HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Planning Options for Glenwood
Meeting Date:
Meeting Type:
Department:
Staff Contact:
July 9, 2007
Work Session
DSD, PW
Greg Mott, Planning Manager k~-
Goodwin, Asst. Public Works ~
Director
541-726-3671,541-726-3685
60 minutes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Phone No:
Estimated Time:
PLANNING OPTIONS FOR GLENWOOD
ITEM TITLE:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
DISCUSSION /
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Staff requests that Council select one of the five planning options outlin~d in Attachment I
and summarized in Attachment 2, or a variation preferred by Council, and direct staff to
make this a priority work program item to commence this calendar year. To assist with the
decision making process, staff has provided summaries of current activities in, or affecting,
Glenwood development.
Land development in Glenwood is guided by the policies of the Glenwood Refinement Pla~
(GRP). As with the Metro Plan, the GRP has not undergone a significant update since the
late 1980's except for the 48 acre riverfront subarea. The issue at hand is whether additional
updating of the GRP should be undertaken, and if so, towhat extent? This memorandum.
provides the Council with 5 options addressing this issue.
Attachment 1 - Council Briefing Memo from Greg Mott, Planning Manager and Len
Goodwin, Assistant Public Works Director
Attachment 2 - Summary of Glenwood Planning Options as Outlined in Attachment I
Attachment 3 - Comprehensive Glenwood Issue Summaries
Planning and Public Works staff have assembled a list of 5 options for future development in .
Glenwood.
These options include:
1. Status Quo Development
2. Expanding Riverfront Mixed-Use Along Both Sides of Full-Length Franklin
3. FranklinlMcVay Corridor Planning
4. Entire Transportation Corridor Planning
5. Update Glenwood Refmement Plan
Each option broadly identifies development activities, necessary department tasks, timelines,
. staffmg needs, costs and the associated pros and cons. Option #1 does not include the
comprehensive visioning that occurs with Option #5. It does allow a portion of the Glenwood
riverfront to be developed to contemporary expectations but defers any development
decisions about the remainder of the riverfront, or the interior of Glenwood, to a later time.
Options 2-5 represent a logical extension of the contemporary vision outlined in the
Glenwood Riverfront Plan. Staff supports the broader approach suggested by Option #5
because it incorporates the wishes of the community, the energy of the Council and the trends
of the 21st century market place.
Staff requests specific direction from Council regarding the future of Glenwood outside of
the 48 acre riverfront site. The set of options presented in Attachment I cover these concerns
by allowing the Council to consider, accept modify or reject specific courses of action for
Glenwood. These options are accompanied by broad estimates Of project timelines and costs,
and the more obvious advantages and disadvantages that may result from implementation.
At the direction of Council, staff will begin to assemble project lists and plans to implement
the planning option(s) preferred. This will be presented to Council as a follow up Work
Session item.
--.", -- .-r---c-----~
.. -._- -.- -"0- -
MEMORANDUM
City of Springfield
Subject:
July 9,2007
Gino Grimaldi, City Manager
Gregory Mott, Planning Manager
Len Goodwin, Assistant Public Works Director
Planning Options for Glenwood
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
ISSUE:
Land development in Glenwood is guided by the policies of the Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP). As
with the Metro Plan, the GRP has not undergone a significant update since the late 1980's except for
the 48 acre riverfront subarea. The issue at hand is whether additional updating of the GRP should be
undertaken, and if so, to what extent? This memorandum provides the Council with 5 options
addressing this issue.
BACKGROUND:
The creation and adoption of the GRP was a joint effort of the citizens of Glenwood, the City of
Eugene and Lane County. The goals, objectives and aspirations that found their way into the Plan were
based on the influences these groups brought to bear on the process, as well as the market reality that
existed 18 years ago. Fast forward to 2007 and what we have now is a new generation of residents, a
different municipal jurisdiction, a substantially different market, and a dedicated infrastructure
financing mechanism. This new reality prompted significant revisions to the plans for a portion of
Glenwood's riverfront development (Subarea 8); was the genesis for the formation of the [Glenwood]
urban renewal district; and created the environment for a public/private partnership in order to
successfully redevelop the riverfront with a "legacy" mixed-use project.
The 1999 Springfield City Council recognized the tremendous potential for Glenwood redevelopment,
but not always as depicted in the GRP. In particular, the GRP promoted the continued use of the
riverfront for industrial development. The Council was unconvinced that this unique resource should
be occupied by uses that neither relied upon the river for success nor provided opportunity for public
enjoyment. The Council directed staff to undertake a riverfront development plan that would both
showcase the Willamette and establish a mixed-use node that would become the signature of Glenwood
redevelopment. The Council narrowed the scope of this study to the 48 acres between the rail road
bridge and Lexington Avenue because of the area's high visibility, low level of development and
proximity to expanding infrastructure improvements.
The Council's decision to go forward with just the riverfront piece was equal parts workable scope,
resource allocation, and honoring a commitment to Glenwood residents that the jurisdictional transfer
would not result in significant changes to the status quo. The Council did not consider anything similar
to the options provided in this memorandum because the circumstances at that time did not include all
of the factors now at play in Glenwood, i.e. roadway corridor studies; infrastructure planning; bridge
replacement; interchange redesign; significant business relocation; the Endangered Species and Clean
Water Acts; and urban renewal. These factors, along with an increasing and substantial development
interest in many other areas of Glenwood support a more comprehensive update of the GRP such as
that outlined in Option 5 of this memorandum.
Within that context, the City has operated under infrastructure planning done by the City of Eugene
over 20 years ago. Little infrastructure has been added since Springfield assumed responsibility for
planning jurisdiction. An extension of trunk sanitary sewer east from a river crossing constructed by
Eugene was put in before the current suggestions of a major rewrite of the GRP were in the atmosphere,
Attachment 1 - Page 1
- -0- -
in large part because the Oregon Department of Transportation was moving ahead with an overlay
project which would have stymied sewer construction for at least five years. Only recently has
Springfield been part of an infrastructure planning exercise that encompassed Glenwood. That exercise
will produce the first modem sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities plans by year end. While the
process is rooted in the pre-existing land uses, we are now poised to be able to adapt to different
development concepts if the process begins in earnest.
The juxtaposition of the past and present raises some important questions regarding current and future
development expectations; these mayor may not be realized by the existing policies ofthe GRP. To be
sure, the adoption of the riverfront plan (and its ultimate successful implementation) reflects the 2007
paradigm, but there's more to Glenwood than these 48 acres, and there are new residents and property
owners who haven't had an opportunity to help shape the future of their community. In the mean time,
new development proposals, some consistent with the plan, others not, are floated almost weekly based
on Springfield's promise during the jurisdictional transfer (1999) to facilitate the redevelopment of
Glenwood through provision of urban services. At the same time, particularly in the area of
transportation, new options for infrastructure development are under broad discussion and planning.
These are an additional stimulus to developments that mayor may not meet the old vision.
The emerging interest in the redevelopment of Glenwood is met through implementation of the GRP
and SDC. However, much of the interest in developing in Glenwood is based on the 2007 vision
(mixed use or commercial) in areas that still embrace the 1989 vision and therefore do not permit such
uses. There is also a collective sense from property owners, residents, staff and elected officials that
riverfront development outside of. Subarea 8 should not perpetuate or promote the "old model"
(industrial) in light of the universal scarcity of riverfront development opportunities. Yet, as we make
annexation available through sewer extension, we extend a commitment to perpetuate pre-existing uses
and open the door to the establishment of new uses that may ultimately detract from a preferred vision
of Glenwood. Associated with the City's commitment to not delay redevelopment, staffhas undertaken
comprehensive infrastructure planning based on GRP land use designations; these plans are not easy to
change and once the pipes are in place, would be economically irrational to abandon to satisfy a new
roster of preferred uses.
To reduce, if not completely eliminate, near-term decisions that may be inconsistent with potential
future goal revisions, staff requests specific direction from Council regarding the future of Glenwood
outside of the 48 acre riverfront site. A set of options is presented below that covers these concerns by
allowing the Council to consider, accept, modify or reject specific courses of action for Glenwood.
These options are accompanied by back-of-the-envelope estimates of project timelines and costs, and
the more obvious advantages and disadvantages that may result from implementation. Upon direction
from Council to pursue any of the options (other than Option #1), a proposed work plan will be
required to address required staffing needs, budget adjustments and the impact on other City work plan
items.
As always, "status quo" is offered as Option # 1.
Option #1: Status Quo
Keep things as they are; continue to work with preferred partner on
riverfront redevelopment proposal; allow annexation and development
of remainder of Glenwood to occur consistent with policies of the GRP
and practices implemented elsewhere in Springfield; process individual
GRP amendment requests (industrial to mixed-use for example) the
same way such requests are processed elsewhere in Springfield.
Existing planning staff can accommodate this work load with the
exception of significant changes to the plan that might be negotiated in
the 48 acre riverfront site. Staff assumes that the development of those
48 acres will be funded by non-City sources, as was done with Peace
Attachment 1 - Page 2
- -0- -
Option #3: FranklinIMc V ay Corridor Planning
Maintain existing GRP function, except update all riverfront
properties (Franklin and McVay Boulevards) and adjacent frontages.
Development Services, Public Works and Transportation estimate that
staffing needs for Option #3 will be 2 - 3 FTE at $125K - $180K
annually; add another 6-12 months (24-36 months) to the time line.
Inclusion of the McVay corridor raises some difficult issues for
planning of sanitary sewer infrastructure. . The most recent
development proposal for the 48 acres contemplates an intensity
beyond the Riverfront Plan. Staff is concerned that the capacity of
the recently completed trunk sewer extended along Franklin and
McVay south to the UP trestle could be fully consumed if
development at this level of intensity actually occurs. This means that inclusion ofthe McVay corridor
will trigger a sanitary sewer planning effort to find alternative ways to serve that area. The additional
cost over option 2 would be about $25K - $50K, bringing the total need for technical and professional
services to the $275K - $350K range.
ADVANTAGES: Continuity of roadway design and land uses on principal north/south and east/west
entries into the City; full exposure and benefit derived from riverside location; better dispersal of uses;
the improved look and investment may have beneficial effect on value of nearby property; critical mass
is achieved rather than an isolated development anomaly.
DISA VANTAGES: Time commitment; hard to justify time and expense and not do all of Glenwood;
creates an island of impoverishment in comparison to the edge; interior uses may develop that later
become obstacles to subsequent redevelopment efforts that. are more aligned with edge uses;
infrastructure plan re-done.
Option #4: All Transportation Corridor Planning
Maintain existing GRP function, except update the three major
transportation corridors: Franklin, McVay and Glenwood Boulevards
along all frontages. Timeline the .same as Option #3 with an additional
6-12 months. For infrastructure planning, inclusion of the Glenwood
corridor will require that staff completely revisit the current
infrastructure plans. It is not possible to contemplate infrastructure
needs for the Glenwood corridor without determining the land use, and
infrastructure needs of the adjoining interior segments of Glenwood. As
a result, we anticipate that Development Services, Public Works and
Transportation will require 4 - 6 FTE at $240K - $360K annually. As
noted for Option 2, in addition to staffing, we believe we will require
consultant services on the OHler of $ lOOK for transportation issues. For storm and sanitary planning the
impact is much more extensive, and would drive the need for $400K - $500K for professional and
technical services.
This option puts all of the complicated issues of the overall GRP area in play. All of the drainage
through the slough area, and the Eugene drainage, go through this area. As a result the drainage needs
to be studied for all of Glenwood to address the Glenwood Blvd. areas. This study will entail a wetland
inventory and a riparian assessment consistent with the City's requirements under Statewide Planning
Goals 5 and 6, the Federal Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. A flood plain, protected
setbacks and stormwater public facilities to manage quantity and. quality will need to be master
planned. For sanitary sewerage facilities, the ultimate sizing of facilities needs to be determined, and
the Glenwood Blvd. area has some critical decision points that must be studied. The system needs will
be derived based on land use needs of a defined set of sewer service basins, and significant design
Attachment 1 - Page 4
- --0- -
variability exists based on the ultimate location of a railroad crossing.
Advantages: Complete homogeneity of roadway systems and adjoining land uses; all entrances into
Glenwood/Springfield are planned and constructed as mixed-use, multi-modal gateways; these projects
can anticipate and incorporate design characteristics of ODOT improvements (1-5 Bridge; Glenwood
Interchange); most heavily traveled areas modernized and reflect community City Council vision.
Disadvantages: Time commitment; very hard to justify time and expense and not do all of Glenwood;
edge treatment may create unintended consequences for internal component because no evaluation
performed for this area; new interior development, though permitted, may
not be compatible with edge uses; infrastructure plan re-done.
Option #5: Update Glenwood Refinement Plan
Complete update of the GRP. This is a significant undertaking, but would
enable the Council, residents and property owners to establish a
contemporary vision for the redevelopment of Glenwood. Certainly 3+
years to complete and would require 4 - 6 FTE at a total annual cost of Option 5
$300K - $360K. Staff estimates a professional and technical services cost
of $400K - $500K.
ADVANTAGES: This is the classic, comprehensive approach to
blending neighborhood and Council vision and matching that vision to the
land use and infrastructure components that will allow successful implementation; could include resuhs
of residential, commercial and industrial buildable lands studies; no stone unturned.
DISADVANTAGES: The cost and time line are significant; need to adopt a policy of development
restraint, most likely annexation; need to segment the process to allow edge development to proceed as
soon as possible; could result in BM 37 issues (as could any action that changes permitted uses); the
infrastructure planning to date would need to be re-done.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Each option presents advantages that appeal to different strategies for the redevelopment of Glenwood.
Option # 1 does not include the comprehensive visioning that occurs with Option #5. It does allow a
portion of the Glenwood riverfront to be developed to contemporary expectations but defers any
development decisions about the remainder of the riverfront, or the interior of Glenwood, to a later
time. Options 2-5 represent a logical extension of the contemporary vision outlined in the Glenwood
Riverfront Plan.
Staff supports the broader approach suggested by Option #5 because it incorporates the wishes of the
community, the energy ofthe Council and the trends of the 21st century market place.
Attachment 1 - Page 5
.
Visual Map
Update the three major .
Expand riverfront mixed- Expand riverfront mixed-use transportation corridors, Complete update of the I
I
Develop consistant with use to include entire to include Franklin and Franklin, McVay, Glenwood entire Glenwood Refinemer
Tasks current GRP Franklin corridor McVay corridors Blvd Plan (GRP)
Create Dedicated Work Create Dedicated Work Create Dedicated Work
Program to Implement Program to Implement GRP Program to Implement GRP
GRP Amendments Amendments Amendments
Develop Remaining Land Develop Remaining Land Develop Remaining Land
Consistant with Current Consistant with Current Consistent with Current
GRP GRP GRP
New Sanitary Sewer Begin Sanitary Sewer
Planning Process Planning Process
i Comprehensive approach tl
Will enhance 48 acre Continuity of roadway aligning public and council
Pros Contained costs riverfront site design Homogeneity of roadways vision
t;an Incorporate ueslgn
Development Could Occur Takes Advantage of Characteristics of ODOT Could Include Results of
Immediately Riverfront Opportunities Better Dispersal of Uses Improvements Buildable Lands Studies
High Visibility of Modernizes Most Heavily
Development Achieves Critical Mass Traveled Areas Thorough
Beneficial Effect on Value Ofl
Nearby Properties
Dev. Investment may be J
with risky due to All emphasis on Franklin Entire infrastructure plan will Entire infrastructure plan will Entire infrastructure plan will
Cons neigbhoring uses Blvd need to be re-drafted need to be re-drafted need to be re-drafted
Does Not Take Advantage Remaining Glenwood Still
of Riverfront Area Operating on GRP Timely Commitment Timely Commitment Significant Cost and Timelin
Non-Complimentary
Contrast Between Franklin Hard to Justify Time and Hard to Justify Time and Needs a Policy of
Non-Complimentary to Redevelopment and Expense and not do all of Expense and not do all of Develeopment Restraint
Residential Development McVay Hwy Glenwood Glenwood (Annexation)
Infrastructure Will Have Interior Uses May Developm May Create Unintended
Makes Site Specific Design Limits Precluding and Later Become Consequences for Internal Need to Segment the
Amendments Problematic Higher Densities Obstacles Area Process
Early Riverfront
Risks That Undersized Development Based on
Infrastructure Will Be Current Permitted Land New Interior Development
Inadequate For Future Use May Prove to be a May Not be Compatible with Could Result in Measure 31
Build-Out Less Than Desirable Fit Refined Uses Issues
Timing
Current
18-24 Months
24-36 Months
30-48 Months
3+ Years
.. - --- --...0:'--
Annual Staffing dd"ti I FTE . d 2 - 3 FTE @ $125K -
FTE no a I ona reqUIre $185K
2 - 3 FTE @ $125K _ $185K 4 - 6 FTE @ $240K - $
, 360K
5 - 6 FTE @ $300K - $3601<
cOirtrnctl - -- No additional cosf--
Consulting associated
$250-300 K
$275-350 K
$400-500 K
$400-500 K
GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN
PLAN DII\ORAM
...-
.
A
AREA:
. All of Glenwood
. 618 acres & 10 sub areas
. Affected areas; Glenwood,
L TO's EmX Rapid Transit, 1-5 &
Interchange, Willamette River, City
PROJECT OWNERS:
City, County, and State Staff
STAKEHOLDERS:
Neighborhood Associations,
Property Owners,
City and County Elected Officials, SUB,
L TO, Willamalane, Springfield and
Eugene School Districts, Preferred Developer
'tin lltslgnatienJ
o Comm.,.itl
~ D:lml1lmlll hdustJ1llMrtd UA
D U0h1...4iJm Indvllrill
c:J Lo. DtAl'ly R.st..nti:J1
E:J CommemtllllnduSl'l1lIMJhl-Faml,Reft:len1lal"lttd u.
_ Porks and Opeo .s po.
D Plblic Land
TIMING:
3+ Years from Inception to Adoption -
Planning should begin immediately to enable
infrastructure design commitments
. ,. 1......
GLENWOOD
CONTEXT & BACKGROUND:
. Refinement plan due for comprehensive update
. Council holds only modest ownership of refinement plan
. Apex's style of development may require update
KEY ISSUES:
· Current development pressures - small and large scale
. Outdated sub areas
. Plan requires predictability for development
· Undermines long-term goal achievement by ignoring financing, market niches, and
changes to state and federal land use and environmental laws
MAJOR CONCERNS OR IMPACTS:
· Represents the largest development opportunity in Springfield, possibly the Metro
area.
. Citizens voted to support Glenwood Urban Renewal
· Plan needs to be as contemporary as the public financing plan that will provide the
subsidies
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES:
.:. Land use plan reflecting community and Council vision
.:. Plan recognizes role of transit and mixed-use .
. .:. Utilization of 2.8 miles of uninterrupted river frontage
.:. More economically efficient use of land between two Downtowns and UO
.:. Appealing gateway entrance to Springfield from 1-5 and Franklin Blvd
PLANNING OPTIONS IMPACTING THIS ISSUE
o Option 5 - Update of the Glenwood Refinement Plan
Glenwood Comprehensive Paper
- -~
ATTACHMENT 3 - PAGE 1
RIVERFRONT PLAN
)
:== ~B
;f ~~--: T:-
-c- __-... .--
AREA:
. 48 acres along northeast Willamette Riverfront
PROJECT OWNERS:
City, Apex (developer), Property Owners
STAKEHOLDERS:
Residents (& neighborhood association), business operators, SUB, L TD, City and County
elected officials, Willamalane, Glenwood Water District
TIMING:
. Adopted 2 years ago as Master Plan
. 1-3 Years to development on the ground and >10 years to full build out
. SEDA's Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan involved for about 20 years
CONTEXT & BACKGROUND:
· Guides development and redevelopment to strengthen Glenwood's role as a resi-
dential, commercial, and civic center
. Stimulates business and economic vitality and promotes housing choices and
mixed-use development that is functionally coordinated and aesthetically cohesive
. Protects the Willamette Greenway and opportunities to integrate the Willamette
River as a unique element of the urban environment
. Originally plans were to include all areas north of Franklin Boulevard and West to-
ward 1-5
KEY ISSUES:
· Plan needs to be as contemporary as the public financing plan that will provide the subsidies
· Proposed land use allocations include 30-60% residential [density at least 12 units/ acre]; 10-
30% commercial/office/employment; 25-35% open space, drainage facilities, riparian set-
backs, and rights-of-way
. Allocations based on 2001 market studies
. Updates to market study underway through SEDA contract with Leland
· Developer will rely on updated market study to make investments
· Developer may choose the adopted Glenwood Riverfront Plan or use a new Master Plan or
Modification process and meet 11 criteria of approval (SDC 44.040)
· Additional areas may need new land use designation to protect major investments in the plan
area
MAJOR CONCERNS OR IMPACTS:
. Sets tone for further development in Glenwood
. Council set high standards for Glenwood riverfront development
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES:
.:. Plan incorporates community vision for redevelopment
.:. Plan recognizes role of transit and mixed-use
.:. First major opportunity to re-use riverfront areas
.:. Extols riverfront opportunities for Glenwood between Downtowns and UO
.:. Will be first statement about changes ahead for Glenwood
.:. May become commonly used entrance statement to Springfield from 1-5/Franklin
PLANNING OPTIONS IMPACTING THIS ISSUE
o Options 1, 2, 5
Glenwood Comprehensive Paper
ATTACf.IMENT 3 - PAGE 2
APEX. IMMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED RIVERFONT 48-
ACRES
AREA:
. 48 acres along northeast
Willamette Riverfront
. Developer sees >48
acres essential to long-
term redevelopment
PROJECT OWNERS:
Apex (developer)
STAKEHOLDERS:
SEDA, City, Property Owners
Residents (& neighborhood
association), business opera-
tors, SUB, L TD, City and
County elected officials, Wil-
I~malane, Glenwood Water
District
__ L~lNli
__ yaa)U6lRESaNTIAL
__ IUl!DU5faMIDtW.
__1MIRN'fT~
LAND USE
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
TIMING:
. Selected by SEDA as preferred developer November 2006
. 1-3 Years to development on the ground and >10 years to full build out
. SEDA's Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan involved for about 20 years
KEY ISSUES:
. Proposed plan includes.....
· Adopted land-use allocations based on 2001 market studies
. Updates to market study underway through SEDA contract with Leland
. Apex will rely on updated market study to make investments
· Apex may choose the adopted Glenwood Riverfront Plan or use a new
Master Plan or Modification process and meet 11 criteria of approval (SDC
44.040)
. Additional areas may need new land use designation to protect major in-
vestments in the plan area
MAJOR CONCERNS OR IMPACTS:
· First venture will set tone for further development in Glenwood and that Glenwood
will change
· Riverfront Plan places high standards in place for Glenwood Riverfront and Apex in-
dicated its development would exceed them with development 'unlike anything cur-
rently in Eugene-Springfield'
· Plan needs to be as contemporary as Apex and updated market study
. Timing of development agreements and options becoming critical
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES:
.:. First major opportunity to re-use riverfront areas
.:. Extols riverfront opportunities for Glenwood between Downtowns and UO
.:. Will be first statement about changes ahead for Glenwood
.:. Will become de facto entrance statement to Springfield from 1-5/Franklin
PLANNING OPTIONS IMPACTING THIS ISSUE
o Options 1, 2, 5
Gle~woo~ ~omp~ehensive Paper
ATTACHMENT 3 - PAGE 3
FRANKLIN BOULEVARD OVERVIEW
AREA:
. 1-5 Bridge to McVay Highway
(outlined in red on map)
. Affected areas: Franklin
Blvd and abutting properties,
McVay/Franklin Intersection,
McVay Hwy from Franklin
south
to Nugget Way
PROJECT OWNERS:
City, County, State, SEDA, Private
Consult Team
STAKEHOLDERS:
City, County, State, SEDA, SUB and L TO staff; Neighborhood Associations; Property
Owners; City, County and L TO elected and appointed Officials; Oregon Transportation
Commission; APEX; project consultant tea; and, regular system users
TIMING:
18 months from inception to adoption, possibly beyond depending on issues
. identified through public process
CONTEXT & BACKGROUND:
. Initiated at conclusion of City's Glenwood River Front planning work
· In anticipation of need for future configuration of facilities to support
redevelopment
KEY ISSUES:
· Determining forecast trip generation for future development
· Identifying preferred designs taking into consideration future development goals, traf-
fic volumes and property access
· Determining a preferred alignment of Franklin Blvd in Glenwood
· Choosing a Franklin/McVay intersection design capable of handling traffic growth and
providing access to the north
· Addressing right of way impacts associated with preferred designs
MAJOR CONCERNS OR IMPACTS:
· A locally adopted (local stakeholders) alternative design is essential to the ultimate
success of quality redevelopment in Glenwood
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES:
.:. Reach agreement among stakeholders on future design
.:. Adopt preferred alternatives where one or more stakeholders disagrees with chosen
alternatives .
PLANNING OPTIONS IMPACTING THIS ISSUE
o Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Glen~?od _Comprehensive Paper
-- - - ~
ATTACHMENT 3 - PAGE 4
CHANGING COMP PLAN DESIGNATION OUTSIDE THE 48-ACRE RIVER-
FRONT DEVELOPMENT AREA -- LAND USE (cohesivelv wI current
Refinement Plan}
AREA:
. Glenwood South of Franklin
. West of Current 48 acres
Affected areas; Glenwood,
L TO's EmX Rapid Transit Line,
Willamette River
PROJECT OWNERS:
City and County Elected
Officials, City Staff
STAKEHOLDERS:
Lane County, ODOT,
Associated Neighborhood Groups,
Property Owners
L TO, SUB, Willamalane,
Springfield and Eugene School
Districts
TIMING:
24 - 36 Months from Inception to
Adoption - Planning should begin im-
mediately to enable infrastructure de-
sign commitments.
PLAN DIAGRAM
II
A
....-
Plan De.lgnalion.
c::J Commercial
c:J CommerclallnduSlrialll,bed Use
D Uglrt Medium Ihdu5tria1
o lDw Density Re.ldentlal
D CommorcialllndustriallMulti. Family Residentl31 "bed U.e
_ P_ and Open S pa.o
D Public land
m 1"0 &t
GLENWOOD
CONTEXT & BACKGROUND:
. Apex Suggestion
o Changes would protect investment
o Provide necessary commercial for new residential
KEY ISSUES:
. Piecemeal planning is inefficient
· Must meet statewide planning goals for Goal 9 Economy, Goal 1 0 Housing, Goal 11 Public Facili-
ties, and Goal 12 Transportation
· Discrete but strategic actions will overwhelm existing planning assumptions contained in the Glen-
wood Refinement Plan
· Actions come only months before Council to review completed commercial and industrial lands in-
ventories, prepare economic opportunities analysis and economic development strategy for the
City.
MAJOR CONCERNS OR IMPACTS:
· Demonstrates high level of energy focused on the Franklin Blvd corridor.
· Creates a general direction of policy and development goals from involved parties.
· Important for the City of Springfield to play an influential role in the identification of
development aspirations for Franklin Blvd.
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES:
.:. Unified Riverfront development
.:. Franklin Blvd becomes the gateway to Springfield
.:. Triggers a needed update to the Glenwood Refinement Plan
PLANNING OPTIONS IMPACTING THIS ISSUE
o Options 2, 3, 4, 5
Glenwood Comprehensive Paper
- ~ ~ - --
ATTACHMENT 3 - PAGE 5
CHANGING COMP PLAN DESIGNATION OUTSIDE THE 48 ACRE RIVER-
FRONT DEVELOPMENT AREA-- INFRASTRUCTURE
AREA:
. Glenwood North of Franklin
. SUB areas 6 & 8 (outlined in black on
map)
. Glenwood, Willamette River
PROJECT OWNERS:
Council, City Staff, lane County, ODOT
STAKEHOLDERS:
SEDA, Glenwood businesses and residents,
Neighborhood associations, APEX,
Springfield and County elected officials, l TD,
Willamalane
TIMING:
24- 36 months from land use decision to
plan and design infrastructure system
CONTEXT & BACKGROUND:
· Existing infrastructure planning is
based on current refinement plan land
uses
. limited ability to respond to changes
in land use.
. Systems need to be designed to construction detail.
~ SouthClm Tr..,~
1:1 toiaT'4l'n Rvurfl';,n:
_ E;u;kIm ~'Vam,.Jt
_ ~1Tvnt Fk:kvdapma"1.AI1la
MRetdertalCCfD
_ U Glanw:xld ~a Pbnning Sumy
-~ttmn<'>rti'oi4'eOllllltat)l
;:=1 Wlt"\fl SonnlJ1<A:1 cty LfN\1o ..A..
1 ~...._ Y'
KEY ISSUES:
. Poorly developed & understood storm drainage system
. Sanitary sewer only in place for some areas of Glenwood
· Future development could create capacity issues with current system
· Transportation systems development (1-5/Franklin redevelopment) could constrain
land use changes
MAJOR CONCERNS OR IMPACTS:
. Glenwood Development is a High Priority Council Goal
. Effective infrastructure essential to achieving development goals
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES:
.:. Complete facilities plans
.:. Systems that can accommodate Glenwood's build out
PLANNING OPTIONS IMPACTING THIS ISSUE
o Options 2, 3, 4, 5
Glenwood Compr~h~~siye P~per
ATTACHMENT 3 - PAGE 6
GLENWOOD URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
AREA:
. All of Glenwood;
. 618 acres & 10 sub areas
. Affected areas; Glenwood,
L TO's EmX Rapid Transit, 1-5 & Inter-
change, Willamette River, City, Unin-
corporated Lane County
PROJECT OWNERS:
Springfield Economic Development Agency
(SEDA)
STAKEHOLDERS:
City of Springfield, Apex Investment Group
(preferred developer), Lane County, residents
and neighborhood associations,
Property owners, City and County Elected
Officials, SUB, L TO, Willamalane, Springfield
and Eugene School Districts, Glenwood Wa-
ter District
TIMING:
. Adopted January 1, 2005
. Urban renewal plan includes projects
and funding to 'cure blighted condi-
tions' over about a 20-year period
· Current property options for about 40 acres begin expiring in May 2007
CONTEXT & BACKGROUND:
· Urban Renewal Plan follows City adopted comprehensive plan, Glenwood Refine-
ment Plan, Glenwood Riverfront Plan, Springfield Development Code guiding land-
use designations, zoning, and development
· Provides funding for public infrastructure and can provide incentives to assist rede-
velopment (property options to assemble land, for example)
· Stimulates business and economic vitality, supports housing rehabilitation and de-
velopment for residents through mixed-use development
· Apex's style of development may require update to land-use plans for 48-acre River-
front Plan area
KEY ISSUES:
· Updates to market study underway through SEDA contract with Leland
· Developer will rely on updated market study to make investments and negotiate
development agreements
· Developer may choose the adopted Glenwood Riverfront Plan or use a new Mas-
ter Plan or Modification process and meet 11 criteria of approval
· Funding budgeted to begin revising zoning on areas outside the 48-acres in the
Riverfront Plan should the Springfield Council wish to move ahead on such a
process
MAJOR CONCERNS OR IMPACTS:
· Early investments set tone for further development in Glenwood
· Plan needs to be as contemporary as the public financing plan that will provide the
incentives for development
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES:
.:. Plan focuses on industrial development and Riverfront Plan area
.:. First major opportunity to re-use riverfront for mixed use development opportunities
between Downtowns and UO
.:. Will be first statement about changes ahead for Glenwood
.:. Requires major projects and processing through public/private partnerships
PLANNING OPTIONS IMPACTING THIS ISSUE
o Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
QlenwQ9d Comprehensive Paper
ATTACf.IMENT 3 - PAGE 7
APPENDIX A. AlA 150 INITIATIVE
.....J..: O:.ll ;lU__
.'.~" -r::
f;: - fii ederal .
.. (,I ... .__
(II '~' Courthouse_ ~.
- . - - f,i;,_
""41 -., . -'''1fIJ
,I~- ~~"... .',JlI/I it~h"_
f, ~t + "~r
,. -.
. ...,....:!- , CJrW.,..l)I,'e 1 . 1 Pr~
~ e 1$IliJl.'" 01,0,.9"":1b "
S.!:r'".l,E ,.ittIA'.. Il~~._ k ~i}c'S'~'!
lIli' .~. E . (--... ...Cl..' :I ~,
0- } '... IBlhAvt' i.ff !:'" !a.~ f !p. 1:>/ J
. J ~ i[:fJP r'" ... -...... .",.
j~ .l.UJe*j;:~'i. -I , .~!II r ~., I.
,._. - ~... <1>, I. I
CCmenni;J18I\Id.....'.I{ "\\'..-=-h
.. . -Jlii"iiQS1~::o W, \1 H"i~~-i ili
l c1:.IoGG-;;d '..!1IJ.. ",'" .).....~..'..~1.. ~
1 """'a SI 't ~.II':.'" H. \ ~--l
r --'<' ""...,. CI) ,
It.. WaIn.d.Rd i~IWD_~!:L. J- .... 0 St. .1.--1 .....
I -.--.-.," ''1....1 H 1
_ -- _.~Sp"l)gfIe'dr
- GlcrIWCIOCI !~!d:l~ ~
-C\ ',S c.it'
;;I~J.I\ 1
.~ JudllllL$ ~ J. r,.~ ~. · .. ,~ ~
)&t . \'tS'1 l '" ..--
, . .~ -1';~I'I~ld'u~n t"-r
AREA:
. 3.5 miles of Franklin Blvd from new Federal Courthouse to Willamette River Bridge
in Downtown Springfield
. . Glenwood, University of Oregon, L TO's EmX Rapid Transit Line, Willamette River,
Walnut Station Mixed Use Development Area
PROJECT OWNERS:
SWAIA of Oregon: Eric Gunderson, Don Kahle, Artemio Paz
STAKEHOLDERS:
University of Oregon, City of Springfield, City of Eugene, ODOT, L TO, Associated
Neighborhood Groups, APEX, ASLA, Oregon AIPlanners
CONTEXT & BACKGROUND:
. Urban Corridor Study
. Funded jointly by the AlA and other local public and private investors
. SEDA tabled AlA request for funds
TIMING:
December 2007 - Graphics, digital and physical models of redesigned and coordinated en-
tries to both Springfield and Eugene
KEY ISSUES:
. Will result in ideas not policies nor buy-in by jurisdictions
· May confuse community about what are ideas and what will be built
. Will generate local and national attention on multi-jurisdictional process and products
of study and workshops
. Will attract media and public attention of the ideas in the plans
. APEX and SEDA have not yet focused energy in.this process
MAJOR CONCERNS OR IMPACTS:
. Focuses high level of energy on Franklin Blvd corridor
· Attracts a national level of media/development interest for both Springfield and
Eugene
· Creates general ideas and possible direction for policy and development goals from
involved parties.
· Important for the City of Springfield to play an influential role in the identification of
development aspirations for Franklin Blvd.
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES:
.:. Set of conceptual plans and ideas
.:. Multiple public and private bodies form a collaborative effort
.:. Local and National Media becomes energized about development along Franklin
Blvd.
PLANNING OPTIONS ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE
o Option 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Glenwood Comprehensive Paper
- - -
ATTACf. [MENT 3 - PAGE 8
APPENDIX B. 1-5/ GLENWOOD AREA PLANNING STUDY OVERVIEW
lIGAPS\
PROJECT OWNERS:
Springfield, ODOT, MPO
STAKEHOLDERS:
LCOG, SEDA, Eugene, Lane County, University of Oregon and
L TO, Elected and appointed officials; Residents, business and
property owners in the affected area; neighborhood
associations; APEX; project consultant team
c'
f!l.
AREA:
. 1-5 Interstate access into Glenwood
. Affected areas: Glenwood,
Springfield, Eugene
TIMING:
24 months from inception to adoption.
Possibly beyond depending on issues
identified through public process.
CONTEXT & BACKGROUND:
. IGAPS = federal earmark funded project
. Follows an ODOT funded, high level look at full directional interchange
concepts as well as one concept to redesign existing 1-5/Glenwood Blvd
interchange
KEY ISSUES:
. Identify
o design options that avoid ramps over the river
o preferred design options for Glenwood Blvd and Glenwood/Franklin intersec-
tion
o adequate local circulation and access to development
· Determine forecast trip generation to assume for future land use
· Resolve issues of an Interchange Area Management Plan that might link land use to
interchange designs
MAJOR CONCERNS OR IMPACTS:
· Vital to the growth, redevelopment, and prosperity of Springfield and Eugene Down-
towns, the Glenwood Riverfront, and the University of Oregon
· Will improve 1-5 freeway access to metro area via Glenwood
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES:
.:. Do/do not reach agreement among stakeholders on future design
.:. Design aligns with future land uses & other system improvements
.:. Design is reflected in an Interchange Area Management Plan adopted by the Metro
Partners and the Oregon Transportation Commission
.:. Project construction depends on federal earmark funding
PLANNING OPTIONS IMPACTING THIS ISSUE
o Options 4, 5
Gle,!wood So~P!ehen!~e Paper
ATTACf. IMENT 3 - PAGE 9
APPENDIX C. WALNUT STATION
MIXED-USE AREA
AREA:
. 73 acres along Franklin Blvd.
in Eugene between 1-5 and
UofO
. Affected areas; Eugene,
University of Oregon, L TO's
ErnX Rapid Transit, Glenwood,
Springfield
PROJECT OWNERS:
City of Eugene
STAKEHOLDERS:
City of Eugene, University of
Oregon, State of Oregon, ODOT, L TO, Associated Neighborhood Groups, Glenwood, City of
Springfield
TIMING:
April 16, 2007 Eugene Staff to present "No Build" & "Multi-way Boulevard" design for Franklin
to Planning Commission
CONTEXT & BACKGROUND:
. Initiated May 2005 by the City of Eugene
. Phase One: Vision Development (2005)
. Phase Two: Development and Implementation (2006)
KEY ISSUES:
. Will generate comprehensive design for Eugene portion of Franklin Blvd
. Need for coordination across jurisdictions
. Impacts on 1-5 Interchange
MAJOR CONCERNS OR IMPACTS:
. Eugene planning effort will begin the process of reinventing Franklin Blvd
. Likely to set the tone for further development along Franklin Blvd
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES:
.:. Set of conceptual plans, policies & ideas
.:. Mixed-use development along Franklin Blvd
PLANNING OPTIONS IMPACTING THIS ISSUE
o N/A
Glenwood Comprehensive Paper
ATTACf.IMENT 3 - PAGE 10