Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/2011 Work Session- City of Springfield ~ • Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF . THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2011 .The City of Springfield Council met~in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 7, 2011 6:04~p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE . Mayor Lundberg called the Springfield City Council Work Session to order. Present were Mayor . Lundberg and Councilors Ralston, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Bill VanVactor, Assistant City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith,. City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff. Board Chair Stewart called the Lane County Board of Commissioner's Work Session to order. Present were Board Chair Stewart; and Board Members Leiken, Sorenson, Handy, and Bozievich. 1. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and Urban Growth Boundary: Overview and Phasing of . Proposed Amendments to the Eugene-Sprin~eld Metropolitan Area General Plan to Comply with HB3337 (ORS 197.304). Development Services Director Bill Grile presented the staff report on this item. Tonight was the first of two work sessions the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners would be holding on this subject. HB3337 was enacted by the Oregon Legislature in 2007 and codified as ORS 197.304. This law required Springfield (and also Eugene) to "(d)emonstrate * * * that its comprehensive plan provided sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary *** to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years" and to "separately from (Eugene) *** (e)stablish an urban growth boundary, consistent with the jurisdictional area of responsibility specified in the (Metro Plan)." For Springfield,. that jurisdictional area encompassed the lands east of Interstate 5. . ORS 197.304 required Springfield and Lane County to co-adopt Metro. Plan amendments. Springfield proposed to phase the scheduled adoption of these amendments in three separate steps. The first step was the main topic of this work session and one to follow on February 22nd Step 1 action items required co-adoption by Springfield and Lane County and included• ^ Adopt Sprin~eld Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis; ^ Adopt Springfield -Urban Growth Boundary (a tax lot-specific map of the acknowledged Metro Urban Growth Boundary east of I-5); and ^ Adopt Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan policies to address deficiencies. Details about .the Step 1 action items would be presented at the February 22nd work session with a • public hearing about these scheduled for Apri14, 2011. ~ ~ _ Ste 2 action items entailed Metro Plan Chapter 4 text amendments that would require co-adoption by Springfield, Eugene and Lane County. Step 3 action items would address commercial/industrial land • .. City of Springfield . Council Work Session Minutes February 7, 2011 -Page 2 needs and present, a proposed expansion of Springfield's UGB. Approval of proposed Step 3 items would require co-adoption by Springfield and Lane County. Mr. Grile said tonight they would like to provide a general overview of what had been done and what was planned ahead. He discussed the requirements of HB3337. During the joint public hearing on Apri14, the Board and Council would take testimony on Step 1 of 3 of the phased adoption decision. That first phase was the establishment of the existing UGB for Springfield. He noted the process over the last two years to get to this point. One of the common themes in the Development Services Department five years ago was lack of buildable, affordable residential land in Springfield. In response to that, the City Council directed staff to commence atwo-pronged study of residential lands. One study was done by ECONorthwest by looking fu-st at the market demand for housing in Springfield, taking into account the greater metro area. The second study, performed by in-house staff, looked at how much buildable, available residentially zoned lands were in Springfield. The two studies came together and were adopted in 2009 by the Springfield City Council as anon-binding land use action .and were called the Springfield Residential Land Housing Needs Analysis. That fulfilled a deadline established by HB3337 regarding available land supply. HB3337 clarified how residential land planning was to be done in Eugene/Springfield and also clarified how each City was to coordinate its . planning work with Lane County: He referred to Attachment 2 of the agenda packet, the legislative history of HB3337. He encouraged the elected officials to read that document if they had not already done so. He discussed the analysis by ECONorthwest regarding the urban growth boundary. that was to be established separately for Springfield. Mr. Grile said during the residential study, it became evident that Springfield also had a legitimate need to address employment lands. ECONorthwest was retained to put .together an analysis of viable economic opportunities in Springfield in the context of the greater metro area, and the strategies that should be embarked upon in order to implement those opportunities. In January 2010, the City Council adopted the Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands (GIBE) Inventory and Economic Opportunity Analysis, which were key components of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Goa19. These two studies were guided by technical advisory committees and citizen advisory committees, and. produced two general conclusions. The first conclusion was that statistically, Springfield could meet its 20 year residential land piece by not expanding the UGB, but by increasing the residential high density~zoning in Glenwood. There was not general consensus by the community that not expanding. the UGB for residential needs was the right things to do, but it was the conservative approach and should not be an issue for at least five year. The second conclusion was that even with . considerable redevelopment of existing lands, it was not possible to meet the economic strategies for employment in Springfield without expanding the UGB. The analysis that the consultant came up with that was vetted through the technical advisory committee and citizen advisory committee was.that Springfield was about 640 acres short of commercial/industrial lands and the only way to satisfy that need was to expand the UGB: Mr. Grile said knowing the UGB had to be expanded, the next step was to look at alternative areas where that expansion could be best satisfied. There were very technical criteria in LCDC Goal 14 structure and the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) establishing priorities for lands to be examined for expansion. A number of alternative growth areas around Springfield were identified and put through the evaluation criteria. That led to more public input and two work sessions with the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions. After those two work sessions, they held a joint public hearing last Spring. In May of 2010 they met again to deliberate and came to two recommendations. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes ~ . February 7, 2011 Page 3 Mr. Grile said the Springfield Planning Commission agreed that based on the statistical analysis, the best approach was to not attempt the UGB to meet.any residential needs, but to do a rezone and plan . amendment in Glenwood to meet the residential need. They endorsed'the consultant's analysis and recommendation to find 640 acres of commerciaUindustrial lands somewhere outside the existing UGB on the east side of the freeway. They also embraced redevelopment for industrial as well. The ` Lane County Planning Commission also agreed with the residential recommendation, but did not agree - - with the commerciaUindustrial piece and the boundary expansion. There was consensus from the Lane County Planning Commission that there was a need to expand the boundary, but they couldn't agree on whether or not 640 acres was the correct figure. Neither Planning Commission identified specifically which area should accommodate any planned growth. Staff and the legal team agreed that ` additional work needed to be done before recommending an area for expansion. Staff had been evaluating and putting together a response to all the testimony during the public hearing last Spring. They had also done some additional evaluation work on the .boundary alternatives and how they best satisfied the constraints issues and suitability issues in the context of the decision that came down from the Court of Appeals on the State's approval of Woodburn's UGB expansion. Mr. Grile said he appreciated the working relationship the Springfield staff and legal team had with . Lane County and the City of Eugene. They .had not always agreed, but worked very hard to find solutions. Mr. Grile said they were proposing a three step process to bring this forward to the Council and Board. Step 1 began on February 22 during their next joint work session. The analysis that went into the residential lands piece would be reviewed, as would the specific UGB line that was not an expansion, but a parcel. specific line that mirrored the existing boundary. He explained. Step 1 included adoption. of the existing UGB and confirmation of the residential lands analysis during the joint public hearing on April 4. Step 2 recognized that Step 1 didn't fully implement the intent of HB3337. HB3337 intended a two way relationship between each city and the County. This meant that Springfield's decisions for boundary expansion and plan amendments that required coordination were solely issues between the City of Springfield and Lane County. Likewise, Eugene decisions would be solely between Eugene and Lane County. Step 2 brought forward for review and consideration proposed changes to Chapter 4 of the Metro Plan. Chapter 4 set forward the existing three-way relationship. The amendments to this chapter would change the relationship to strictly be between each city and the County as opposed to all three. Adoption of Step 2 by fulfilling the intent of HB3337 was something they hoped to initiate soon and bring forward to the elected officials for consideration as early as Summer 2011. Mr. Grile said once'Step 2 was completed, Step 3 would bring. proposed expansion areas for Springfield's UGB. Staff still had quite a bit of work to do before bringing that forward. There was no schedule set for that yet, but could possibly be next Fall or Winter. Mr. Grile .said the Metro Plan boundary was another issue that was closely related to this discussion... The Metro Plan boundary was not identical to the UGBs. There was no statutory or citywide planning goal requirement for the Metro Plan boundary, but it was an acknowledged provision in the Metro ~ - Plan. If Lane County wanted to make a Metro Plan amendment to bring the Metro Plan boundary back to the UGB on the Springfield side, the Springfield City Council had no concerns about doing that. It would have no impact on Springfield. Mr. Grile had talked with Matt Laird at the County and the two agreed that this would be a relatively simple amendment. ; City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 7, 2011 Page 4 Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented a power point on the three steps. She reviewed the steps described by Mr. Grile and discussed the tentative time line. Step 1 would focus on three items for Springfield and Lane County: 1) adopt the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis; 2) Springfield's 2030 Refinement Plan, Residential Land and Housing Element, including the Springfield UGB; and 3) adopt the Springfield boundary without the expansion. Ms. Pauly said this took the existing Metro PIan UGB around Springfield and made it more specific. One ordinance would have all the findings and data to support the exact location of that line: The Housing Needs Analysis identified efficiency in ahigh-density residential category. There was a proposal in the policy to re-designate approximately. 30 acres of land in the Glenwood Riverfront Area that was already designated for mixed-use nodal development. This would refine that. designation to . . residential mixed-use. The Glenwood Refinement Plan update process was well underway and the , citizen advisory committee had already reviewed the land use proposal. The proposed changes could come to the elected officials sometime in September or October of 2011.Ms. Pauly said the decision point for Step 1 was whether or not the existing plan designations and Springfield's proposal to re- . designate .the high-density land in Glenwood would provide sufficient residential land supply for the next 20 years.. Ms. Pauly said Step 2, which would include the Metro Plan amendments to Chapter 4 were being called the conforming language amendments. These amendments would address the existence of the two UGBs and would incorporate the new procedure for how plan. amendments. were processed. That . action involved the City of Eugene as a party in that decision. Mr. Grile said Step 3 was detailed information about how to find the, 640 acres needed for Industrial and Commercial land. This was preliminary information and was something that would be further explored as they continue to move forward. It would be most constructive to defer any consideration on that until staff brought it back to the elected officials. The two immediate issues were establishing the UGB as required by HB3337 and amending the Metro Plan, Chapter 4 to redefine the relationship of how plan amendments were processed between the cities and County. Ms. Pauly asked the elected officials for feedback on how they would like to receive the information - from staff for their future meetings. The Planning Commission received the information on DVD. Some other options could include printed packets or packets available online. The Commissioners.and Council discussed how they would prefer their packets for future joint meetings. They asked for the following: • .Commissioner Stewart -pdf on website ~- • Commissioner Leiken -pdf on website • Commissioner Bozievich -pdf on website - • Commissioner Handy -paper and website for timely items • .Commissioner Sorenson -pdf on website, things that would be referred to often it would. be helpful to have in paper packets • Mayor Lundberg, Councilor VanGordon, Councilor Moore, Councilor Woodrow and Councilor Pishioneri -pdf on FTP site (usual process for agenda packet) • Councilor Ralston and Councilor Wylie -paper • All maps need to be provided on paper ' . City of Springfield Council ~~ ork Session Minutes February 7, 2011 Page 5 Commissioner Leiken referred to the Glenwood map. He asked how the future realignment of Franklin Boulevard would affect residential, commercial, or office. He said it looked like it would affect office zoning most. - Ms. Pauly said the work being done by staff and the committee already assumed the footprint of the boulevard concept and factored that in to the proposals for residential acreage. There were existing refinement plan policies that specified how much should be commercial and how much residential. This would update that to require more residential in one area. It was still mixed-use and could have ground floor commercial uses. Commissioner Leiken said it looked like the mixed use residential would. not be affected, and the commercial would not be affected much. Commissioner Sorenson asked to go back to the map showing where the areas would be modified. The map indicated the different boundaries. He asked about the rationale for not using the rivers as boundaries. Mr. Grile said under Goal 14, there was no authority to simply be that practical. Commissioner Sorenson referred to an area south of the Mill Pond on the map, across from the Howard Buford Recreation Area. He asked if that was where the Willamalane Park was located. Mr. Grile said they were farmland. ~~- . Commissioner Sorenson asked if that was. proposed for the UGB adjustment. Ms. Pauly said that area was currently inside the UGB. The red line on the map was the existing UGB. Mr. Grile said the law required the City to first look at existing exception sites, which were development committed lands. They then needed to look at less valuable farm and forest lands, with expansion onto farm and forest lands being the last option. Without a detailed analysis, they couldn't say that it made sense from a practical standpoint due to infrastructure costs, etc. Commissioner Sorenson asked about another line in the lower southeast corner. Ms. Pauly said that.was the existing boundary.and was where most of.the City's vacant residential lands were located. Mr. Handy asked about the process for adopting a line for the. UGB without. the expansion. Mr. Grile said the Metro Plan was originally drawn on a small map where each line was about a 500 foot line. Staff had done their best to determine where in that 500 foot swatch of land, the actual line. landed. Commissioner Handy asked why that came into the process now instead of later.- Mr. Grile said because HB3337 required it, and it was a procedural step that was most practical at this time. , City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 7, 2011 Page 6 Ms. Pauly said statute described how that was to be done. The Metro Plan text talked about more specificity. Commissioner Leiken said the City of Springfield was interested in bringing the Metro Plan boundary and UGB in line with each other, and that made a lot of sense. He noted issues in Santa Clara in Eugene, but also in the Hayden Bridge area. Because there was not an objection from the. Springfield Council, it made sense to move forward on that now. The Metro Plan boundary was confusing and needed to be made clear to citizens. He hoped the Lane County Board would direct staff to initiate that change. Commissioner Stewart. asked if it would make sense to initiate that change after the boundary was set between the two cities. Mr. Grile said it made sense to do that at any time. It was strictly a policy choice for the three elected . bodies to establish that Metro Plan adopted line outside the UGB thirty years ago. It could be a policy decision to make that line no longer exist. .Commissioner Stewart thought it might need to be done in sequence. He asked if Eugene would have a say in that process. Yes. Commissioner Bozievich said it would probably be best to wait to make that adjustment until after Step 1 was completed. He commended staff on the idea of identifying a site specific line. He appreciated that definition and felt both sides would appreciate. that clarity. He was happy to see Springfield move forward on that. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council Work Session. Board Chair Stewart adjourned the Lane County Work Session. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:50 p.m. ~ Minutes Recorder -Amy Sowa S ~. Christine L. Lundberg Mayor . Attest: Amy So City Rec rder ;. ,. ..