HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/2011 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2011'
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, September 12, 2011 at 5:30 p.m:, with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, and Woodrow.
Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney
Bill VanVactor, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused).
1. Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase I Refinement Plan Amendment TYP411-00005, Metro Plan
Amendment TYP411-00006, Development Code Amendment TYP411-00007, and Zoning Map
Amendment TYP311-00001.
City Planner Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. Staff provided Council with the
first part of a project update at the July 5, 2011 Work Session. This second Work Session would
cover the remainder of the Transportation Chapter not presented during the first Work Session, as well
as the following chapters: Open Space; Housing & Economic Development; Public Facilities &
Services; Financing Public Infrastructure; Urban Transition & Annexation; and Historic & Cultural
Resources. Staff would also present information regarding the proposed amendments to Springfield
Development Code Section 3.4-200 to enable implementation of the Phase I GRP.
Staff engaged the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) in a detailed review of each Plan chapter and
the Development Code amendments as they were developed. Staff also asked the CAC to indicate
their level of support for forwarding these items on to the Planning Commission for their review.
Attachment 3 of the agenda packet summarized the comments received from the CAC, along with the
staff response to those comments. Six topics garnered a high level of CAC discussion; the appendices
to the summary document clarified the rationale behind those particular policies.
A joint Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission work session and public hearing on the
Plan and Code amendments was scheduled for October 18, 2011. A joint City Council and.Board of
Commissioners work session on the Plan and Code amendments would take place on November 7,
2011 with a joint public hearing scheduled for November 21, 2011.
Ms. Markarian said everything they would be discussing tonight only affected the Glenwood
Riverfront, which included the Franklin Riverfront to the north, and the McVay Riverfront to the
southeast. One of the key elements of their proposal was .the Franklin Riverfront local street network.
The objective of the street network was to support redevelopment, multi-modal circulation, disperse
traffic, facilitate walking and biking, orient development to the public realm, and provide clear and
direct physical and visual routes to the river. They were proposing four direct north/south access
routes that were thru-streets including a northern extension of McVay, a northern extension of
Mississippi, a northern extension of Henderson, and a northern extension of Glenwood Boulevard.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 12, 2011
Page 2
Limited north/south access points that would also be thru-streets were also being proposed. She
explained. Those streets would be one-way couplets. In terms of east/west there was Franklin
Boulevard and two proposed east/west service streets, only one of which needed to be a thru-street.
The main purpose was to maintain the continuity of the grid and provide parking and boating access.
The last was the riverfront street. The purpose of the riverfront street was to make the riverfront a
destination, to avoid dead-end north/south streets and land grabbing cul-de-sacs, to provide continuous
public access, emergency access, and maintenance access along the riverfront, to provide access to
retail and open space for all, to clarify public entrances and exits along the riverfront, and to increase
safety along the riverfront: The proposed street grid provided more flexibility and more developable
area at the east end of the riverfront than the existing plan.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the shape and route of Franklin Boulevard and the street that was not a
thru-street would affect first responders.
Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett said he did not believe it would adversely affect emergency traffic.
Ms. Markarian said a grid was being proposed because it brought a logical, highly interconnected
order to the proposed land use areas. A grid of short blocks with direct routes and frequent
intersections increased the effectiveness of municipal service delivery and maintenance, reduced
emergency response times and increased the ease of emergency vehicle access. It could also reduce
vehicle miles traveled and travel time which could result in improved air quality, and could optimize
the penetration of natural light to buildings and open spaces supporting the use of passive and active
solar strategies. Walkability was also associated with the number of points of intersections and street
connections. Frequent intersections could result in slow, cautious driving. The connectivity proposed
created multiple alternative routes for automobiles, pedestrians, and bicycles, reducing isolation and
inaccessibility between origins and destinations within the area.
Councilor Moore asked if the information Ms. Markarian was referring to was in the Agenda Packet.
Ms. Markarian said it was on Attachment.1, pages 63 and 64. The proposed block lengths were
between 250 and 300 feet in length. There were two principle ways to ensure a grid - one was block
length and the other was a connectivity index. The connectivity indexes were calculated by the number
of street sections divided by street nodes. Staff found that block lengths were more intuitive and more
common, so that was chosen for this grid. She provided examples of block lengths in other cities for
comparison: San Francisco city center block lengths were 353 feet; in lower Manhattan they were 275
feet; in the core of Boston they were 190 feet; in Portland's core, they were 260 feet; in the Washburne
District in Springfield they were 325-380 feet; and in the current Riverfront Plan they were 600 feet.
Discussion was held regarding block lengths and how they varied.
Ms. Markarian said as block lengths reached over 300 feet, more detail regarding width and design
features were needed: The smaller block length allowed more flexibility.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about Concord Street.
Ms. Markarian said it would not provide direct connection to Franklin Boulevard.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said it didn't go all the way through to Franklin. He further
discussed access into the south of that area.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 12, 2011
Page 3
Councilor Pishioneri asked if 'more square footage was being used with the grid pattern than with a
meandering street design. He asked if the City had bought property near Concord a couple of years
ago. He also asked if the property owners had been talked to about possibly vacating a portion of that
street.
Ms. Markarian said the grid was equal to or less than meandering streets.
Mr. Boyatt said it was unlikely that all of the infrastructure would be built at once. Access would need
to be provided to properties before they redeveloped and while building out the system to the future
configuration. If the City received funding and was able to build a portion of Franklin Boulevard, the
area not redeveloped still had to have access, so there would be a time period when both
configurations were in place. Handling those would be a design challenge with complex issues.
Ms. Markarian said the roads comprised about 10 percent of the land area in. Subarea A and B, and
about 5 percent of the land area in Subarea C and D.
Ms. Markarian referred to a slide showing the north/south thru-streets that weren't McVay and
Glenwood Boulevard. Two acre streets with low speedsvere being proposed. The plan included
policy and implementation for the design and character of the streets which looked at traffic calming
techniques, bicycle travel,-sidewalks, and proposed urban design features between the curb and
sidewalk. The Plan also talked about the design and location of on=street parking and limiting the
number of driveway access points. She also discussed curb cuts and sidewalk elevations for pedestrian
safety. There was flexibility for different sizes of developments. She discussed the east/west service
streets. The design features were similar to. the north/south streets, but there were more options for
parking and loading. The riverfront street was not envisioned as a typical street, but more like plaza
space that could be closed off for festivals. There were many examples, such as Corvallis, although the
riverfront street in Glenwood would be different with more design features in the road itself, traffic
calming treatments and patterns. It was important for this street to provide public access along the
riverfront. She referred to the bike path along Marist and some of the issues with access to the river
from that path.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how far the setback was in Eugene.
Ms. Markarian said there was at least 75 feet, but there was no public access to the river other than the
path. The residents couldn't restrict the .flow, but could restrict the access to the path. The Willamalane
Community Needs Assessment stated that parks with ample street frontage and good visibility tended
to be more heavily used and suffered less abuse and vandalism than parks that were impeded by
development. The CAC recommended that the riverfront street be narrow with low traffic speeds,
calming devices, and parking on the development side of the street, not the park side.
Councilor Ralston asked about parking for businesses.
Ms. Markarian said parking would be along the south side, which was the development side.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how many parking spaces were needed to accommodate a three to four
story building with a business. He asked if there was enough parking in this plan.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 12, 2011
Page 4
Ms. Markarian said the on-street parking was for customers. The people living and working in the area
would have parking that was internal t the sites (parking garages, parking underneath the building, or
on-site parking).
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there had been an in-depth look at the number of parking spaces needed
to accommodate development, and looking at foot traffic and vehicle traffic.
Mr. Barnett said staff was in the process of that analysis.
Ms. Markarian said when businesses came in to develop in Springfield, there were typically minimum
and maximum parking requirements. The developer could count a certain number of the on-street
spaces towards their minimum or maximum, but typically had to provide additional spaces off-street.
The on-street parking would just be a small fraction of what was needed to support those businesses.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if restrictions would allow them to have enough land for their business and
parking.
Mr. Barnett said staff would complete that analysis to make the determination. This was a mixed-use
area which would have a lower trip generation than usual.
Mr. Boyatt said they needed to consider the entire neighborhood for on-street parking.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was also looking at the residential density in conjunction with the
businesses.
Ms. Markarian said Crandall Arambula had originally suggested 100 units per acre and the City was
recommending 50 units per acre. The 100 unit per acre figures was based on current standards (not the
proposed) in terms of build-out to support that level of development.
Councilor Moore asked about height restrictions. It would be nice to have a beautiful view in this area.
Ms. Markarian said that was in the plan district section. There was a restriction along the Willamette
greenway that buildings couldn't be taller than 3 stories. After a building reached three stories, the
building had to step back and again when it reached six stories. This would allow light access.
Mayor Lundberg referred back to the parking question. The plan.for this area was to try to reduce the
need for as much vehicle use with housing and retail together. She thought that in the Plan there would
be less reliance on getting as many cars in one spot. She asked if it was necessary to provide parking
for every car. The discussion was whether or not they wanted parking for every car, or a design that
limited parking somewhat.
Mr. Markarian said they were designing to decrease the parking.
Councilor Woodrow said she was concerned about limiting the parking too much. She wanted this to
be an environment that encouraged people to see it from other places. If parking was limited, it could
limit people coming.
Mayor Lundberg said these discussions were important as they went through this plan
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 12, 2011
Page 5
Councilor Ralston agreed with Councilor Woodrow. It needed to make economic sense for a
developer to build something. He wouldn't walk a block to get groceries. Limiting parking could be
setting the area up for failure.
Councilor Moore said there were a number of ways to get somewhere either with public transit,
walking, biking or vehicle. It was important to encourage bike and pedestrian and public
transportation. There needed to be a way to find middle ground. There were businesses on Main Street
that were concerned about alternate traffic flow and how that could affect their business.
Councilor Woodrow said in this planning stage, the parking issue. needed to be considered.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was concerned about Henderson Avenue and whether or not there was
buy-in from the property owners. He wanted to know if there was a chance something would need to
be done by eminent domain. He liked the parking plan. Diagonal parking made sense as it allowed
more vehicles in the same amount of space. He noted the Tacoma district parking that was end-to-end
and resulted in a number of minor accidents. He felt they should look at standards for residences, then
for businesses. He would like consistent design standards.
Mr. Boyatt said the residents would have their own parking off-street, leaving the on-street parking for
those that drove into the area. The design of the neighborhood encouraged walking and biking within
the neighborhood.
Mayor Lundberg said there was always the opportunity for entrepreneurial transportation, such as
rickshaws. It was important to have many options regarding transportation and find a happy medium.
Councilor VanGordon said the issue was that when it was done, he would likely take his car to get
there, and the design needed to facilitate that in some way. The businesses would rely not only on
residents, but others outside the area. They needed to look at public transportation and how people
could get to the area and back with their goods. If parking was restricted, people would go somewhere
else. There was some room for restricted parking, but there needed to be a balance. He also expressed
concerns regarding the amount of parking for the size of the park.
Councilor Moore asked if there were parking lots in the Plan.
Ms. Markarian said parking lots would be the responsibility of the private sector developer or the City
Councilor Moore said there could be some nice looking parking lots with trees. It seemed that should
be something the City or Willamalane built.
Ms. Markarian said the proposed land use along the McVay Riverfront was employment mixed-use.
More flexibility was being provided in this area because there was uncertainty about the circulation
needs, future development and shallow depth of land between the river and McVay Highway. The
policy for McVay Highway was similar to Franklin Boulevard in that it should support multi-modal
access and redevelopment, and provide an improved arterial connection. There were also similar
policies regarding right-of-way obligations and maximum width of the future McVay Highway. It
would not be a multi-way boulevard like Franklin Boulevard, but would have sidewalks, access for
bikes travel lanes, and accommodations for transit. The intersections were conceptual. -She identified
the approximate location of the proposed intersections. The number of lanes would be determined by
the type of development that occurred in the area. There would need to be a widening of the right-of-
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 1.2, 2011
Page 6
way and roadway underneath the Union Pacific Railroad trestle. It was important to remember that
Bus Rapid Transit was planned for this area, but there could be other types of transit if that did not
happen. Design of the McVay Highway would include transit stations in the vicinity of intersections to
accommodate safe pedestrian crossings, continuous sidewalks buffered from traffic flow, traffic
control devices at intersections, continuous safe bike facilities on both sides, and similar urban design
features such as street lighting and landscaping. The policies for the internal street. development were
very general and intended to guide development as it came into the area.
Ms. Markarian spoke regarding the riverfront multi-use path. The Transportation- Chapter spoke about
the path, but the linear park itself was discussed in the Open Space Chapter. The objective was to
strengthen physical and visual connections to the river and support recreation and commuter options.
The conceptual alignment. was similar to the alignment shown in TransPlan and the Willamalane Parks
and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. The CAC stressed that it was important for this path to meander
closer to the river's edge when possible. The proposed policy was that the path would meander while
complying with water quality standards of being located at the outer most edge of the 75 foot riparian
setback, but could jut in from time to time.
Councilor Pishioneri said the diagram looked like more than 75feet.
Ms. Markarian said the diagrams were from the 2005 Plan, not from the proposed Plan. The diagram
was just showing that the path would be 75 feet from the water and in some places less than 75 feet.
Councilor Pishi.oneri said the property owners along the river would want to know how wide the path
was, plus the setback.
Ms. Markarian said the path width would follow the engineering standards of 12 feet. That would be
part of the 75 feet of setback.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the utilities would be part of the setback. Yes. He asked if 75 feet was
the set amount or if it was still under consideration.
Ms. Markarian said 75 feet was the City standard for water quality. The CAC also brought up design
considerations around night time lighting, making sure is was safe yet sensitive to the habitat. They
also looked at techniques to reduce user conflicts. The Plan also talked about supportive components
along the path, with places for people to gather, and stipulating that access to the path along the
Franklin Riverfront should occur no less frequently than the terminus of the north/south streets; in the
McVay Riverfront, no less frequently than,every half mile.
Ms. Markarian said the agenda packets included the comments.from the CAC. During each meeting
they discussed individual chapters. She referred to their comments as outlined in Attachment 3 of the
agenda packet. In most cases, a majority of the CAC members were in support of what was proposed.
There were questions from the CAC regarding the width of Franklin Boulevard and the roundabouts.
Regarding the street networks, there were people on the CAC in support of large park block widths,
and some in support of narrower park block widths. People also recommended discussing service
alleys, which had been done.
Ms. Markarian said one person on the CAC questioned the land uses on the McVay Highway street
network. There were a couple of people that questioned the riverfront path regarding terms of use.
Generally, there was strong support for the path.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 12, 2011
Page 7
Ms. Markarian referred to the Open Space Chapter (page 81 of Attachment I of the agenda packet).
Ms. Markarian said that in the Open Space Chapter staff looked at an integrated approach to natural
resource protection, stormwater management, and parks and recreation. The first part looked at natural
resources. There were a number of policies and implementation strategies on restoration enhancement,
protection of the riverbank, riparian and wetland areas. These were largely the same as the City's
existing standards. Also through this process, they looked at formally establishing the greenway
setback line in Glenwood to reduce uncertainty to property owners. Much of what was proposed in the
natural resource section was built upon the 2005 consultant's recommendations.
Ms. Markarian said the Plan acknowledged parks as an amenity and critical piece of urban
infrastructure, and an opportunity to enhance natural resource protection and stormwater management,
providing a positive effect on nearby property values. The parks would support the mixed-use
residential neighborhood and make the area attractive to families with children, the aging population,
existing and future populations. The Residential Lands and Housing Needs Analysis identified a
specific need for additional high density residential land designation in Glenwood, as well as land for
public purposes such as parks. There were two types of parks: neighborhood park blocks and a
riverfront linear park. She explained the purpose of each type of park.
Mayor Lundberg asked about park blocks and water features.
Ms. Markarian said the parks were centrally located between park block streets. She identified the
parks on the maps. It would be park space with water management features on the outer edges. The
park widths were a minimum of 150 feet.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the waterways were used for drainage.
Ms. Markarian said the 150 feet width included the water quality features (approximately 25 feet on
each side), sidewalks, and park space. They were trying to create usable park space in the center and
use the edges for the water quality purposes. She said the runoff would primarily be from the street
system, but they were providing excess capacity so private development on either side would be
allowed to use the area for their excess overflow.
City Engineer Ken Vogeney said they were looking at swales. If a deeper system was needed it would
occur in the riverfront area, rather than in park blocks.
Councilor Moore asked if that runoff would then go through a process before going to the river
Mr. Vogeney said vegetation in the swales would clean the water.
Councilor Moore said that could save some costs.
Ms. Markarian said the policies and implementation strategies for the neighborhood park blocks
ensured compatibility among the recreation use, pedestrian connectivity, and stormwater management
needs. It also talked about partnering with Willarnalane to ensure the park blocks were designed to be
safe, attractive, comfortable and convenient to access for a wide range of potential users, to meet a
variety of active and passive recreation needs throughout the year, and to be adaptable to changing
needs and uses surrounding the buildings.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 12, 2011
Page 8
Councilor Van-Gordon asked if food carts were discussed.
Ms. Markarian said there was an implementation strategy to specifically make those provisions. In
order to accommodate both stormwater management and parks that could function as parks, 150 feet
was the minimum width determined by Willamalane and City Engineers. Willamalane did a
conceptual sketch of a small playground for that size of park. The plan proposed a continuous
riverfront linear park. In most places, it would be 75 feet coinciding with the riparian and Willamette
Greenway setback line. In the areas where it was just 75 feet, Willamalane could not provide
recreational activities other than the multi-use path. In the area between the river and the riverfront
street in the eastern corner, the width was about 150 feet. Willamalane could provide some
recreational activities in that space.
Councilor Ralston asked if Roaring Rapids would no longer be located at its current site.
Ms. Markarian said Roaring Rapids could remain as an existing use. If they were to redevelop, they
could maintain that existing footprint and the riverfront street and path would have to be designed to
accommodate that. If they redeveloped, they could also move back to another spot on their property.
Businesses that did not want to move would become a pre-existing, non-conforming use and the
riverfront street and park would have to be designed around them.
Ms. Markarian said the last part. of the Open Space Chapter looked at stormwater quality management,
and the collection and conveyance of the stormwater in the open spaces. The Glenwood Riverfront.
was well suited to low-impact development approaches and. using vegetation rather than piping. The
policies ensured adequate stormwater management. planning, emphasizing the hydrological process
that minimized negative impacts on water quality, flow, volume, duration and quantity resulting from
development and redevelopment.
Councilor Woodrow asked how it dealt with quantity.
Mr. Vogeney said policies proposed in the Public Facilities Plan for stormwater looked at different
approaches to require stormwater to be kept on site and infiltrate through the ground rather than
collected and put through a pipe system.
Ms. Markarian discussed the comments from the CAC. One person had opposition, and one person
had a question about the possibility of dam failure which was now addressed briefly in the flood plain
section. There were several people that were concerned about the implementation strategy to "pursue
funding for public/private partnerships to achieve riverbank re-shaping/benching, stabilization, and
riparian and aquatic habitat restoration, as conceptually depicted in Figure 6". She noted that Figure 6
was not something that would be required of development. This bullet merely stated that in the event
that Springfield would want to pursue a comprehensive project for the river bend, this is what it could
look like and the burden wouldn't solely be on the private sector, but would be a private/public
partnership. That would be a big project that required a lot of funding. It was more likely development
would be required to restore their riverfront as they were currently required to do. There were a couple
of minority opinions regarding the park blocks regarding too many activities in"a small space. The
activities suggested were just, the options Willamalane could draw from when developing the parks.
Some people had concerns about whether the parks were too large or too small, and also concerned
about a mandate without financing. Financing was discussed in the Finance Chapter.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 12, 2011
Page 9
Councilor Moore asked how wide Meadow Park was near Pioneer Parkway.
Willamalane Planning and Development Manager Greg Hyde said it was about 31/2 acres and was
about one block wide.
Ms. Markarian said one person would like to see provisions for easements rather than acquisitions in
the riverfront park. The Plan provided for both options. There was no opposition regarding the
stormwater quality, just some questions that needed clarifying. Staff did go to the Willamalane Board
with the Open Space Chapter of the Plan. The Willamalane Board was supportive in general of what
was being proposed. They felt the parks provision was in line with the level of service benchmarks
they had established. They had questions regarding operating and maintenance costs.
Councilor Woodrow asked if this fit with the number of parks per capita that was in the Willamalane
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Hyde said it did. Those standards were community wide.
Willamalane Superintendent Bob Keefer said there were a number of factors, such as the
transportation system and the river that the park district considered. City staff had done a good job of
looking at those factors.
Councilor Van.Gordon asked what the smallest park was in_the system.
Mr. Keefer said Robin Park was less than 1/2 acre and the actual playground and activity area of Jasper
Meadows was about 1/2 acre. They functioned well for their purpose.
Mr. Hyde said the guideline for neighborhood parks was about 5 acres, but this was a special place
with different needs.
Ms. Markarian spoke regarding the Housing Chapter. The residential/mixed-use designation coupled
with the proximity of Bus Rapid Transit, existing and future job centers, riverfront views and unique
development opportunities created an outstanding environment to stimulate residential development.
The Plan acknowledged that public/private partnerships were needed to convert interest into action and
outlined the role of the Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) in that aspect of the Plan.
The Plan also talked about sustainable neighborhoods in terms of being inclusive neighborhoods of all
races and ethnicity, ages, disability, status and income levels. The Plan included some policies that
described proactive measures needed to facilitate a mixed income neighborhood. One section of the
Housing and Economic Development Chapter looked at manufactured home parks. There were eight
manufactured home parks. in Glenwood, seven of which were located in Phase 1, the riverfront area.
The structures in the parks were a mixture of travel trailers, manufactured homes, and other types of
manufactured dwelling units. Given the age, variety and quality of the units in the parks., mobile park
owners would face increasing pressure to redevelop. Most parks were served by aging and marginal
onsite septic systems, and the cost to annex and connect to the wastewater system when the systems
failed may factor into their decision to close the park. Most of the existing manufactured home parks
in the Phase 1 area were already. pre-existing non-conforming uses. For example, the Ponderosa
Village on Franklin faced the same pressure for redevelopment today as they would under the new
Plan. The proposed policies would result in tenants of mobile home parks to remain until the property
owner decided to sell or redevelop. A couple of years ago, Courtney Griesel and Jodi Peterson came to
Council for direction on how to respond to potential manufactured home park closures. The direction .
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 12, 2011
Page 10
of the Council at that time was to rely on State laws and regulations while responding with applicable
referrals to available services addressing the needs of individual manufactured home tenants. That
policy would be continued in this Plan. The Plan also talked about considering providing financial
assistance for the mandated expenses of relocation through SEDA funding sources-should the Council
wish to explore that again. Another policy proposed in the Plan was exploring feasibility of partnering
with a non-profit or for-profit entity to acquire land and develop a new manufactured home park
elsewhere in Springfield, or explore other affordable housing opportunities in partnership with a non-
profit developer.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if an inventory had been done of the status of the septic systems at all of
the manufactured home parks including the date those could start to fail so the City could plan on how
to react to the situation if they all failed at once.
Ms. Markarian said. the last inventory was done by the County several years ago. At that time, all were
listed as marginal.
Councilor Pishioneri asked what the City did now when septic systems failed.
Mr. Vogeney said when septic systems started to fail, the City generally tried to work with the
manufactured home park owners to try to get them hooked up to the public system. He provided an
example where the mobile home park owner brought in a design showing how all the systems on site
could be connected. The City worked with them on a case-by-case basis.
Mayor Lundberg said the City was not planning for long-term mobile home parks in Glenwood along
the riverfront. Council needed to be aware of that topic. The City needed to determine whether or not
to hook the tenants of manufactured homes to the system or to relocate the park. The City could
become involved one way or another. The policy was valid, but Council may want to look at it again.
Councilor Ralston said the City didn't have money to relocate mobile home parks and it would be up
to the developer. This whole plan was a great plan, but meant total redevelopment of Glenwood-and
that may not happen. He asked how they forced someone to redevelop or move. Closure of
manufactured home parks was not the City's responsibility, but would be the developer's.
Mayor Lundberg said this was the City's Plan. She supported the City working with someone that
could aid the mobile home residents and facilitating that process. The City was a participant in the
Plan. She would rather see the City work with people rather than just be the target of displacement.
Councilor Moore said she understood the State was working on this issue. She asked if it was being
worked on at the State level. .
Councilor Ralston said it was small amount from State for relocation.
Councilor Woodrow said she would like to have options brought to the Council in the next six months
regarding mobile home parks and relocation.
Ms. Markarian said there were only ten residential parcels that comprised less than 1 1/2 acres in the
riverfront area. The proposed policies allowed these uses to remain pre-existing non-conforming uses
until the property owner wanted to redevelop.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 12, 2011
Page 11
Ms. Markarian said in terms of economic development, Glenwood Riverfront sites were positioned
well for significant mixed-use office, commercial and employment development and redevelopment.
Pages 118-121 of the Plan outlined the comparative advantages and constraints from an economic
development perspective. Springfield and SEDA would work to explain, inform and guide owners and
developers through the constraints. In terms of buildable lands, nearly all parcels in the Glenwood
Riverfront were classified in the Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) study as vacant or
potentially redevelopable. That study also found a deficit of industrial parcels greater than 20 acres
and a deficit of commercial and mixed-use parcels greater than one acre. The Plan proposed a
prohibition of land division of parcels greater than 20 acres designated employment mixed-use, and a
prohibition of land division of parcels greater than one acre designated commercial or office mixed-
use unless they were developed according to a master plan. Those applied only to riverfront parcels.
The Plan also spoke of existing businesses, growth of existing businesses and new businesses. The
Glenwood Riverfront was a logical location for new development and redevelopment given its
location directly between Eugene and Springfield's downtown employment centers. This area was
partially annexed and there were relatively low value improvements on high value land. There was
quick access to 1-5 and Highway 126, and often Springfield development sites were less expensive to
develop than Eugene sites. There were also better amenities on this side of the river. One person on the
CAC was concerned with parking issues. There was a slight change in the language under the
manufactured home park section. No one had any comments about the single dwelling units. One
person made a suggested change to the wording of the buildable lands study, which was made. There
were no comments about existing businesses or new businesses. The Housing and Economic
Development section was taken to the intergovernmental Housing Policy Board. They asked some
clarifying questions, but were overall supportive.
Ms. Markarian briefly spoke regarding the Public Facilities and Services Chapter.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there was a concentration on water runoff reuse.
Ms. Markarian said there was. For electric facilities, there was capacity which would require a
substation. They were working with Springfield Utility Board (SUB) on screening for facilities to
reduce the initial impact. They were also working with them for water facilities. Most of Glenwood
was served by the 4J School District.
Councilor Ralston said he was opposed to students in Glenwood being served by 4J.
Ms. Markarian said that would be a discussion with the 4J and Springfield School Boards.
Mr. Grimaldi said an agreement between the two school districts would need to occur in order to have
that change.
City Planner Gary Karp said there was a process in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) regarding how
those boundaries could change. Eugene was not interested in making that change. The City couldn't
control those boundaries.
Councilor Ralston said it was not fair for Eugene not to want to work through this issue. He felt there
should be a way to get that through this process.
Mayor Lundberg said that couldn't be done in this process. It would be very controversial no matter
how it was approached.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 12, 2011
Page 12
Councilor VanGordon said that discussion should be done early before there was a lot of development
in the area. The City could continue to bring it up to the School Districts as an issue they would like to
see addressed.
Mr. Grimaldi said the City had talked with the Springfield School District in the past and nothing had
moved forward.
Councilor Ralston felt that with this new plan, the School Board should at least consider it.
Councilor Pishioneri said it was a school district issue, not a City issue.
: Individual councilors could contact School Board members.
Mayor Lundberg said she was not in a hurry to have that conversation at this time.
Ms. Markarian spoke regarding financing infrastructure. There was a chapter dedicated to- that topic.
Implementing this plan would require substantial capital investment in public infrastructure and
Springfield and its partnering agencies would need to pursue a broad range of strategies to secure the
necessary capital funding in a timely manner. The chapter identified the options available.
Ms. Markarian spoke regarding the Urban Transition and Annexation Chapter. The policies looked at
continuing to recognize existing public agency service agreements, such as public safety, on land
outside the City limits until annexation occurred. The chapter also referenced annexation of
urbanizable land in a manner consistent with State law, the Metro Plan and the City annexation
policies and procedures. Annexation would be provided for on a voluntary basis except in the case of
health and safety concerns triggered by something like failed septic. There was one person that was a
little confused with the wording of one of the policies. Other than that, there was no concern.
Ms. Markarian spoke regarding the Historic and Cultural Resources Chapter. There were two
objectives. The first was to collaborate with the Historic Commission to complete a historic content
statement for Springfield. There was not well documented information about the history of the
evolution of Glenwood. In doing that, Springfield could collaborate with the Historic Commission to
identify potential projects and themes to memorialize that history. The other objective focused more
on the actual potential preservation of resources. This would involve collaborating with the Historic
Commission to continue to survey and inventory resources in Glenwood to support the efforts of
property owners should they wish to seek local or national landmark status. In the event a property
owner would like to demolish .a structure that was considered potentially eligible for the National
Register,'the Commission would ensure the property was documented through photographs and plan
layouts for the record. There were no comments on this chapter.-
Ms. Markarian said an Open House was held on Wednesday, September 7 with 75 in attendance. Just
under'/4 of those in attendance filled out comment cards.'Those comments were categorized and
included in the power point presentation. During the next meeting, she could talk further about those
comments. During the Open House, staff received good support and questions.
Councilor Woodrow said they still needed to keep in mind that this would not be an isolated
community, people would want to leave and people would want to go there. They needed to make sure
there was a thoroughfare and parking to make the community thrive.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 12, 2011
Page 13
Councilor VanGordon said it was a good plan. He thanked staff for their hard work.
Councilor Pishioneri spoke regarding standards for electrical lines and irrigation lines not being
exposed. He felt this was a great opportunity to make sure all of those were covered for aesthetic
reasons. In the Glenwood area, he didn't want more power lines.
Ms. Markarian said staff was working on that.
Mayor Lundberg said this was the most exciting development opportunity involving redevelopment.
There was a lot to do, but it was very exciting. She can imagine people coming just to tour this area to
see the wonderful development.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:13 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
-_5
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
Amy S a
City R order