Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2012 Work Session. MINUTES OF THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, EUGENE CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 235 2012 A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County was held in the Springfield Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 12:OOpm with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Mayor Lundberg welcomed everyone to Springfield City Hall and opened the meeting of the r Springfield City Council. Mayor Piercy opened the meeting of_the Eugene City Council. Commissioner Leiken opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors Moore, Ralston, Woodrow, and Pishioneri. Councilors Wylie and VanGordon were absent (excused). Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi and. other Springfield staff were also present. Present from Eugene were Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilors Ortiz, Clark, Poling, Brown, Taylor, Farr, Zelenka, and Pryor. Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz and other Eugene staff were also present. Present from Lane County were Board Chair Leiken and Commissioners Bozievich, Handy, and Sorenson. Commissioner Stewart was absent (excused). Lane County Administrator Liane Richardson and other Lane County staff were also present. I. Adjustments to A e e� nda There were no adjustments to the agenda. II. Lane Communitv College Conceptual Master Plan. Tony McCown, Lane Community College (LCC) Board member introduced this item. He said they were here to talk about LCC's future for the 21 Sc century at the Russell Creek Basin location and the process developed over the last couple of years to develop a master plan for all of LCC's properties. Mr. McCown noted that there were three initiatives. The first initiative was the long -range master plan for the main campus. The goals of the initiative were to increase the availability of educational opportunities to a wide spectrum of people, to .produce new income streams to offset the reduction of state funds for operating expenses, to explore private /public partnerships to provide on the job work experience for students to offer traditional and non - traditional settings for educating students, and to provide living and learning opportunities for staff and students. Many of the goals were embodied in the downtown campus. There were many opportunities to work with their partners to provide an economic impetus. He noted the economic growth in downtown following LCC's announcement to open their downtown campus. February 23, 2012 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 2 of 8 Mr. McCown introduced Mark Gillem and Barry Gordon from the University of Oregon. They had worked with LCC through a number of workshops with campus staff and students to develop alternatives for what LCC could do, what the facilities could look like, how they could use their properties, and how they could partner with those around them to increase their capabilities. Mr. McCown said the second initiative was to look at the Russell Creek basin. They looked at how it could develop and who the property owners were. They intended to initiate conversations with surrounding property owners about participating in the vision of a long -term plan. The third initiative was connecting with the larger community. LCC represented the entire county and had partnerships in both small and large cities they would like to undertake. Mr. Gillem presented a power. point. He said he taught at the University of Oregon, and. ran the Urban Design Lab. Their lab provided pro bono design services at cost to public agencies around the state. One of the projects they had been fortunate to work on was the Lane Community College Master Plan. This project was similar to the Sustainable City Initiative project, but rather than looking at an entire city, they looked at individual projects and brought students into those projects. Mr. Gillem said they looked at.where LCC could go in the future regarding their property. It provided opportunities to look at how to improve the job base and housing base in an environmentally sensitive manner. Sustainability included social sustainability, cultural sustainability, and economic sustainability. When LCC first started, sustainability was not considered. It was partly a result of how different property decisions were made and politics, resulting in a location between jurisdictions with the only access by vehicle. There was now some transit, but it mainly operated during the typical working day and was primarily a. learning campus. The community wanted LCC to be a learning campus, but also a living campus, a place that had 24/7 activity. They had been working towards a planning vision and looking at where LCC would like to go in terms of community and sustainability, but this could also be an economic development opportunity for the entire region. The idea of creating a sustainable financial base for the college was also very important. Mr. Gillem said the Lane Community College Master Plan vision was "To create a campus that has appropriate infrastructure that fosters educational excellence through sustainable building and landscape practices organized around equitable accessibility contributing to a complete community ". LCC was doing a great job during this process looking at durable buildings within an area that was accessible to everyone. He referred to some drawings from his students that.portrayed some of the vision for LCC. In the vision, they were looking at opportunities not only for education, but also housing. LCC was exploring housing in their downtown project and also looking at this opportunity at their main campus. Housing could be for students, faculty and staff who were interested in- living much closer to the college. Another part of the vision included market places, fitness and recreation centers, dining, and places to play. Mr. Gillem said the downtown campus was now under construction and it already incorporated many of the opportunities in the vision. It included housing, market area, fitness, food, play and education in an integrated setting. That opportunity also presented itself at the main campus. Mr. Gillem spoke regarding what LCC already had. At this time, they had some very nice classroom buildings, many that were energy efficient. Most of the classrooms were surrounded by parking February 23, 2012 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 3 of 8 because it was situated where most people going there had to drive. He asked Mr. Gordon to explain the process they were going through for their Master Plan. Mr. Gordon said there were three stages of planning: vision planning; jurisdictional planning; and implementation. So far, they had just gotten through the first stage of planning. Participation included 27 workshops and 15 reviews over the last two and a half years. Phase 1 included a visioning workshop at LCC with open houses for the community. One open house had an attendance of over 500 people. Phase 2 included the conceptual vision documentation process. where they held meetings to socialize the idea with community members. There were hundreds of LCC faculty, staff and students involved in the events, as well as many community members. They also met with many community officials. There were three design studios: two architecture and landscape architecture studios; and a third architecture and planning studio. Over 40 University of Oregon students participated in those studios. A survey was sent out to over 14,000 faculty staff and students at LCC with a response of just over 10% (1454). One of the questions on the survey was "Would you consider living on or near campus ? ". Forty-seven percent of faculty, forty-two percent of staff, and sixty -one percent of students said they would.be willing to live on or near campus. The result of this survey caused them to look at how they could plan for housing needs. Mr. Gordon said LCC was. located outside Eugene and Springfield urban growth boundaries (UGB), and inside the Metro Plan boundary. He noted 5 parcels owned by LCC that were depicted on a map in the power point. He described each parcel. He also noted the land surrounding LCC and who owned those parcels. With the unique location of the properties, they were looking at regional connections with a path. He referred to the overall illustrative in the power point. Some students had stayed on as interns to continue to work through this process. Mr. Gillem spoke regarding the overall illustrative, which illustrated one way the campus could grow to achieve its longer term vision. As Eugene and Springfield both looked at what to do about urban growth boundaries, this was one opportunity. Currently, this was one area that had a lot of jobs, but not housing. They needed to try to find a way to find that balance. They had thought about this in districts, each with an area development plan (ADP). Mr. Gillem referred to a picture of a campus core in the power point. The basic idea with this drawing was to look at an infill strategy, using utility infrastructure already in place and developing around the perimeter with potential student housing in a mixed -use format, with additional campus buildings. It would be more like an actual campus with quads and buildings adjacent to those quads creating definable and usable. open spaces. There would still be a need for parking, so that would still be part of the plan. On the north side ADP, they looked at possible development of residential for staff or faculty, taking advantage of the prime wetlands. This was how both historic Springfield and Eugene were built by creating a framework that allowed for flexible growth. There would be a dedicated open space that would connect to the wetland areas. He noted the regulating plan, which was a code that sustainably regulated an effective environmental form. He explained. He referred to a drawing of the front yard ADP which would serve as a recreation space for LCC and the larger community. The eastside ADP included land not currently owned by LCC. They had been talking with the adjacent partners about how they could be part of this process, with the campus extending into these sites. The south east ADP included the forest area and would be minimally developed. It offered outdoor classroom potential. February 23, 2012 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 4 of 8 Mr. Gillem said the plan envisioned anywhere from 3,031,243 to 4,600,492 square feet of buildings, and a minimum of 168 housing units. This was a flexible master plan looking out about 30 -40 years. Some of the benefits could include 3,414,400 vehicles miles saved per year by having approximately 2,134 people living near campus. That translated to about 3,755,840 pounds of carbon. The average green Leeds certified building saved about 100,000 pounds of carbon a year, but reducing vehicle miles travelled reduced carbons at a higher rate. It was important to build green buildings in the context of an economically, environmentally sustainable plan. There was a per person savings of $203.20 which was calculated assuming that those living near campus were walking rather than driving to work or school. They were still early in the process and were looking at continued outreach and the jurisdictional planning that needed to occur. Mr. Ruiz asked how many acres there were in the developed portion of the southeast area. Mr. Gillem said it was about 10 acres. Eugene Mayor Piercy asked about the mix of housing. Mr. Gillem said the mix of housing would include small bungalows, townhouses, and living/learning facilities with classrooms below and dormitories above. They would be looking at affordable models. There was currently a plan to develop an adjacent area with larger homes, but that was not the intent of this plan. Eugene Councilor Taylor asked if those living in the housing .would still have cars. Mr. Gillem said they would still have cars, but people that lived in communities with a density of about 20 acres and served by transit drove 50 percent less. This type of planning would allow people the choice of when and how much they drove. Eugene Councilor Taylor said they would still need as much or more parking. Mr. Gillem noted there were still a large number of parking spaces. Eugene Councilor Taylor asked who would provide the utilities. Mr. Gillem said that was currently done on site, but they were looking at a long -term sustainable utility system. If they looked at a model that required sewer lines from Springfield or Eugene, there could be political barriers. There were many new models of taking care of sewer onsite. They had been looking at options to be net zero for water. The only thing they may need to bring in would be electricity and that was already serviced within the electrical grid, so would not be an issue. Lane County Commissioner Sorenson asked if part of the plan considered the affect of this development on the surrounding properties. While serving on the LCC Board in the past, the relationship between LCC and Lane Transit District (LTD) to reduce the number.of car trips had served them well. He was impressed with the plan, but wanted to know, if part of the analysis included the affect on surrounding areas. February 23, 2012 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 5 of 8 Mr. Gillem said it was a ripple effect. The first ring included people living right around the campus and it had been very important to reach out to those residents. They were very happy with the idea of medium density housing and were in support. The second ring was more public and they had been working with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) regarding the future interchange expansion. Currently, ODOT did not have the funding for that expansion, but the plan accounted for the fact that at some point that expansion could occur. The third ring included Glenwood, Springfield and Eugene and how this development could help to accommodate some of the growth for the region. People wanted to move to this area and housing choices needed to be provided. This could be a positive impact on the local economy. They would continue to reach out to the different groups and appreciated hearing any ideas of others they should contact. Eugene Councilor Brown asked if the housing would only be for LCC staff or students. Mr. Gillem said to make it marketable, they would be open to anyone. There would be specific student housing, but other types of housing could be open to others. More housing was needed in the region, but there was the issue of the UGB. Currently LCC could build a large part of their campus without a change to the UGB because it supported the academic mission of LCC. If they wanted to.build housing for outside use, they couldn't do it because of the location of the UGB. They were served by the Metro Plan boundary, which accommodated LCC. There would be challenges. Eugene Councilor Brown asked about high rises on the north parcel. They could fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Gillem said students had modeled bigger and taller buildings in that location, but it was not received by participants. They looked at a multi -way boulevard similar to that being considered for Franklin Boulevard. They could accommodate a lot of growth in the type of development that was well received. Eugene Councilor Brown asked about outdoor instructional areas in the southern parcel. Mr. Gillem said they had biology and ecology classes that currently went out and hiked through that area looking for plant materials, wetlands and preservation issues. Not everyone wanted to see development, but the idea that LCC had a vision gave them direction. Eugene Councilor Zelenka asked what the enrollment was at LCC. Mr. McCown said there were about 14,000. That figure would stay about the same over the next five years. The numbers had increased over the. last few years due to people attending school while out of work during this economy. They were projecting a 1 percent increase in the next year. Eugene Councilor Zelenka asked about the capacity. Mr. McCown said all of the space was being used. Classes were still traditionally during day hours between 10am -3pm. They had grown in enrollment with program additions. Mr. Gillem said some of the ideas for the buildings could be facilities such as health care and dining, where students could get training. The target of number of students had: been about 15,000. February 23, 2012 Joint Elected Officials_ Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 6of8 Lane County Commissioner Leiken noted that Mr. McCown, who was an LCC Board Member was also a Lane County Planning Commissioner and understood Metro Plan boundaries which was a benefit. LCC was in the Metro Plan Boundary, but not within the UGB, which was a challenge. They would need to look at the possibility of being taken into one city's UGB or ask to have the Metro Plan boundary moved to the UGB. In their current situation, they would be challenged in regards to their development. That was part of the long -range vision they needed to consider. McCown said this was a 30 -40 year plan. If LCC initiated this it would look different. A good portion of this proposed development was within the core where they had development rights. Mr. Gillem said the next. phase was jurisdictional planning. Lane County Commissioner Handy asked Mr. Ruiz if this was part of Eugene's vision for housing or land, or if it was a separate process._ Mr. Ruiz said that basin had been part of their UGB discussion, although they hadn't narrowed down areas of expansion if that was what they chose. They hadn't talked about LCC specifically, but the basin had been part of their conversation regarding lands for industrial or housing. Springfield Councilor Moore asked about the McVay Highway transportation planning with LTD that was occurring in relationship to LCC. She felt it would make sense to look at the potential for that connection from McVay to. LCC for bike lanes and transit. She asked about the distance. Springfield Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said it was about 2 1/2 miles Mr. Gillem said the main campus would remain the main campus. He noted that LCC had not updated their Master Plan since 1965. They hoped this new plan would provide a campus for both learning and living, that was appropriate for both Springfield and Eugene. County Commissioner Bozievich said one of the concerns of LTD about the EmX corridor study to LCC was that it was only a Monday through Friday, 9 -5 demand load. This plan could provide the 24/7 demand and would actually make more sense for EmX. The need for housing on campus was great, as well as other services. Having a hotel close by could assist with the culinary arts program and hospitality program. He, too, had once served on the LCC Board and was happy to see them moving ahead with the vision. Power point handouts were distributed to the elected officials. Mayor- Lundberg thanked the presenters for the information and presentation III. Metro Planning Update. Lane County Planner Kent Howe, Eugene Planning Director Lisa Gardner, and Springfield Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly were present for this item. Eugene and Springfield had been working extensively to implement HB3337, legislation that required two separate UGBs. Both cities had presented to their respective city councils and planning commissions on their progress, as well as to February 23, 2012 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 7 of 8 their neighboring jurisdiction and Lane County. In addition, Lane County had been working through regional issues that were of importance to the county. It was extremely hard to project when these respective projects would be complete, adopted and acknowledged since the initiatives were staggered in their timing. Consequently, it was difficult to anticipate what a revised Metro Plan or regional planning framework would look like and when it would be developed/finalized. The jurisdictions had purposefully refrained from addressing any inconsistencies (often called housekeeping amendments) in the Metro Plan or refinement plans such as the Public Facilities and Services Plan until these aforementioned projects were complete. Regional framework/revised Metro Plan and housekeeping amendments would be completed at the same time and post - completion of Envision Eugene, Springfield 2030 and Lane County regional issues so that they could be done once rather than a more resource - intensive multiple times. Jurisdiction - specific information provided below: Springfield 2030: Springfield was currently gathering more information about the UGB expansion areas reviewed and recommended by the Springfield and Lane County planning commissions before scheduling with the Council and Board. Springfield was also reviewing proposed code language that would implement new policies of Springfield 2030 for compliance with statutory requirements for clear and object standards. Springfield was preparing an amendment to Metro Plan Chapter IV clarifying and re- describing the classification of Metro Plan amendments; which of the governing bodies participated; and a new conflict resolution process. It was our position that this project addressed the conflict resolution process difficulties raised by Lane County several years ago; was responsive to the new requirements of ORS 197.304 (HB3337) regarding separate UGBs; and completed some housekeeping matters involving the triggers or metrics of regional impact. Staff would like to get these amendments to the joint elected officials before the Springfield UGB expansion was considered so that the purpose of ORS 197.304 was observed consistently throughout the establishment and adoption of Springfield's UGB. Envision Eugene: Eugene continued to refine land need numbers for industrial, commercial, and residential land, in preparation for a UGB proposal to be presented by the City Manager to the City Council in March. Six community forums were in the planning stages for March and April, and Council would hold a public hearing in April as well. In May, the Council would have the opportunity to act on the recommended UGB, along with implementation strategies. The formal adoption process would begin following detailed capacity analysis and potential master planning of UGB expansion areas. Lane County: In addition to working with the City of Springfield on the Springfield UGB expansion areas and the Metro Plan Chapter IV amendments, Lane County was processing a Metro Plan amendment to make the Metro Plan Boundary co- terminus with the Metro UGB. Since Springfield had already adopted a parcel specific UGB, Lane County was approaching this work in two phases. The first phase was on the Springfield- side of I -5. Phase two would come later when Eugene was further along in its process. Currently, a Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing was scheduled for March 13 to address this County- initiated Metro Plan amendment that would reduce the total land area within the Metro Plan East of I -5 and adopt a new Metro Plan Boundary that was co- terminus with the City of Springfield's parcel specific UGB. On Oct. 25, 2011, the Joint Eugene /Springfield/Lane County Planning Commissions deliberated and made their respective recommendations. February 23, 2012 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 8 of 8 County Commissioner Handy referred to Springfield 2030 as noted in the memo, and Springfield's plan to amend the Metro Plan Chapter 4. He asked what Springfield was looking at changing. Springfield City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said for the past few months, Springfield had been working with Lane County and Eugene staff. Chapter 4 of the Metro Plan was the part that talked about plan amendments. They were looking to make Chapter 4 consistent with House Bill 3337 which related to each city establishing their own UGB and inventories. They had suggestions about reclassifying how a Metro Plan amendment was described, and how many governing bodies needed to approve those amendments. The language was just being finalized. They planned to present that language to the stakeholders and then come to the elected officials Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at 12:52pm. Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene City Council at 12:52pm. Commissioner Leiken adjourned the Lane County Commissioners at 12:52pm. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa City Recorder Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: