HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/2009 Work Session
.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2009
The City of Springfield Council met in a joint work session with the Planning Commission in the
Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 22, 2009 at 5:33
p.m., with Councilor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Leezer, and Pishioneri. Also present were City
Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Bill Van Vactor,
City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff.
Mayor Leiken and Council President Ralston were absent (excused).
Planning Commission Chair Frank Cross called the Planning Commission to order. Present were
Commission Chair Cross and Planning Commissioners Johnny Kirschenmann, Sean VanGordon,
Steve Moe, Eric Smith, Lee Beyer, and Cherie Moore.
1. Urban Growth Boundary Alternatives Analysis.
.
ECONorthwest is preparing a land use Alternatives Analysis for the City of Springfield. It
includes an analysis and justification for urban growth boundary expansion as necessary to meet
documented shortfalls of commercial, industrial and residential land. The study area for potential
Springfield growth is land adjacent to the Springfield portion ofthe Metropolitan UGH.
ECONorthwest willI) provide an overview of opportunity areas for employment, residential, and
public/semi-public uses; 2) present three draft land use concepts that will address identified land
use deficiencies; and 3) provide background information on the requirements for the Alternatives
Analysis. The attached memorandum (Attachment 1) explains the Alternatives Analysis in detail.
City Attorney Bill Van Vactor will provide an overview of the urban growth boundary expansion
process. Staff will provide an updated UGH Policy Package Public Review and Adoption
Schedule (Attachment 4) and discuss next steps. The three concepts and supporting documents
will be displayed at two public open houses in July and August, presented to a variety of
community groups and other interested parties for comments over the summer. months, and at the
subject ofa public hearing before the joint City and Lane County planning commissions on
September 15,2009.
.
The draft economic opportunities and housing needs analyses both conclude that Springfield will
need to expand its UGB to accommodate growth forecast for the 20 I 0-2030 period. The exact
acreage of the expansion is not yet known; however, general figures are available. The City needs
about 640 suitable acres for employment and about 400 buildable acres for housing and other
needs. The final acreage figures will depend on the types of land use efficiency measures the City
adopts, as well as the specific areas into which urban growth is to occur. Staff is working with
the Planning Commission to develop Plan and Code Amendments that will implement additional
efficiency measures. At its work session on June 2, 2009 the Planning Commission and a
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 22, 2009
Page 2
.
residential lands focus group endorsed several concepts: 1) increasing density in Glenwood,
Downtown, Gateway, in nodes, along transit corridors and possibly as an adjunct to future
employment centers in the expansion areas; and 2) establishing a low-medium density plan
designation and zoning district (8 to 15 units per net acre) that could allow a mixing of small lot,
detached single family homes and slightly higher density row houses and duplexes to encourage
development of a wider range of housing choice and price ranges.
.
Mr. Van Vactor provided a brief history on statewide goals and statewide planning and noted that
it had been about 30 years since Oregon had gone through this type of process. The Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) were getting a lot of requests for expanding
UGB's. The State had grown and there were new needs. Cities had used up inventories over the
past 30 years and it was time to look at existing boundaries. Changing the UGB was a very
rigorous process and was a very subjective area, with policy decisions and statutory requirements,
making it difficult to layout guidelines. He explained. The process would be a combination of
applying Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) goals (Goal 14) and
criteria. When this process was completed it would go to LCDC. There was not a lot of guidance
in the State statutes. Any citizens that were involved at this level could be heard at LCDC
hearings. Being aware of that, the City had coordinated as much as possible with the local
representative, Mr. Warren, from DLCD, who had helped the City interpret the rules. The City
was in good shape so far. Staff was doing their best to apply the statutes and goals. He explained
further the coordination with DLCD. Adoption of a UGB was not unilateral with the City of
Springfield, but also included our partnership with Lane County. Soon the Lane County Planning
Commission and the Springfield Planning Commission would be meeting to start the formal
process. Ultimately the Lane County Board of Commissioners (LCBC) and the Springfield City
Council would be meeting to work out a UGB that was satisfactory to both. In the past, there had
been delays when the County and City disagreed, but no rejection. The LCBC would have
different perceptions and priorities.
Council could ask questions of staff as they arose during the presentation.
Commissioner Kirschenmann asked what kind of communication we had with LCDC.
Mr. Van Vactor said it had been informal to this point. They had met with the director of the
department two times. In addition, Lane County had a representative on the commission, John
Van Landingham, who followed local land use. Mr. Van Landingham's role would increase as we
moved forward. At this time, Springfield was focusing on the DLCD staff.
Councilor Wylie asked about the impact of people currently outside the UGB.
Mr. Van Vactor discussed property values inside and outside the UGB and the relation to taxes.
Those outside city limits would not pay City taxes until they annexed into the City.
Commissioner Moore asked about public input on this item.
Ms. Pauly said tonight's work session was to provide information to the Planning Commission
(PC) and City Council (CC).
.
Mr. Van Vactor said there had been some workshops held and more would be planned for the
future.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 22, 2009
Page 3
.
Councilor Lundberg clarified that tonight's work session was an introduction to this information
and an overview of the status of options. Staff would answer PC and CC questions and then go
forward with the public process.
Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly introduced Bob Parker from ECONorthwest.
Mr. Parker said they had been working on this for some time and felt like they were making good
progress. He presented a power point presentation starting with the purpose of tonight's meeting
which was to review the process used to develop these land use concepts. At the last work
session, he reviewed the State requirement for UGB alternatives analysis, which he would do
again. There were three draft expansion concepts for the PC and CC to comment on. They could
also make variations on any of the concepts. They had received comments from the
CommerciallIndustrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) committee who had also reviewed the concepts.
He asked the PC and CC to present their ideas as they went through the presentation.
.
Mr. Parker reviewed the process so far. About 14 or 15 months ago, the City contracted with
ECONorthwest to conduct a CIBL study. A CIBL stakeholder committee was appointed and met
11 times during the technical analysis. That committee deliberated and provided input on key
assumptions on employment lands. There was also a Technical Advisory Committee (T AC) that
met 5 times and included City staff and staff from other agencies, such as DLCD, Springfield
Utility Board, Metro Partnership and others. There was a Residential Lands Study stakeholder
committee that met 8 times, but that was put on hold while the population forecast issue was
resolved. That committee also provided input on key assumption and land use efficiency
measures.
Mr. Parker described the public process, which included a public workshop on CIBL and a public
open house on UGB expansion. There would be additional open houses and a public hearing
process as we proceeded. Staff and the consultant had met with the PC and the CC on the
residential lands study, on CIBL, and the process was ongoing. The consultant had worked with
staff to finalize assumptions, technical analysis, land need, buildable lands inventory, and the
need for a UGB expansion. The CIBL committee identified priority study areas and concepts
developed to comply with State rules.
Mr. Parker said they were looking at a UGH expansion of about 1000 acres: 450 industrial; 190
commercial; and 400 residential.
Commission Chair Cross asked if the concepts included the larger sites over 20 acres.
Mr. Parker said they did. They were still working on figures on the Residential Land Study
because the population projection was slightly lower than anticipated.
Mr. Parker said the State required the City to evaluate all alternatives, including land efficiency
measures and alternative boundary locations. The City must start with highest priority lands and
work down, and then apply Goal 14 criteria. The City could consider land that was not adjacent,
site characteristics for employment sites, costs, and advantages and disadvantages of public
services. They must include a map of alternatives considered.
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 22, 2009
Page 4
.
Mr. Parker reviewed ORS 197.298 which identified UGB expansion priorities: urban reserve
areas; exception areas; marginal lands; and resources lands. He explained each.
Mr. Parker discussed the Goal 14 factors: efficient accommodation of identified land needs;
orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; comparative environmental,
energy, economic and social consequences; and compatibility of the proposed urban uses with
nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGH.
Mr. Parker referred to a map showing employment opportunity sites. He discussed those areas.
Mr. Parker discussed draft land use concepts. They studied areas around the UGB based on
distance, zoning, presence of constraints, and soils. The study area only included areas east ofI-5.
The key principles applied included complying with state priority schemes (adjacent exception
areas) and meeting identified land deficiencies (employment acres and residential acres). The
emphasis was on priority areas identified by the committees. They intended to be different
enough to demonstrate trade-offs.
Mr. Parker displayed maps of the City which identified residential and employment areas,
constraints, floodways, and soils. He discussed those factors, hillside areas and the Mohawk area.
Mr. Parker referred to the maps with each of the concepts and discussed each.
Councilor Pishioneri noted a discrepancy in the figures on the map and the chart.
.
Mr. Parker said the inconsistency may have occurred when they were changing figures. Table 1
should be the control agent and was correct. They would recheck the figures and correct them for
future presentations.
Commissioner Smith asked about fire service to the Seavey Loop area.
Mr. Parker said meetings on that subject had been held and an evaluation on that was occurring.
This area would not fall within the current level of service.
Mr. Grimaldi said that could indicate a need for a new fire station.
Commissioner Smith asked if a station in Glenwood would cover that area.
Fire Marshal Al Gerard said it would need to be in the far south corner of Glenwood to cover that
area.
Mr. Parker said Seavey Loop would have a number of service issues. ODOT had also indicated
they may plan an inter~hange in that area at some point in the future, but hadn't started planning
yet. He continued to discuss the areas in Option I. Clearwater Lane could shift to the east or west
depending on service issues. There was also some flexibility in Area 7. Mr. Parker showed an
aerial map of Concept 1.
.
Mr. Parker showed Concept 2 and described the difference between this option and Concept l.
He discussed some of the issues with Area 3 and the floodplain. The Corps of Engineers was
doing a study of floodplains in that area, but were not quite finished with that study. The City
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 22, 2009
Page 5
.
could determine, following that study, which areas to include based on flooding. It was a difficult
situation because they were not sure when the study would be finished.
Mr. Parker discussed Concept 3 and noted the areas included in this concept. He noted the
differences between this concept and the other two. They did include the need for lower cost
housing in some of the alternatives.
Mr. Parker said the input from the CIBL committee included: consider including all of Seavey
Loop in all of the alternatives; consider including the 'elbow' near Jasper-Natron; and consider
mixed-use in some study areas. He discussed some of those comments.
Commissioner Moore asked if they had a narrative of all of the areas.
Mr. Parker said they had a partial list. If they wanted, they could do a more specific write-up for
the concepts. He noted some ofthe matrixes in the packet from the previous work session on this
item.
Commissioner Moore asked about the north Gateway area and access for services.
Mr. Gerard said it would depend on the street grid that was put in place. Preliminary analysis
showed they could provide fire service to the lower half of that area with the current station. The
northern portion would depend on the street grid layout.
.
Commissioner Moe said he and Lee Beyer worked on the original boundaries in the 1970's. At
that time, it seemed logical to put the boundaries that were along the river slightly away from the
river. They had later learned that the City couldn't have an effect on what happened in that area.
He discussed the Seavey Loop option. He wasn't sure ofthe logic they had used in placing a line
along the elbow in Jasper-Natron years ago. He felt the Lane Community College (LCC) basin
could be an option. It was on the Springfield side, and they should continue to think of that.
Mr. Van Vactor said this proceeding would be legislative, but if someone gave the PC or CC
documents or information, they should bring it to the planning staff so they could be distributed.
The PC and CC could get requests from citizens as this process moved forward.
Commissioner Beyer said one of the lessons learned last time was not to designate too much land
that was unserviceable or had issues with wetlands. He wanted to make sure the land maps were
readable. .
Mr. Parker said they would be using the same criteria regarding constraints. Eventually, there
would be decisions regarding tax lots split by a floodway or other constraint. He explained.
Councilor Leezer asked if they could incorporate all three concepts and show all constraints.
Commissioner Cross asked that those constraints be outlined because not everyone could
distinguish the different colors.
Mr. Parker said it had been suggested to make all constraints one color.
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 22, 2009
Page 6
.
Councilor Pishioneri suggested a different concept by taking Area 1 of Concept 1, Areas 7 and 8
from Concept 2, Area 4 from Concept 1, and Area 9 as an option from Concept 1. This would
give a similar ratio of land types, but with a different build out on the southern edge and utilizing
the northwest corner.
Mr. Van Vactor said these concepts could be mixed and matched.
Mr. Parker made note of his suggestions. He said he would clean up the figures.
Commissioner Beyer asked about costs associated with each Concept.
Ms. Pauly said they had done a comparative analysis for the different areas, and Public Works
had put together a matrix where they ranked them numerically, but there was no cost associated
yet. The Fire Department and Springfield Utility Board (SUB) were working on that.
Commissioner Beyer noted the need to look at what made sense regarding services for places
such as Area 9 in Concept 1.
Mr. Parker discussed that area and some of the issues related to providing service. Each area had
some type of service challenge regarding transportation, water, sewer, or other.
Ms. Pauly said the transportation systems were all ranked equally bad.
.
Councilor Pishioneri said he had one caveat to his earlier recommendation. He suggested a
different mix in Area 7. He explained. He also said he was not sure why they didn't put a straight
line to Jasper Road. It would make more sense for public safety services. Even ifnot buildable it
could be suitable for open space with power lines.
Mr. Parker noted some flood plains in that area. The suggestion would be to figure out a
configuration that would have more ofa straight line.
Development Services Director Bill Grile said the challenge was that they would be moving the
line into Class 2 farmlands. The statutory priority was that those were the last solution to the
problem, so the City would have to show that efficiency measures, infill, redevelopment and
other areas wouldn't solve the residential. Advocates for protecting farmland would likely contest
that.
Councilor Leezer referred to the elbow at Jasper Natron and the soils in that area.
Mr. Parker said they would need to take a closer look at the soils and slopes.
Councilor Lundberg said each concept was set up with the idea tl,1at the City had to pick lands in a
particular order. We couldn't pick all lands that fell under the marginal sites. We would need to
move the boundary around so the exception lands were chosen first. She asked if we were
considering expansion in one area rather before moving to another area.
.
Mr. Parker said they had to go to the exceptions first. If they brought all of the identified lands in
and there wasn't enough of the right type oflands, they could go to the marginal lands second.-
They would then look at resource lands, in which case the focus would be on soils. The urban
.
.
.
, .
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 22, 2009
Page 7
forum required by the State didn't make sense, but was a statutory priority, The soils issue was
more difficult to define with legal nuances, so relied on legal resources. He explained. He felt the
alternatives they were showing could be legally upheld, but some may be more challenging than
others. He didn't want the CC to forget to use common sense as well as upholding statutory rules.
They were engaging Public Works so they could identify some of the issues. There were
alternatives worth talking about, but service obligations could be a challenge.
Councilor Lundberg clarified that all areas could be done at once in order to get the amount of
land we needed.
Mr. Parker said that was correct. By spreading the expansion, they were causing less pressure on
the transportation area.
Commissioner Beyer said most of the maps showed physical constraints. Residential could be put
almost anywhere, but commercial needs were more specific.
Councilor Lundberg agreed. They needed to use common sense.
Commissioner Moore said the map showed the Metro Plan boundary and she asked if Springfield
was still going to be part of that plan. Yes we were. She asked what the basis was for the Metro
Plan boundary and if there was any consideration regarding Springfield's UGB with that
boundary. No.
Councilor Lundberg asked if they had more of a goal set when the plan was first put into place.
Mr. Parker said the State provided much more direction now.
Councilor Lundberg asked if staff had what they needed.
Mr. Parker said they did. They had some work to do on the maps and would provide alternatives
that would go through the public process.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Attest:
Am~.1n1A.
City Recorder