment done in the early 2000’s. In the 2008 picture, there were 33 buildings with
properties impacted, 28 commercial, 5 residential. Through the first iteration of NEPA we got the number down to 31
commercial, no residential. Remember staff was operating under Council directive to minimize impacts to properties
as practical and still maintain the functionality of the project. The final design recently submitted for NEPAhad 20
City of Springfield Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 2, 2014
Page 3
impacts, all commercial. So from 33 to 20 impacts represents our work refining the project design, using project
elements and working with LTD to get that envelope narrowed.
Commissioner James asked a question related to State Planning Goal 12 in relation to LTD .There are three stations
along the corridor in the latest iteration of the plan, correct? Tom answered that is correct, there are three station
locations. They would be paired stations one on either side of the street, but three locations. Commissioner James
asked if there would be the dedicated lanes as such down the center of the thoroughfare or would they be using
existing traffic lanes with pullouts. Tom answered that the stations would be located at the roundabout intersections
and because it’s a roundabout corridor and there isn’t delayed platooning from signalized intersections we don’t have
a delay problem to the projected future for the transit vehicle. They can function along with everyone else. The neat
part of the design at the station is that there is a split lane for the bus. The EmX vehicle slips out of the roundabout
and where it reinters the roundabout is actually ahead of the traffic coming though, so it has right-of-way. With
everyone going at design speed, the bus will have right-of-way in front of traffic traveling in a circular roadway. In
the 2014 cross section you see in the diagrams, there is 22 feet of future capacity that is embedded in the landscape
medians and some of the parking in the street. Should that day come in 2040 or 100 years from now where dedicated
transit capacity, truck capacity, foot capacity, car capacity is needed, the room will be there inside the boundaries of
this footprint. Commissioner James asked if it is correct that they have moved from 172’ to 175’. Tom responded
yes, at its widest, and centered it along the existing centerline, which was essentially a NEPA requirement to avoid
disproportional impacts. The original design had most of the right-of-way coming from the south side of the facility.
By relocating it to the centerline, we avoided the impact to quite a few buildings.
Commissioner Pishioneri said that the four roundabouts are new to him. The last time he had a conversation about the
roundabouts there was concern with the enlargement on the east side and there was not any on the west end.
Commissioner Pishioneri is concerned about the truck movement in the large Industrial area as well as the size of
some of the lanes, are the cross section to scale? Tom answered he does not know, they are probably schematic.
Commissioner Pishioneri is a little concerned about the width of the bike lanes and how much width they are taking.
Tom asked if they are to narrow or too wide? Commissioner Pishioneri added that he drives in both cities all the time
and he’s concerned there is a shift in Eugene with the width of the bike lanes; they are increasing and decreasing the
size of turn lanes for vehicles to the point where a lot of the vehicles are now violating that space with their tires
because they have run out of space to use in the turn lanes, in preference to bikes, so it seems they encourage liability
onto drivers of vehicles. However, he wonders what is happening to the width on Franklin; is there a master plan for
bikes and width of the bike lanes. Tom responded that it’s a standard bike lane and its required in State Law to be on
this classification of facility, so that’s what the City is doing. It could be shown at 5’ or 6’; 5’ is the minimum
including the stripe. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if this standards in this plan are at minimum. Tom answered that
they are either 5’ or 6’.What you are seeing in Eugene is a bike lane carry through an intersection and sharing that
right turn turf with the right turning vehicle.
Commissioner Pishioneri went on to explain that the reason this is important to him is that he does not want to see feet
or widths taken because we can, as opposed to in some areas where we have to take a minimum, and leave that other
space alone. He would still like to get the numbers on the spaces, what is mandated and what has been opted for.
Tom reminded Commissioner Pishioneri that roundabouts are basically preserving mobility throughout the whole
corridor for a long long time, so it’s a design consideration, they are safer. They will slow the traffic down a little bit
at the intersections and will be safer for everybody. Just to give you final on the freight, staff has been working with
the freight folks and will be doing a lot more of that. We’re not going to be designing every roadway for John’s
cranes. Those heavy loads can be flagged through. Certainly provisions for freight use were discussed when we
negotiated our jurisdictional transfer with ODOT. They were attached to our acceptance of roadway and describe the
process that we will use with the freight industry when we go through that final design. We have talked to several
freight companies. UPS loves it. They measure money in tenths of a minute, so they desire very little delay. They call
it money going out the tailpipe out the smoke stack. If they don’t have to stop in the middle of a lane waiting 90
seconds for a left turn or a through movement, they are doing alright. The roundabouts are not going to have any
problem handling freight capacity. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if this is the case with Williams Bakery and if
they have been contacted. Tom answered yes, and added that the triples actually turn better than the double.
Commissioner James asked if the bike lanes are on both sides of Franklin Boulevard and if the west lane runs down to
the pedestrian crosswalk. Tom answered that the westbound lane will run just to the pedestrian crosswalk, maybe a
little east of that location where it will merge to the viaduct.
City of Springfield Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 2, 2014
Page 4
Commissioner Moe asked if the term “widening the envelope” 5’ to 10’ is correct? Tom responded that today it is
175’ at the widest point. Molly added that there are two diagrams shown in the current plan, one is the design that is
exactly the January 2014 (Molly pointing to a design on the monitor) and then the project envelope extends 5’ to the
north and south. Commissioner Moe asked if this displaces structures an additional 5’? Tom answered that the
enveloped doesn’t add to the impacts, except for a couple of places. It’s (the project envelope) only there to shift
(project design) away from something, if you needed 3’ or even 1’ to avoid an impact, it’s there so they can shift
within, remember were continuing to reduce impacts. The purpose is to have the flexibility to avoid, if possible the
amount of impacts on properties.
TESTIMONY FROM THOSE IN SUPPORT
• None
TESTIMONY OF THOSE OPPOSED
• Philip Marvin; PO Box 2055; Eugene, Oregon 97403; 541-302-1778
Mr. Marvin testified that he has been a property owner in Glenwood area for 15-17 years now. He has
worked with the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield on a number of projects. He said he did not meet
with any City staff until about 3 months ago. The roundabout on the east end of Franklin Boulevard has
increased in size by more than 30 percent since the last time he saw the plan, which impacts property he
owns greatly. He owns the property from the Springfield Bridge west to the Ramsey Weight property,
including the Action Rental property. When he first saw the diagram and spoke to City staff less than 3
months ago the roundabout on the east end has increased at least 30 percent. They say there is nothing they
can do about it but the last time he saw the diagram it was the same size as the next roundabout to the west,
so you can see by your diagram how much it is increased. It does affect my property greatly, from what he
understands the City is going to try to take that property, Mr. Marvin will try to do everything legally
possible on his end to try to slow that process down. He doesn’t think it’s right that dropping this ball on the
property owners 3 months ago when this diagram says January 14. He hasn’t had a chance to really do
anything about it. Although he has spoken to City staff, they seem very reluctant to talk to him about it.
That is about all he has to say about it. He is very much in favor of the Glenwood Refinement Plan although
he thinks with some respect as a developer it’s gone too far; maybe a little too restrictive for developers in
the Glenwood area who want to see something happen. He’s been working on this for a long, long time
along with you people, and wants to see something happen too, but you’re making it very restrictive on the
owners, and the taking process is not something he feels really comfortable with. Thank you for your time.
Commissioner James asked Mr. Marvin if he has anything to enter into the record other than his testimony. Mr.
Marvin responded that he did not at this time.
• John Oldham; Business Address, 3330 Franklin Blvd.; Eugene, Oregon 97403; 541-726-7646
Home Address, 85133 Ridgeway Road, Pleasant Hill, Oregon
Mr. Oldham testified that he is a third generation property owner in Glenwood. His grandfather first bought
property in Glenwood in the late 30’s and is where his business is currently located. He purchased another
piece of property in the 70’s, the former Midway Market, which he thinks is the most dilapidated building in
Glenwood. He has some concerns about the plan. He was involved with the Franklin Boulevard
Stakeholders Advisory Committee that started back in the Fall of 2007 and that’s where the 2008 hybrid plan
came from. There were many concerns from those stakeholders that were addressed in coming up with the
hybrid plan, especially the quantity of property that was being taken for the right-of-way and the width being
at that time, 175’. There hasn’t been, he doesn’t believe, stakeholders involved in the change from the
hybrid plan to this new plan with what appears to be 4 or 5 roundabouts depending on how you count them.
The new plan has a significant impact to the businesses that are there, it is going to eliminate some of those
folks, it is going to have some impacts on those of us that plan to try to remain, and he has some serious
concerns about access to his property. He thinks it will be difficult for him to mitigate, also on a broader
scale access why is it when you talk about trucks, it’s one thing for UPS truck to travel the roadway and it’s
something else for some of the larger vehicles on the road to travel through. There is a large switchgear
building at the University of Oregon that came through a couple of years ago and they had one route to get to
City of Springfield Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 2, 2014
Page 5
the University, which was through Glenwood from down the McKenzie. Here last week there was a large
dryer drum that went to Kingsford that failed to negotiate an exit because the radius is tight on the exit for the
length and size of the load and those large loads do get routed down the McKenzie and one of the pathways
in is through to Eugene or Springfield is through Glenwood. This is a concern; you have to build the roadway
large enough for that kind of vehicle, even if it’s an occasional usage. He is not sure this plan will
accommodate large vehicles. Thank you.
SUMMATION FROM STAFF
• Tom Boyatt responded to the testimony submitted. Any oversized load that is going to pull a permit, will get
flagged through and will not have a problem with the geometry of Franklin Boulevard. We can close a lane for the
duration of the trip, we can switch traffic to two-way operation on one-side, the roundabouts skirts are mountable,
all of this is in the process of being engineered and will be workable.
After staff had several discussions with Council, we brought this plan forward in January. Within two weeks after
the Council meeting in February, City staff - Tom’s staff and our public involvement consultants were out in
Glenwood and knocked on every single business door, mailed to every business, mailed to every property owner,
bent over backwards to meet with folks, so is a little confused by what he is hearing. Staff has met with everyone
in that corridor, sometimes more than once and sometimes we had to be a little pushy to get to the actual decision
makers beyond the people that were staffing the business. There is a log of all that activity, Tom is confident that
the public involvement piece has been met.
Commissioner James commented that it would be beneficial, you have outlined in the findings the communication
process clearly but it is a little disconcerting to hear the public say that they were not noticed or they were not
aware because part of land use processes ensure open and clear communications. His experiences has been with
staff is that they abide by that and they go the extra mile to make sure those types of communications happen. In
terms of the re-sizing of the roundabout to the east, could you talk about when that occurred and what was stated?
Why was the size increased to the size as proposed now on the January 2014 diagram? Tom responded that it was
not actually increased. It is a smaller circulating roadway then what they had in 2008, if you flip back to 2008
image, which is hard to see (Molly pulled the image requested onto the Screen for the PC). The diagram on top
has a very large roundabout, much larger than what is planned but it’s in a different location. If you look at the
location it has pretty dramatic property impacts in Glenwood, multiple and millions of dollars more than the
current design and far greater impacts to businesses and properties. In the process of refining and trying to work
as much as possible at that end of the corridor within the existing right-of-way that ODOT has bequeathed to us,
what we came up with is the dog bone. Because we had to center the alignment in the NEPA process and try to
shrink it to avoid impacts, it moved around a little bit and it may be impacting, he can’t tell by looking at the
diagram how much more of Mr. Marvin’s property is impacted by the current design. You have to remember the
whole facility moved to the north, because it was disproportionately impacting the property across the street.
There maybe a little bit more impact on these specific properties, but overall it is dramatically less of an impact to
private property.
Mr. Marvin asked the Commission if he could make an additional comment. Mr. Marvin said that he had met
with City Planning and Traffic Staff approximately 6 months ago. At that point and time the roundabout was the
same size as the roundabout just to the west of the roundabout he is talking about. About 3 months ago, they
came up with a new design and that is when he was first notified. He was not called to a meeting to talk about it,
he was not called by anyone to talk about it, he found out about it from the adjacent property. About 6 months
ago, he did meet with staff but at that point and time that roundabout was the same size as the roundabout to the
west. Therefore, the roundabout he is talking about. the furthest one to the east, has changed dramatically since
his meeting with City staff. He has called to talk to City staff several times since then over the phone and never
been asked to come in and meet with City staff after that one meeting, and he had to initiate that meeting. He did
meet with staff members Kristi and David, the first time he came to know about it was 3 months ago and it was
not thought City staff. Thank you.
Commissioner Moe motioned to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Nelson 7:0:0
City of Springfield Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 2, 2014
Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
• Commissioner Moe- It is his hopes and he hopes the City’s goal is that they can help work with the “dog
bone” design so that Mr. Marvin comes to the City and thanks you, that’s what he would like to see. Get
something that enhances what he wants to do. These roundabouts, this traffic corridor when it gets built is
going to be a bright spot in Oregon, it’s going to take a long time to do it, but it’s really going to enhance and
be one of a kind in the state, Glenwood’s going to develop like crazy and be one of the most beautiful places
in the world, he wants to see that. The other thing is public input, he’s been on the Planning Commission a
long time and it’s always been a problem. This City spares no money trying to notify the public of what’s
going on. They invite the public in, invite comment, put it on the WEB, mail things, knock on doors, do
everything possible, and when they have a public hearing we still get somebody in whot says, “they didn’t
hear about it”. The City truly tries very hard that everyone gets noticed.
• Commissioner Kirschenmann is a little concerned with Mr. Oldham’s comments regarding large truck. Mr.
Kirschenmann works with large trucks, 53 footers, all the time and how they get around. It is difficult, but he
feels comfortable with staff, knowing what they are doing so he would hope it would all be resolved. He is
confident that they will make sure the larger trucks can work through the roundabouts.
• Commissioner James asked if that this really is a process that is still in the planning phase for design Phase I
of the Franklin Boulevard project which would include the dog bone and one additional roundabout to the
west, he asked if that was correct? Tom answered that Commissioner James exactly described Phase I. The
City doesn’t have it designed yet, we have not begun the right-of-way negotiations, the taking process, the
just compensation and we have a fixed amount of project dollars. So ,if we run into problems we will
probably, but can’t guarantee we would scale it back from the west to the east and not build the second
intersection. If we’re close, we will make it happen. If the gap is too large to bridge we will have to adapt.
But yes, the current plan is to construct from the Springfield bridges through the Mississippi intersection.
Commissioner James asked through the design phase he assums that there will be public notice and/or that
there will be some other information shared as the City moves forward to that process. Tom responded,
absolutely. And as he said, what the designers will do is design this to super tight tolerances in three
dimensions both horizontally and vertically. Getting it surveyed onto a accurate base, look at the impacts
and then start talking to the property and business owners.
• Commissioner Pishioneri when we are talking about moving it forward that makes the Glenwood more
accessible, flow through and what not. Franklin really does have some pretty good flow through right now,
and it still has some, despite of some side streets, but speaking of the ability to get in and around in
Glenwood itself, as opposed to traveling through Glenwood. In the diagram it looks like in just where the
roundabouts are is where people will get off into the neighborhoods. Tom answered that on the north side,
you have the street grid that is in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, the principle access for those are at
Glenwood Boulevard and McVay Highway, where there are slip lanes on the north side, which is the multi-
way boulevard concept for local traffic (can’t understand Tom, two people taking at the same time), with
parking, through is going through, there are also two accesses in. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if those
are the two red rectangle spots. Tom responded that he does not have the Glenwood Refinement Plan to
show Commissioner Pishioneri. Molly added that there are north south streets at Glenwood Boulevard,
McVay Highway and also at Mississippi, Mississippi is also a through street and then the proposed park
block streets are at Brooklyn and Henderson. Tom added, that is the circulation on the north side, on the
south side is still the four-lane intersection. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if those neighborhoods have got
some easy in and out. Has staff done any trip count potential there in regards to those local neighborhoods
where right now those east west streets are experiencing very low traffic, and some of those east west streets
are now going to have an increase in traffic in regards to people trying to make their way over to that ingress
and egress. Tom answered that staff has not done any trip counts, but what he is trying to say is that those
four local streets that provide access will remain, but they may have a right in and right out at Brooklyn.
Commissioner Pishioneri added that it looks like some of those will be eliminated several of the side streets
will not have their access. Tom answered that there are one or two composite public ways that are made up
of easements and old County local access roads in parts and he thinks constant usage in other parts. A
primary goal of this project as well as the Glenwood Refinement Plan is to continue to provide access to
City of Springfield Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 2, 2014
Page 7
everyone who currently enjoys access in one fashion or another, but remember there is development interest
especially on the north side that’s working with the grid and is planning to redevelop a whole bunch of that
property that actually are two projects right now. The south side will remain primarily the same, same
amount of access. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if it would be the same direction of travel that citizens are
doing or is it going to change to that pattern, this is what he’s worried about, as far as you change a bunch of
traffic patterns in neighborhoods and you’re going to have some neighbors or property owners that could be
negatively impacted, those are the people that may be the loudest voices down the road.
MOTION:
Commissioner Nelson moves to recommend approval to the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners , Springfield File Nos. TYP414-00002 and TYP414-0004 and Lane County File No. 509-PA14-
05471, amending the figures and test of the Transportation Chapter of the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Phase I and
the Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3. Seconded by Commissioner Kirschenmann. 7-0-0 Motion carries
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Brenda Jones
______________________
Greg James
Planning Commission Chair
Attest:
____________________
Brenda Jones
Management Support Specialist