HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/2011 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2011
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on.Tuesday, July 5, 2011 at 6:03 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, and Ralston. Also present
were Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and
members of the staff.
Councilors Woodrow and Pishioneri were absent (excused).
1. Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase I Metro Plan/Refinement Plan Amendment LRP2008-00017.
City Planner Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. In February 2008, Council
identified the phased update of the Glenwood Refinement Plan as a priority work item. Since then,
staff from Development Services, Public Works and the City Manager's Office had engaged citizens
and partner agencies in a comprehensive planning process. As a prelude to the Phase I public hearing
process, staff was providing this project update to the Council..
Staff provided Council with a project update in the May 9, 2011 Communication Packet. That packet
contained: a status update on the project; project timeline; process summary; visioning goal
statements; Phase I boundary map; and draft Plan objectives.
Ms. Markarian presented a power point on this subject. She provided a project overview back to 1985
when the Glenwood Refinement Plant Phase 1 was drafted. That first plan was drafted by the City of
Eugene as Glenwood was under their jurisdiction at that time. Glenwood residents requested
jurisdictional transfer to Springfield in 1999, so the plan was modified slightly for Springfield. In
2005, in order to try to stimulate development along the river, Springfield undertook the Glenwood
Riverfront Plan. In 2005, the Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan was developed after voters approved an
urban renewal district in Glenwood. Two of the biggest barriers to development in Glenwood were
Franklin Boulevard and uses surrounding the riverfront area. To address those issues, Springfield
undertook the Franklin Boulevard Study in 2007-2008. The recommendation that Council endorsed at
that time was a hybrid multi-way boulevard. .
Ms. Markarian said Council was presented with five options by staff in 2007 for planning in
Glenwood that ranged from maintaining the status quo to a complete Refinement Plan update. Council
chose to complete the entire update of the Plan and recommended that the existing Glenwood
Refinement Plan and Glenwood Riverfront Plan be used as a starting point. Other things to be
considered that were not in place in 2005 were the Franklin corridor study, infrastructure planning,
upgrade of the Franklin Boulevard trunk line, the new I-5 bridges, the placement of Franz Bakery in
Glenwood, a process that was underway to look at the interchanges and the urban renewal district.
Ms. Markarian referred to the Project Goals. At the beginning of this process, staff developed goals
they wanted to achieve in this plan. In 2008, Council directed staff to make updating the Glenwood
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 5, 2011
Page 2
Refinement Plan a priority work item. The first step was to establish a multi-departmental staff team,
the Project Core Team, which included representatives from Development Services, Public Works,
and the City Manager's Office. They were overseen by the Oversight Team which included division
managers and department heads. Staff developed a citizen involvement plan which was approved by
the Planning Commission and also recruited a twenty person Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC).
There were a number of participants including Glenwood residents, Glenwood property
owners/business owners, Glenwood employees, the general public, designers, developers, realtors and
lenders, an- affordable housing advocate and a Springfield Chamber of Commerce representative. A
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was also formed and included representatives from Springfield
Utility Board (SUB), Willamalane, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Lane County,
Glenwood Water District, Springfield Police and Fire Departments, Public Works Maintenance staff,
and Lane Transit District (LTD).
Ms. Markarian said the first step in the process was to inventory and analyze existing conditions and
existing policies governing all of Glenwood. In 2009, staff published an existing conditions report that
outlined that analysis. Subsequently, staff conducted through a consultant, a wetland and riparian
corridor inventory. The Council adopted amendments to the City's Natural Resources Study in
February 20 11 in response to that inventory work. A consultant was hired to conduct a historic
reconnaissance level survey for Glenwood. At the same time, staff worked with the CAC on visioning
for all of Glenwood to come up with principles to guide the physical, social and environmental
qualities they thought should. occur in Glenwood over the next twenty years. That process culminated
with the development of thirteen goal statements.
The next task of Phase 1 was to develop concepts around land use circulation and open space. They
coordinated the efforts to develop those concepts with all of the downtown planning work that was
going on through the consultant Crandall Arambula. Crandall Arambula was asked to come up with
recommendations for Franklin riverfront. During the last year, staff prepared documents for Phase 1 in
terms of the draft plan chapters which would attempt to achieve the goals outlined in the visioning
process and drafted Springfield Development Code language that would enable the City to implement
the plan once adopted. Preparation of the documents for Phase 1 included input from both the CAC
and TAC. A subcommittee of the CAC reviewed each chapter and provided recommendations for
edits before it was brought back to the full CAC. Eight CAC meetings were held to go over the
chapters and receive feedback. She explained the voting process during those meetings to help
determine the level of support for each change. Staff addressed the concerns that came out of those
meetings. The City Attorney's office, had' also looked at all of the draft chapters. The Open Space
chapter was presented to the Willamalane Board who provided feedback. The Housing Section of the
Housing and Economic Development chapter was taken to the Housing Policy Board for their
feedback. Four Planning Commission meetings had also been held to discuss the chapters and receive
input. During this aspect of the phase 1 process, Public Works staff were drafting edits to their
engineering standards and procedures manual.
Ms. Markarian said staff would finalize the text and diagram of the plan over the summer, compiling it
into a document for the public. They would submit the draft plan to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) on September 1, and would hold a public open house in
September. Staff would bring the plan to the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions
during formal work sessions and public hearings in October and back to the City Council in November
and December along with the Lane County Board of Commissioners for the public hearing process.
Phase 2 and 3 would start after that time.
City of Springfield
Council- Work Session Minutes
July 5, 2011
Page 3
Ms. Markarian discussed the goals set by the CAC: 1) improve public connections to the Willamette
River; 2) establish inviting public spaces, including parks, plazas, and multi-use paths; 3) encourage
aesthetically pleasing, sustainable buildings and sites that are context-sensitive and oriented to human
activity; 4) provide opportunities for the installation, display, and creation of public art; 5) allow for a
mix of uses suitable to the unique development opportunities in Glenwood; 6) provide opportunities
for development of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a range of households; 7) facilitate
opportunities for businesses to provide goods and services to local, regional, statewide, national, and
international markets; 8) restore, enhance and protect the ecological function of natural resources, and
increase public awareness of these resources; 9) protect the public from potential natural and manmade
hazards; 10) celebrate Glenwood's contributions to the region's historic development; 11) enhance the
transportation system to improve safety, convenience, and movement for all modes of travel, including
vehicles, trains, public transit, bicycles and pedestrians; 12) provide a full range of urban public
facilities and services for redevelopment and new development; and 13) facilitate redevelopment while
addressing the consequences of change to existing residents and businesses. Loosely, each goal
addressed each chapter, but many goals overlapped.
Phase I was the Glenwood Riverfront, which was divided into two principal subareas: Franklin
Riverfront to the north and the McVay Riverfront to the-east. She explained why these areas were
separated. Each chapter in the Refinement Plan included text, maps and diagrams, objectives, policies
and implementation strategies to reach the goals listed above. Many things were considered when
developing these chapters, such as: the visioning and goal statements; the existing conditions; Federal
and State regulations; buildable lands needs; research and contemporary best practices around nodal
development; neighborhood design; integrating land use and transportation planning; prior Council
direction regarding land uses and mobile home parks; prior planning efforts; the Willamalane
Comprehensive Plan; and the Willamette River Open Space Vision and Action Plan. They attempted
to coordinate this effort with the Downtown planning effort and considered recommendations by the
consultant, Crandall Arambula. In addition, written and oral feedback from the CAC, public
comments, staff and TAC were considered.
Councilor Ralston asked for the definition of sustainable buildings. Ms. Markarian said it came up
numerous times during the CAC meetings on visioning. In terms of sustainability, they were looking
at the sites and neighborhood in general and the environmental, financial and social aspects of
sustainability. That included a mix of incomes, stormwater management and how to have low-impact
development along the river. One of the financial aspects was making sure the City wasn't creating
regulations that made developers unable to financially afford to develop. Councilor Ralston said it
was a buzz word. He asked for an example of something staff had to rethink after hearing input from
the CAC or TAC.
Ms. Markarian said several members of CAC had expressed concern with one of the implementation
.strategies proposed regarding riparian restoration on the riverfront. Staff realized that they had not
explained it enough to the CAC, so they went back and reworked the text to make it more clear.
Councilor Moore referred to the goal "Encourage aesthetically pleasing, sustainable buildings and
sites that are context-sensitive and oriented to human activity." She asked what was meant by
"oriented to human activity."
Ms. Markarian said the Lane Use Chapter had a section on how the buildings should look or feel to a
pedestrian walking down the. street or a driver in a car passing by. That was where the plan district and
the Development Code regulations looked at the form of the,building to make sure the streets were in
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 5, 2011
Page 4
good proportion with the building in terms of height, and people felt comfortable walking down the
street with display windows, etc.
Ms. Markarian spoke regarding Land Use and Built Form. The land use recommendations identified
the location, mix and type of essential uses selected to maximize the value of the area's proximity to
the Willamette River, major transportation corridors, University of Oregon and the strategic location
of Glenwood between Eugene and Springfield. The.framework also considered likely development
and redevelopment constraints and was intended to foster regional market growth, provide
opportunities for living, working, shopping, services and hospitality, by guiding the types and forms of
future development and redevelopment in Glenwood that.would,,in turn, complement redevelopment
in Downtown Springfield. The Land Use framework established a mix of commercial, office and
industrial uses that supported the creation of jobs and allowed individuals to support themselves and
their households. It also included visitor opportunities in close proximity to and integrated with
residential mixed-use areas that promoted housing choice in the heart of the Glenwood Riverfront. The
Lane Use framework also complemented and enhanced Willamette Greenway principles and was
integrated with public amenities to increase its overall land value.
Ms. Markarian said the recommended plan designations refined the Metro Plan Diagram to illustrate a
broad allocation of land use needs in the Glenwood Riverfront. There were several subareas identified.
Subarea A included residential mixed-use, Subarea B included, commercial mixed-use, Subarea C
included office mixed-use, and Subarea D included employment mixed-use. The zoning district would
have the same name as the planned designations, and identified permitted land use types and mixes.
Through adoption of the Refinement Plan, all parcels in Phase 1 would be rezoned and re-designated
so developers wouldn't have to go through that process when ready to develop.
Councilor Ralston noted the need for high-density residential and that land in Glenwood was identified
for that use. He asked what would happen if it was rezoned high-density, but then didn't work for a
developer that came in and wanted to build. He also asked how that would affect our housing
inventory.
Ms. Markarian said the plan should be reviewed every couple of years over the twenty years to make
sure it made sense with existing market conditions. As part of the Residential Lands and Housing
Needs Analysis in the Springfield 2030 Plan, the City needed to provide for adequate high-density
residential land. Staff felt Glenwood was the most appropriate place for that type of development. If in
five years they found that high-density development was not being done in our area, we would need to
revisit that.
Ms. Markarian said in the event rezoning and redesignation caused non-conforming situations for
existing uses, those buildings could continue and expand as permitted in the Springfield Development
Code.
Ms. Markarian provided more detail on each subarea. Subarea A included 34 gross acres, 32 percent of
which would be reduced through infrastructure. The designation proposed encouraged a compact
urban form and would enable residents from a wide-range of economic levels, household sizes and
ages to live there. They believed that livelier street edges made for safer streets, and ground floor
shops and offices provided services needed by residents and attracted activity to the street. On
Franklin Boulevard, commercial uses could be permitted on upper stories as.it may be less desirable to .
have residents at that level along that street. It was proposed to prohibit auto oriented uses in all of the
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 5, 2011
Page 5
Glenwood Riverfront because they were not consistent with the intent of a pedestrian/transit oriented
development or the existing nodal requirements.
Councilor VanGordon asked what prohibiting all auto-oriented uses meant. Ms. Markarian said uses
such as car sales or fast food drive-throughs were "auto-oriented." The minimum density in Subarea A
was 50 units per acre. The typical height of the buildings would be four to six stories, but could be
less. Common occupancy would be multi-family apartments, condominiums and senior and
congregate care. At full build-out, there would be a minimum of 1000 new dwelling units.
Councilor VanGordon asked if there were other places in the City where we had 50 units per acre.
Ms. Markarian said the Royal Building was over 100 dwelling units per acre.
Councilor VanGordon asked if infrastructure was about the same as other areas.
Ms. Markarian said it was very similar. In the Metro Plan, the residential-designation stated about 30
percent would go for infrastructure. The primary use of Subarea A would be residential and the
secondary use would be commercial. The secondary uses would be- limited to the ground floor of the
buildings with the exception of along Franklin Boulevard which could have upper story commercial.
Secondary uses needed to be limited to maintain our supply of high-density land. In coordinating this
with the Downtown Plan, downtown would be more of the retail and commercial hub. They didn't
want to create .a highly competitive situation between Glenwood and downtown regarding retail.
Ms. Markarian said Subarea B would be Commercial Mixed-Use and was about 18 Gross Acres.
Sixteen percent of that land would be taken away from developable acreage to accommodate our
existing riparian setback. Some land would also be taken out for roads.
Councilor Ralston asked how far the setback went. Ms. Markarian said 75 feet from the top of the
bank. The primary uses would be commercial, including hospitality services. The commercial uses
could be stand alone or part of a residential building. It would be up to the developer whether or not to
include residential uses.
Councilor Wylie asked if the 75 foot setback.could be used for paths or gardens. Ms. Markarian said
some of that area could be used for recreational purposes, but some did need to be set aside for
riparian restoration and stormwater management.
Ms. Markarian said Subarea C was about 50'acres of office mixed-use designation. The primary uses
were employment, office employment and professional services. The secondary uses for ground floor
development included commercial uses. Flexibility was included in the plan for exceptions. For
example, provisions for hospitality services around the Glenwood Boulevard/Franklin Boulevard
intersection, provisions for a potential future fire station in that area and also University related uses
compatible with office mixed-use development.
Ms. Markarian said Subarea D was about 200 acres. The primary use was Light Medium Industrial
(LMI), office employment and similarly professional scientific or technical services. The secondary
uses included commercial limited to the ground floor.
Mayor Lundberg noted that Subarea D was primarily mobile home parks at this time. The Council
would need to be aware of the City's policies regarding mobile home parks because none of the plan
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 5, 2011
Page 6
included mobile home parks. Council needed to be aware of that situation. It was not an easy
discussion because it involved displacement. She asked how many mobile home parks were in this
area. Ms. Markarian said there were seven parks in the Riverfront area. She did not have the number
of homes readily available, but could get that information.
Councilor Wylie asked if they had done any planning for mobile parks. Ms. Markarian said the
Housing Chapter addressed mobile home parks. Staff was also drafting code language to implement
the plan, which was addressed in the Land Use Chapter. The primary concern of the CAC was .
regarding the minimum density. The CAC recommended forwarding the Draft Land Use Chapter to
the Planning Commission. There were some people that mentioned public park presence on the river
and other riverfront property owners that expressed concern about what they could do with their
property between now and when the market improved.
Ms. Markarian spoke regarding the Transportation Chapter. The objective in the plan was to create a
multi-modal facility that supported redevelopment and improved arterial connections along Franklin
Boulevard. Staff was working with the City Attorney's Office to draft specific language regarding the
width of the roadway and the design features, taking Council's past direction into consideration. Part
of the plan for Franklin Blvd. included wide sidewalks, a friendly pedestrian environment, safe
crossing points, dedicated bicycle facilities, through lanes and access lanes.
Mayor Lundberg said Councilor Woodrow (who was not in attendance) had questions on slowing the
speeds yet trying to keep traffic flowing. She asked if measures used to slow traffic could also cause
issues with emergency vehicles. She wanted to know how those with limited mobility would be
affected. Ms. Markarian said the concept was that the center through-lanes would be where traffic
moving from one place to another through Glenwood would travel. The access lanes would be along
the outer edges and would have lower speeds for those accessing businesses. If an emergency vehicle
needed to get through Glenwood, it would take the through-lane.
Mayor Lundberg asked where the emergency vehicles would park if they needed to get to someone at
one of those businesses. Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin said there would be frequent
accesses to the slower access lanes. Streets to the back of the buildings would make it easier for
emergency vehicles to get in close to the stores.
Ms. Markarian said the EmX facilities would need to be adjusted with changes to Franklin Boulevard.
Roundabouts were considered at the Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway intersection, along with
public art. Towards the north of Franklin Boulevard, a local street network was being proposed. The
northern section of McVay Highway would be considered a collector rather than a local street.
Mayor Lundberg said she liked single lane roundabouts, but struggled with the multi-lane
roundabouts. She asked if the roundabouts were set in stone. Mr. Goodwin said right now the plan
favored roundabouts, but they would need to go through the National Environmental Policy
Assessment (NEPA), nothing would be final. At this point, it seemed likely that the safest and most
efficient method at the two intersections could be a roundabout.
Mayor Lundberg said one of the considerations when putting in a multi-Lane roundabout included
vegetation diminishing the line of site. There was still a lot of education that needed to be done for
roundabouts. The multi-lane roundabout at Harlow and Pioneer Parkway now had lights at all of the
intersections for pedestrians and it was still scary for pedestrians to cross. She hoped they could look
at those design issues.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 5, 2011
Page 7
Councilor VanGordon asked if they could check with Franz Bakery about traffic from their facility.
They had a lot of outbound traffic of large vehicles.
Mr. Goodwin said the roundabout would need to fit triple-trailer vehicles. .
Councilor VanGordon asked if there might be a McVay expansion project in this plan. Ms. Markarian
said there could be an upgrade, but not an expansion.
Councilor VanGordon asked how tight the parking would be in this area. Ms.. Markarian said parking.
would be a combination of on-street parking and off-street parking such as surface lots, underground
parking, and parking within buildings.
Councilor VanGordon said the language in the plan made it sound like we would have fewer parking
spaces than the maximum demand because of transit use. He asked -if there would be a shortage of
parking. Ms. Markarian said they were proposing standards for parking, but were providing options
for developers to reduce that requirement through a transportation demand management program or
car sharing, etc.
Councilor Wylie said when they looked at a roundabout, they needed to look at the data on our two-
lane roundabout regarding accidents and traffic flow.
Ms. Markarian said that would be done through the Franklin Boulevard study.
Mayor Lundberg agreed. She was concerned about pedestrians and bicyclists trying to get through the
multi-lane roundabouts. It was. going to be a challenge to make it pedestrian friendly.
Ms. Markarian asked if another work session should be scheduled because of time constraints.
Mr. Towery said they should reschedule another work session.
Mayor Lundberg said this topic was of a lot of interest for her and the councilors.
Discussion was held regarding pedestrian crossings at locations prior to the roundabout which could
be addressed during the Franklin Boulevard study.
Mr. Goodwin said the technology of using roundabouts was emerging and they were learning more all
the time. By the time we were out of the NEPA process for Franklin Boulevard, staff could come back
to Council with a fuller view of the intersection and whether or not a roundabout was the appropriate
intersection treatment.
Mr. Towery said the existing two lane roundabout was designed for the conditions at the location at
the time it was built. There were different conditions, land uses and traffic flows in the Glenwood area.
Staff would take what they had learned from our existing roundabout and apply what they knew about
the Glenwood area before making design decisions.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:59 p.m
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 5, 2011
Page 8
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
.
Amy SoIrlder
City Re