Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/2003 Work Session . . . , City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2003. The city of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 16,2003 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ballew, Woodrow, Burge, Ralston and Malloy. Also present were Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Tim Harold, Acting City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Absent: Councilor Fitch (excused) 1. Springfield Nodal Development: Continued Discussion of the Consultant's Final Report. Planner Mark Metzger was present for the staff report. Mr. Metzger said that Council was asked to review the supplementary materials that were requested at the May 12 work session and continue their discussion of the recommendations for implementing nodal development. Staff is seeking additional feedback on the recommendations, not formal approval. Staff is moving to respond to Council comments received at the May 12th work session requesting that Booth Kelly be added to the Downtown node and that Jasper-Natron be given high priority as a node site. At the May 12 work session, Terry Moore, of ECONorthwest, detailed key issues and suggested recommendations that he believes will make nodal development more viable and likely to succeed. At the conclusion of his presentation, Council discussion turned from, "How should we implement nodal development" to "Why are we pursuing nodal development". Mr. Metzger said that Attachment 1 reviews Springfield's obligation under state law to reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and how TransPlan and nodal development responds to that obligation. Staff will be prepared to address additional questions about the commitment made by the City to nodal development as part of TransPlan. Council requested information about successful nodal development projects in Oregon. Attachment 2 is a memorandum from ECONorthwest that summarizes a number of successful nodal projects that have been completed in Oregon. Attachment 3 includes additional examples of successful projects that are "node-like" in their design and function. The primary tools for implementing nodal development, Articles 40 - Mixed Use Zoning Districts and Article 41 - Nodal Development Overlay, were adopted in June 2002. As part of the larger Node Selection and Implementation project, ECONorthwest was asked to evaluate Springfield's policies and Development Code language t~ point out where improvements could be made before moving ahead with implementation. Some of the action steps proposed by ECONorthwest are designed to give developers more flexibility in proposing new development within nodes. Other recommendations were aimed at easing standards that could discourage desirable development. Attachment 4 lists the recommendation found in the ECONorthwest report. The recommendations provide a basis for Council discussion about changes in the City's approach to implementing nodal development. . . . , City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, June 16, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Metzger said he has since met with Doug McKay and Steve Korth to review the nodal plans and get their input. Councilor Ballew commented that it has been a long process. We did not really have an option, but with Councilor Hatfield's guidance we have a livable solution. She said this seems the best way to address the responsibilities we have. Councilor Burge said looking over Goal 12, Transportation, and Goal 2, Land Use Planning, he doesn't see a requirement. It clearly states that these are guidelines. We do have a right to choose alternatives and we have 20 years to reach the goal of 5% decrease in VMT. He doesn't feel there is a high urgency and he doesn't feel nodal development is the answer. He feels we are rushing into this without enough background and experience in nodal development. He doesn't see justification for nodal development. Mixed use zoning is appropriate and ought to be an option. He would like to leave this to private developers and architects. Residential developments are being done much differently than 20 years ago, as are commercial and industrial development. He feels that residential, commercial and industrial developments are much more compatible than they were in the past. He will not support nodal development, but would support mixed use applications. Councilor 'Woodrow thanked Mark Metzger for sitting with him to explain the nodal development recently. He asked Mr. Metzger if we are obligated to do this now because of the decision the LCDC approved. Mr. Metzger discussed Springfield's option for meeting these goals and our commitment to do it. Councilor Woodrow asked if it wasn't the purpose of nodal development to make it flexible for private developers. Mr. Metzger said that it does allow for more flexibility for private developers. It gives them room to negotiate and make trade-offs. Councilor Woodrow referenced the report from ECONorthwest listing Jasper Natron as something to be addressed later. He would like to see that moved more to the forefront. Mr. Metzger said the report referred to development areas that were ready for development. Jasper Natron does offer a great opportunity and we have a large investment in that area. Councilor Ralston clarified the 4 nodes being discussed as Glenwood, Jasper, Gateway, Downtown and Mohawk. He asked how many acres those five areas include. Mr. Metzger said it includes about 750 acres, but on the TransPlan map, our commitment is to come up with over 400 acres. He feels they may be a little short ofthat by the time we draw up the boundaries. Councilor Ralston said he has always been a supporter of the nodal concept, but the bottom line is that we are being less than honest saying we will try to reduce VMT. It looks more like a way to restrict development. There needs to be flexibility to allow the public to come in and customize it as long as it works. Mr. Metzger said it wasn't the goal of the committee to restrict development. He feels that this does have potential to help reduce miles traveled. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, June 16, 2003 Page 3 . Councilor Ralston said it could work in Gateway, but other areas don't have the financial backing to succeed. There is such a great deal of coordinating with land owners to make a design that will be profitable. ' Mayor Leiken asked why we have to reduce VMT. Mr. Metzger said Oregon Administrative Rule 660.12.35, subsection 4 says that we must. Also because of the way we have developed in the past with certain types of businesses spread out. Mayor Leiken asked if this is pointed toward pollution control. Mr. Metzger said congestion was a major factor. He feels that we need more cosmetic development as well to create a more beautiful community. Mayor Leiken asked if Mr. Metzger could get information on ridership in Oregon and on the east coast. We are not going to get people to give up car travel in their community. He also noted that over 50% of our state is owned by Federal Government, which limits allowing private developers to develop these areas. Councilor Burge discussed some information regarding L TD and the percentage of citizens they serve. Councilor Ballew said it has been a long process to get to this point. She asked if anyone had a better idea. She asked Mr. Metzger if there was a penalty under law if they go backwards now. . Mr. Metzger said there are penalties. He also noted that it puts us in a position where we are less likely to get assistance from the state if we haven't shown responsibility in this area. Mr. Kelly said it would be a process if we went back. He discussed the work done by council to maintain independence in Springfield. If we were to change the fundamental TransPlan, we would have to speak with and negotiate with our neighboring jurisdictions regarding the change. Councilor Malloy noted that he rides the city bus with a group of others who work in downtown. He feels nodal development could be very beneficial in his case. He likes nodal development because it looks at a large area that can be developed in a functional and attractive way. His biggest concern is how we make it happen. How do we sell this vision to developers? Mr. Metzger hopes that in our mixed use and nodal development language, developers could see that they could use their creativity to put in the development. He feels the developers will come if there is some flexibility. Mayor Leiken suggested staff meet with other developers to determine if this can work. We can move forward, but we don't need to be in a rush. The City can learn from these developers. This may be how we can overcome some of these issues. He feels that things could be different and this could be successful, but we need to have a partnership with these developers and the City needs to be open with these developers. He appreciates that staff has met with some developers, but feels it needs to be ongoing to be successful. . Councilor Ballew asked if Mr. Metzger could explain the difference between Mixed Use and Nodal Development. . . . , City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, June 16, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Metzger said the nodal gives more specifics within the development. There are certain land uses that are not allowed in nodal development. The trade off for this is that they can build more densely than a traditional commercial. Councilor Burge said he was involved when Campus Industrial was set up in Gateway. He feels it is poorly drafted and vague and feels it has caused controversy in that area regarding misuse. He is not sure staff is capable of drafting these designs. Mr. Kelly said staff is looking for direction how to proceed. It is difficult to go backwards on our promises regarding TransPlan. To go forward, staff needs to know how to go forward. He referenced the adoption of Article 40 and 41. Since that time, there have been questions whether those have been flexible enough. ECONorthwest came in to assist staff in determining what changes if any needed to be made. Staffcan meet with developers to get their views on this as well, as the Mayor suggested. He asked what else council would like staff to do. Councilor Ralston said we have no choice but to move forward. He feels it is going in the right direction, but wants to caution that we keep it flexible enough to allow developers to come in. Councilor Woodrow agrees that staff should meet with developers and share that input with ECONorthwest for review. Staff could then bring those comments back to council. This may give council some assurance that we are going in the right direction. Councilor Malloy said we need to see how it can work here. He feels the developers input will be very beneficial. He would like to keep it uniquely Springfield. Councilor Ballew asked what kind of timeline we are on. Mr. Metzger said it is most important to get it right. The goal is to move ahead and draw up the formal boundaries around these nodes and to make any necessary changes to Article 40 and 41 to make them viable. The time frame could include coming back this fall with boundaries and specific changes in the development codes which has support of developers. Mr. Kelly said staff welcomes council's input because that is how we improve. Staff also wants to allow flexibility. He discussed some of the issues staff faces, but our philosophy remains the same. He mentioned some of the issues that Councilor Burge brought up on past development and possible reasons why these things happened. Staff will proceed with the suggestions given tonight by council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Attest: ~km)~ Amy So J I r . . . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes, June 16,2003 Page 5 Acting City Recorder