HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/02/2012 RegularCity of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE JOINT REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL AND
LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HELD
MONDAY, APRIL 2, 2012
The City of Springfield Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners met in regular session in
the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 2, 2012 at 7:03 p.m.,
with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present from Springfield were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie,
Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Finance Director Bob
Duey, City Attorney Matthew Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Present from Lane County were Board Chair Leiken and Board Members Bozievich, Sorenson and
Stewart. Also present were County Administrator Liane Richardson, County Planners Kent Howe and
Mark Rust, and County Counsel Steve Vorhes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
Confirmation of the Appointment of Development Services/Public Works Director.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented the staff report on this item. The City of Springfield recently
conducted a recruitment process for the newly created position of Development Services/Public Works
Director. Len Goodwin was selected to fill the position. Len had approximately 35 years of local
government experience, including 18 years with the City of Springfield. He currently served as the
Assistant Public Works Director and was ideally suited to lead the newly created department and its
exceptional employees.
The City Manager was requesting that the City Council confirm the appointment of Len Goodwin to
the position of Development Services /Public Works Director.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF LEN GOODWIN TO THE
POSITION OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
EFFECTIVE APRIL 3, 2012. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND
0 AGAINST.
Councilor Moore acknowledged the work the Public Works Department had done in the cleanup since
the recent storm. She thanked them for that work.
Councilor Wylie said the Council was pleased with Mr. Goodwin's appointment. He had an excellent
history, background and knowledge and the City was fortunate to have him.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at
both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not
yield their time to others.
1. Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Phase I (Springfield File Nos. TYP411- 00006,
TYP411- 00005, TYP31 1 -0000 1, TYP411- 00007, Lane County File No. PA 11- 5489).
Commission Chair Leiken read the ordinance titles for Lane County into the record.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF ORDINANCE NO. PA 1288: IN THE
MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE - SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM, THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND
TEXT, THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3-12: IN THE
MATTER OF AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF LANE CODE TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO
THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR APPLICATION TO
URBANIZABLE LANDS WITHIN THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH AREA (LC
10.600 -15 ) AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
Mr. Duey read the ordinance title for the City of Springfield for the record.
ORDINANCE NO_. 1 — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE - SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM, THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT
PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT, THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THE
SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Planners Gary Karp and Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. Ms. Markarian noted
that the proposed amendments before the elected officials were a result of a three -year collaborative
effort with stakeholders to update Phase I of the Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP). The amendments
applied to only Phase I the Glenwood Riverfront, which included approximately 275 acres. The
amendments involved changes to the Metro Plan Diagram, Refinement Plan Diagram and Text,_
Zoning Map Diagram and Development Code Text.
Included in the agenda packet were a number of items to help guide the elected officials through the
presentation, public hearing, and first/second reading on the ordinance amending the documents. The
proposed amendments had undergone extensive review and revision prior to tonight's presentation.
Attachment 1 of the agenda packet was the council briefing memo which summarized the
modifications made to the proposed amendments as they were reviewed by staff, citizens, and the
Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions. The process culminated most recently with the
joint Planning Commission public hearing. Their public hearing started on October 18, 2011 and was
reconvened on December.20, 2011 at which time the joint Planning Commissions voted unanimously
to recommend adoption of the proposal with thirty recommended text modifications.
Attachment 3 of the agenda packet, which was prepared by Mr. Karp, summarized the written and oral
testimony submitted into the record throughout the Planning Commission process with a
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 3
corresponding staff response as to how each item had been addressed to date. Attachment 4 of the
agenda packet included the minutes of the December 20, 2011 meeting where the joint Planning
Commissions made their final recommendation.
Staff last met with the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners on January 23, 2012
and provided a high level overview of the project. During that meeting, several issues were raised by
Councilors and Commissioners. Attachment 5 included the minutes from that meeting. The questions
that were not answered at the work session were addressed in more detail in Attachment 1 of the
agenda packet. Ms. Markarian noted that staff would spend some time further explaining the staff
response on those issues.
Ms. Markarian pointed out that following the January 23, 2012 work session, staff had to make sure
the Plan/Plan District were consistent. They made some minor adjustments to the Plan/Plan District
text since the Plan District was revised more extensively than the Plan. These adjustments provided
consistency in both documents.
Ms. Markarian reviewed the proposed subareas.
Staff was proposing a vertical and horizontal mix of uses that responded to buildable land needs,
unique development opportunities, and market interests. The Subareas included were A, B, C, D
(Residential Mixed -Use, Commercial Mixed -Use, Office Mixed -Use and Employment Mixed -Use).
Glenwood was not intended to compete with the retail hot spot in downtown. At the same time,
commercial uses that complemented and supported the proposed high density residential
neighborhood and office and manufacturing areas should be allowed. The commercial uses could help
make the area more vibrant and safer both day and night, and could help stimulate some of the internal
capture with regards to traffic. Glenwood was not intended just for people who lived and /or worked
there. The proposed Subareas also helped to create a riverfront destination with parks, restaurants and
hotels.
Ms. Markarian discussed the Councilor. /Commissioner topics raised at the January 23, 2012 work
session. In an effort to keep the presentation brief allowing time for the public hearing and
Council /Commissioner discussion, she asked the elected officials to ask questions for clarification, but
reserve discussion on any of these items until after the public hearing.
Ms. Markarian referred to Attachment 1 pages 3 and 4. The memo listed how the City had 4sed peer
review in the past. While not a current requirement for plan modifications, all plan modifications
currently required a post acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA), a more onerous process than the
provisions made for in the Plan. The intent of including the peer review concept in Glenwood Phase I
was to enable a process by which the Planning Commission, staff and City Council could seek help in
evaluating proposals that varied from what was adopted for consistency with the Plan's fundamental
principles, especially with regards to design. One of the questions related'to why peer review would be
at the applicant's expense. Staff's response was that in the instances peer review would be employed,
it would be the applicant asking for something different than the Plan proposed, the development of
which was already paid for by the City, so the applicant should pay to help the City assess whether the
proposed changes met the Plan vision in the event additional technical expertise was needed. There
was precedence for this practice and the City had passed the cost on to developers. Staff refined the
peer review wording a couple of times leading up to the Planning Commission review to clarify the
intent. At the hearing on December 12, 2011, the Planning Commissions directed staff to further
modify the proposed text so that it would be even clearer that peer review was an option the City could
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 4
pursue only in certain circumstances. Staff told the Planning Commissions they would make that
change prior to Council/Board review of the text, therefore the text in tonight's document, incorporated
that change. Attachment 1 page 4 of the memo included the current proposed wording of this item.
Based on comments received from the elected officials at the January 23, 2012 work session, it
seemed there were two parking issues. One was a general questioning of how the Plan addressed
parking in the Glenwood Riverfront and the other dealt specifically with a proposed regulation
regarding the placement and design of parking areas in Subarea D. For a staff response regarding the
more general parking issue, she referred them to Attachment 1 pages 4 and 5. Parking maximums
worked well where there were multiple travel options, a mix of land uses, and where transportation
demand management strategies existed. The Glenwood Riverfront was one of these places. The Plan
outlined how the Glenwood Riverfront development could be served by multiple modes of
transportation such as biking, walking, transit and cars. It also proposed a mix of land uses. The Plan
was structured so that some developers may choose to offer carpool or vanpool parking, subsidized
transit passes, alternative work schedules, car sharing spaces,, and/or unbundled parking, all of which
were strategies that encouraged less demand for parking. Other developers may find that the
minimum of five acres they developed would lend itself well to shared parking agreements that took
advantage of different peak demand periods. Because developable land was a finite resource and
parking was expensive, parking maximums gave developers the flexibility to identify the right mix
and cost of parking for their particular development and the most appropriate incentives to encourage
people to drive less. Travel behavior was influenced by the way parking was planned and managed,
so using the parking maximum concept in Glenwood helped justify Springfield's request for a greater
than 10% trip reduction to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The parking
maximums addressed how much parking each developer may provide, but the parking might take on
different forms in different developments and may also change over time. Parking might occur on-
street, in off - street surface parking interior courts, off - street within or on top of buildings; or in off -
street aboveground and underground structures. The required five acre minimum development area
would likely result in phased development so interior surface parking courts or parking on the ground
floor of buildings might predominate in initial phases but as land was developed and there was more
pressure to develop sites densely and locate uses in close proximity, parking structures might be
needed in later phases to further develop properties.
Ms. Markarian referred to Attachment 1, page 6 regarding the Subarea D issue. One of the Plan goals
was to "encourage aesthetically pleasing, sustainable buildings and sites that were context- sensitive
and oriented to human activity." One of the reasons the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) came up
with this goal was that Glenwood was one of Springfield's principal entryways and what people saw
upon entering Glenwood would stick in their minds when they thought of Springfield. The
development and design standards in the Plan District were formulated to help achieve this goal. One
of those standards had to do with the placement of parking in Subarea D, the intent of which was to
limit the amount of parking directly in front of buildings. The focus of this standard was where
parking was located and the way in which it was screened. In auto - oriented development, the parking
was usually located in front of buildings. However, in those cases, the parking separated the building
from the street, sidewalk, and transit stations. The separation sent the message that driving was
preferred. Also, the placement in front created an uninviting environment for walkers and could be
viewed as unattractive.' If the parking was located behind buildings and/or screened by the buildings
or landscaping, it created a more attractive and pedestrian - friendly streetscape. For comparison to
other communities, office employment and manufacturing uses tended to be screened much like was
done in Campus .Industrial with deep landscaped setbacks. Where developable land was already
scarce, such as along McVay Highway, they looked to find a way to still achieve an attractive and
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 5
pedestrian- friendly entrance to Springfield without constraining so much land in a setback. The joint
Planning Commissions agreed that for an entryway to Springfield, the parking should not be in front.
of buildings, but they directed staff to allow some parking on the sides provided it was screened. Staff
made the change requested by the Planning Commissions, and the current wording was detailed on
Attachment 1 page 6.
One of the items that came up at the work session was questioning the need for the park blocks. This
topic was addressed on Attachment 1 pages 6 through 9. The park blocks represented an essential
quality of life amenity for future high density development. Research had shown that access to safe,
attractive, well - maintained parks led to resident satisfaction with a dense, built environment because it
provided both visual and physical relief from the built environment. It also provided residents with
access to light and green space. Springfield's current multi - family design standards acknowledged
that open space was needed in conjunction with higher density residential development by requiring
that private open space be developed as part of all multifamily residential development. In'Glenwood,
more dense development was being proposed, and onsite private open space requirements like those in
the current multi- family standards would be counterintuitive .if trying to encourage density. In those
areas, meeting the need for open space in one place off -site, such as the park blocks, seemed more
efficient. Springfield's adopted Residential Lands and Housing Needs Analysis reiterated the need for
open space for dense housing by showing that a minimum of 7 acres of high density residential. (HDR)
designated land was necessary to meet the public needs (such as parks) of 21 gross acres of
residentially - developed HDR land. The park blocks met about half of that requirement and the other
was met through the linear park and riparian setback. The Willamalane Comprehensive Plan showed
the same thing and pointed out that more parkland was needed as density increased and also that close
to home parks were considered by Springfield residents in surveys to be very important amenities.
Ms. Markarian noted that the park blocks could bring with them economic, social, health, and
environmental benefits to the community. The park blocks could also provide a large, continuous
physical or visual corridor from Franklin Boulevard to the river, and the park blocks could be a
recognizable centerpiece leading to district identity. Another question that came up at the work
session was why the park blocks were being proposed at the size noted in the Plan. The proposed size
and scale of the park blocks was proportionate with the .mass and scale of future surrounding buildings
and the number of people who would live, work and be attracted to the Glenwood Riverfront. The
multi - functionality of the park blocks was also linked to their proposed size. The park blocks had
been sized to compatibly meet recreation, pedestrian connectivity, and stormwater management needs.
Willamalane had depicted what it took to create usable recreation space, and Public Works had
calculated what would be needed to manage stormwater runoff from the proposed right -of -ways.
Willamalane had also maintained that there would be little room to do anything other than the multi-
use path along sensitive natural areas next to the river. One of the items raised at the.work session
related to the proposed location of the multi -use path. She referred to Attachment 1 page 10 for an
explanation of how the wording had continued to be clarified throughout the refinement planning
process. Staff s intent all along was that the multi -use path, a community asset, would not encumber
the use of individual private property any more than was already done so by riparian regulations. The
current wording stated this while leaving the door open to continue the path should topographic
features of the land make putting it in the setback area impossible.
Ms. Markarian said another topic raised during the work session had to do with how we would get
from today's reality of privately owned land all along Glenwood's riverfront to a future public linear
park. She referred to Attachment 1 pages 9 and 10. This kind of transformation would require
collaborative discussions and the preparation of cooperative agreements with land owners and partner
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 6
agencies similar to what happened with the annexation and development of RiverBend. Agreements
like these could spell out mote clearly how to phase, fund, design, construct, access, and maintain
public open space integrated with private development. One property owner was concerned about
precisely when public access would need to be granted through his property to a future multi -use path.
The intent of any policy that talked about enabling public access to the riverfront path through private
property assumed access would not be granted until phases of the path were completed. The
Refinement Plan policy included information about what was desired for the end result, and this kind
of minutia and detail about the interim use on a particular property would be worked out in an
annexation or development agreement.
Ms. Markarian said Willamalane was worried about having in writing what might be their
responsibility and what wouldn't be their responsibility, such as riparian maintenance or maintenance
of the facilities that treated stormwater from the City's right -of -way. These, too, were the types of
details that could be worked out through a partner agency agreement like the one the City had been
working on with the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) to provide more specific direction about electric
and water facilities than the broad policy direction in the Plan.
Ms. Markarian noted that the final item raised during the work session revolved around Plan
flexibility. She referred to Attachment 1 page 2 for a discussion about how this Plan responded to
developer desires for both certainty and flexibility. In the development of policies in each chapter,
staff tried to write them so that what was envisioned as an end product was clear, but the way to get
there was left flexible. Attachment 1 pages 2 and 3 also listed the less onerous adjustment mechanisms
than Plan amendments that staff had devised for possible developer- requested Plan changes: For
example, the Plan outlined a process for modifications requested by developers that were consistent
with Plan policies. A process was also detailed if a developer wished to address a building design
standard in a manner different than what was suggested by the Plan. Staff had also outlined a process
for over - the - counter interpretations of uses in the use categories that couldn't be listed. Finally, the
City could amend the Plan as necessary based on evaluation of continued applicability every five
years. r
Ms. Markarian formally entered into the record two pieces of written testimony that were received by
staff on March 22, 2012 and March 28, 2012. Staff had evaluated the concerns expressed in the letters
and responded to each in the attached documents that were also entered into the record. Nearly all of
the issues had been addressed deliberately by the Planning Commission and their action or direction
was noted where applicable. Therefore, staff did not propose any further modifications to the
proposed package of amendments based upon this written testimony.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
1. Johnny Kirschenmann, Springfield, OR. Mr. Kirschenmann said he was testifying as Chair of
the Springfield Planning Commission. The City planners and staff had worked extremely hard
over the last three plus years and he thanked them for their work. The Planning Commissions
had held seven work sessions and one continued public hearing (October 18, 2011, December
20, 2011) regarding the approximate 268 acres of Phase I in Glenwood. Mr. Kirschenmann
was also able to sit in on two CAC sessions and was impressed how the staff and'committee
worked together. One of the more concerting issues the PC worked through during this time
was a study from Crandall and Arambula showing 100 dwelling units per acre. After some
discussion, the CAC agreed upon 50 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission
concurred. More discussion was held with staff bringing about a modification. This
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 7
modification allowed 35 dwelling units per acre at the start up if warranted, and 65 dwelling
units per acre further in the development, as long as they averaged 50 dwelling units per acre.
During the Planning Commission public hearing, staff assured the Planning Commissions that
they need not feel a sense of urgency to complete the work at the meeting, particularly if there
were any unanswered questions. This was indicative that the staff wanted to get it right. With
many Code modifications raised by property owners, the staff had been very responsive and
both Planning Commissions trusted staff to come up with the final version which was before
the Council and Commissioners. Mr. Kirschenmann said he also had the opportunity last fall
to attend with City Council, staff and other Planning Commissioners a tour of a mixed -use
commercial area in Hillsboro called Orenco Park. Although it was very nice, with the
amenities in Glenwood, such as the Willamette River, there were unlimited possibilities. The
final motion recommended adoption of the proposed Metro Plan Amendment to adopt the
Glenwood Refinement Plan. It passed unanimously by the Springfield Planning Commission,
with one member absent.
2. John Sullivan, McKenzie Highway, Vida, OR. Mr. Sullivan was testifying as Chair of the
Lane County Planning Commission and with unanimous approval of that commission. He
commended Springfield and Lane. County staff for providing both commissions with complete
staff reports. They took testimony from members of the public; both verbal and written.
Generally, the testimony was favorable, but there were substantive recommendations and
Springfield staff did an exemplary job of responding to those and incorporating much into the
Plan. This could be found in Lane County's attachment 3 -1. through 3 -43. Flood related issues
were of some concern to some commissioners and those were addressed in this document. The
record was left open from the October 2011 public hearing so the Planning Commissions
could better understand the issues. On December 20, 2011 the public hearing and completed
record was addressed. Because of the complexities, the Commissions devised a system of
addressing the amendments and issues brought before them. They identified with staff the
items that would be considered no discussion (no concerns). By consent, those items were
moved to one motion. Those issues that had concerns were put together and staff responded to
those. That system might be a benefit for the Council and Commissioners if those chose. Lane
County Planning Commission found there were some issues that were worthy of discussion,
but they chose not to focus on those in a voting situation. Some of those issues, such as
parking, were more of a City of Springfield issue. He encouraged the Council and
Commissioners to review the seven motions made by the Planning Commissions on December
20, 2011. The Lane County motions were all unanimous except for one dealing with diagrams.
The final motion recommended adoption to the Metro Plan. The Lane County Planning
Motion passed unanimously with two members absent. The recommendations were based on
the findings that the Springfield staff.fulfilled City Council's request to implement a forward
thinking vision based on citizen input and concurrence with the CAC by taking steps to 1)
attract and facilitate appropriate land uses; 2) demonstrate commitment to high quality
development; 3) protect investments in new infrastructure; and 4) provide reasonable
stewardship to a Willamette River corridor. He noted that it had-been a treat working with the
Lane County Planning Commission and City of Springfield.
3. Randy Hledik, Eugene, OR. Mr. Hledik said he was present on behalf of the Wildish
Company. Wildish owned approximately 40 acres of redevelopable property along the McVay
corridor. Throughout the evolution. of this process, they had attempted to evaluate their ability
to achieve the plans goals within the constraints of the proposed ordinance. Staff had been
responsive to most of their concerns; however, there were three provisions that remained and
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 8
in their opinion posed subjective, arbitrary and unnecessary impediments to redevelop. His
letter of March 28 was entered into the record. The.concerns were within three sections of the
implementing code. The first section was the provision for peer review in certain plan
modifications at the discretion of the Planning Director, and the cost of the review was to be
borne by the applicant. The request from Wildish was that this requirement'be eliminated from
the Code. The second section identified several prohibited uses in the district and specifically
prohibited drive through facilities including, but not limited to, banks and restaurants, service
stations and gas stations. Wildish requested that those uses be allowed in the district by
deleting them from the prohibited uses list. The third section stated that the Code provided for
additional surface parking in the area of Subarea D south of the Union Pacific Railroad trussle;
however, a subsection to that particular section of the Code limited the amount of parking
allowed on the side of a building adjacent to a street to no more than 150 feet. Wildish
requested that requirement be removed from the Code as well. He thanked the Council and
Commissioners for their consideration and time.
4. Rick Satre, Springfield, OR. Mr. Satre said he was here speaking on behalf of himself. Mr.
Satre said he was a 30 -year resident of Springfield practicing land use planning and landscape
architecture. He had been a fan of Springfield and of Glenwood. Centrally located, Glenwood
was well connected, it had history, identity and purpose. There had been many planning
efforts over the years regarding Glenwood. Staff should be commended for wonderful work
over the past three plus years. The Plan before the Council and Commissioners was the best
yet, but there could be some changes. He referred to the testimony provided by his firm and by
himself on October 18, 2011 (Attachment 3 of the agenda packet). He supported parking
maximums (in particular flexibility in parking), park'blocks, mixed uses (particularly
flexibility of uses), density and riverfront setback and path. There were three items he asked
the elected officials to consider under the theme of flexibility and certainty. His clientele was
primarily focused on the private sector including developers, investors, property owners, and
business owners. In the market place, those seeking to invest in real estate sought certainty in
the process and certainty in the outcome. The Glenwood Plan and proposed Code amendments
went a long way in providing certainty in process and in requirements. Yet the marketplace
also required flexibility; therefore, he asked that they consider flexibility with respect to
parking, in particular parking in front of buildings in Subarea D. Franklin Boulevard and the
McVay riverfront were different places within Glenwood. Franklin was a direct link from
downtown (Springfield) to downtown (Eugene) and had great potential for office, commercial
and residential uses. McVay Highway had a different feel and was an industrial area;
therefore, parking being more flexible with regard to parking allowances in Subarea D helped
to respond to park -n -place and to set up a situation where those seeking to invest, develop or
redevelop had more flexibility with how they might choose to arrange property's indoor and
outdoor spaces. The second section he wished to address was prohibited uses, which was
included in the comments in his letter. He thanked the elected officials for the opportunity to
speak to them.
5. Artemio Paz, Cedar Flat, Springfield, OR Mr. Paz said he`was here to comment on how
Phase I of the Glenwood Refinement Plan affected one of his clients. His client had conducted
his business, Cafeto Coffee Roasting, in Glenwood for over 17 years, and in the
Eugene /Springfield metropolitan area for approximately 28 years. His client had 22 employees
and was looking at an expansion of his facility. His facility was located in the Plan Phase II,
but one piece of four acres he recently purchased was part of Phase 1. The certainty that had
been commented on was very important to his client because they were looking at consistency
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 9
in land use activities with the activities that currently occurred on the property that was .
accessed off 22nd Street. The majority of Phase I was along the riverfront, but there was a
small percentage that went up the hill and was contiguous with property that was only
accessed from 22nd Street. When looking at flexibility, they needed to look at public safety and
firefighting as well. He and his client were in agreement with the proposed land use
designation of medium to light industrial employment. That was appropriate and the best use
for the community and the land that would enhance the existing history of activities in that
area. He felt, however, there were some public safety issues. When they looked at
establishing a land use category, it would influence the upper shelf which hadn't been a part of
the conversation. Some of those people were ready to act today and could affect the Plan. He
appreciated the work. In 2007, the American Institute of Architects had the Glenwood area as
part of their proposal for AIS 150. It gave him great pleasure to see the transparency and
dialogue the City had with the community, private sector, residents, and property owners to
bring this Plan to a level that had the complexity it needed to justify that diamond in the rough
that was being revealed to the community.
6. Lee Beyer, Springfield, OR. Mr. Beyer said he was speaking on behalf of Willamalane Park
and Recreation District. He was pleased with the current stage of the Glenwood Refinement
Plan. He commended the work of the Planning Commission staff, as well as the Planning
Commissions of the City of Springfield and Lane County. From the development perspective,
Glenwood was one of the best pieces of land for commercial redevelopment in the state of
Oregon, but was not easy to do and they needed to take a long -term view. In his experience,
looking at other developments across the country, every. $10 of private development was
usually preceded by $3 - $4 of public development. He spoke regarding the riverfront and
block parks that were in the Plan. He was looking at this section not only from a Park Board
member, but also from an economic perspective. Areas across the nation that had gotten the
best in redevelopment and the highest return on their public investments dollars were those
that took control of the waterfronts and included public investments. He named a few
examples such as Corvallis, Bend, Salem and Portland. None would have happened if the
cities hadn't made, a commitment to park land. Last week while at a National Parks
Convention, he spoke with the former Mayor of Pittsburgh about the rebirth of their city by
recovering the riverfront. It had taken a long time. High and mid level residential
development such as that outlined in the Glenwood Refinement Plan needed open space for
quality of life and economic return. This wouldn't be easy or quick and they couldn't expect
one owner to do it on their own. He congratulated the City on where it was at this time and
knew they would do a good job.
7. Jason Genck, Willamalane Parks and Recreation District, Springfield, OR. Mr. Genck said he
was speaking on behalf of Willamalane Parks and Recreation District where he served as the
Deputy Superintendent. He commended and complimented the Plan, especially the
collaborative approach which had been implemented. Willamalane supported parks that were
both highly desirable and essential amenities to urban infrastructure. Willamalane supported
the types of parks outlined in the Plan, both the linear park as well as the park blocks. They
were supportive of the approach of integrating natural resource protection in stormwater
management into the provision of public park land and had been involved to insure policies
were structured so the integrated approach would consider outlay of space, configuration,
safety and functionality. They were supportive of policies of placement of the parks. From
their experience, parks that were along ample street frontage and good visibility overall had
more use and were less likely to be abused. The City staff collaborated with Willamlane on
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 10
the development of parts of the Refinement Plan where their areas crossed over. Willamalane
was flexible and ready to partner and work with development to insure that the appropriate
amount of parks and open spaces were in Glenwood. While the Plan had specific information,
Willamalane remained flexible and was generally very supportive of the Plan. Willamalane
was interested in continuing to serve as a partner in an exciting future.
8. Roger White, Auburn CA. Mr. White said he was a land development consultant based in
Auburn, California, and represented a majority of the landowners north of Franklin Boulevard
and east of the mobile home park. Collectively, they were working on a 30 acre master plan.
Their team members included the Meyer Group for master planning, land use planning and
architecture; Balheizer and Hubbard for engineering; and Evans, Helder and Brown for
marketing and eventual sales and leasing. His observation as a developer over the last 35 years
was that redevelopment work was not glamorous, but was hard. Redevelopment was difficult
with many obstacles including diverse and sometimes conflicting interests. Staff had done an
admirable job. They had been good listeners and willing to consider some of the thoughts and
ideas presented by the team. He was pleased on behalf of his team, to endorse staff's work. It
was not perfect for their property, but they saw it as a good foundation and it had high
standards which was very important. His team was close to make an exciting announcement
on a major anchor project within the 30 acres. Some of the comments tonight had expressed
concerns. He would not be articulating any concerns this evening as he had already done that
with staff. None of them were major concerns and he had found a very cooperative
environment to collaborate with staff. Staff had honestly represented that they were open to
ideas that could take shape in the marketplace that were slightly different than what had been
envisioned by staff. In general, he found the Plan workable and he was pleased to endorse it.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Chair closed the public hearing for Lane County. He noted that they would have
another reading of their two ordinances at a future date.
Ms. Markarian said at this time, the Lane County Board could leave or they could. stay to discuss the
testimony together with the Springfield Council.
Mayor Lundberg said she would prefer having them stay to hear comments. Each jurisdiction would
discuss these again separately before making any final decisions.
Councilor Ralston spoke regarding Mr. Roth's concerns about the street running through Roaring
Rapids. He asked staff to provide information on how that was resolved.
Ms. Markarian said she believed that issue had been resolved. Staff met with Mr. Roth on September -
15, 2011 to discuss how the Plan policies could be worded to allow for a grandfathering of current use
on that site. An implementation action was cited in staff's response to Mr. Roth in response to how
that would be addressed.
Board Chair Leiken asked what Ms. Markarian meant when she noted that Glenwood was an
entryway. He asked if she meant to downtown or into Springfield.
Ms. Markarian said she meant an entryway into Springfield, especially along McVay Highway coming
off of I -5. From that direction, it was the first thing people saw when entering Springfield and
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 11
Glenwood from the south end. Also from the west end, from the Walnut Station and Franklin
Boulevard, it was the first thing people saw. It was not the only thing because people could enter
Springfield from the north or east.
Board Chair Leiken asked transportation staff if the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
was no longer interested in building new off ramps from the new bridge.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said that was correct. The City did have in writing a letter from
the ODOT director from several years ago that the bridge would be designed to be adaptive to
something in the future.
Board Chair Leiken asked if there were potential plans to redevelop the current interchange into
Glenwood to make it more of a full service interchange than it was now.
Mr. Boyatt said there was a project on hold that had Federal funds ready. There had been a couple of
designs, but it was a challenging location. Work had been done and there was funding to continue that
work. They felt it made sense to first get through Phase I of the Glenwood Refinement Plan.
Board Chair Leiken said the interchange from northbound traffic on I -5 into Eugene was no longer
being used and traffic needed to go into Glenwood in order to get to the University of Oregon. He
asked if ODOT was doing some traffic counts to see how many people were using that interchange,
not only to enter Springfield, but also to go to the University of Oregon.
Mr. Boyatt said they were not to his knowledge. If they were not taking traffic counts, Springfield
could do that.
Board Chair Leiken asked Lane County staff to work with the City of Springfield staff to get that
information. He felt it would be interesting. That intersection was to be closed for two years and a
traffic count would give them a good idea of who was using that interchange.
Mr. Boyatt said they would also take counts on McVay Highway.
Board Chair Leiken said he brought up the entryway at Glenwood because Springfield had a great
entryway at Gateway on the north side. He appreciated Mr. White's comments coming from the
private sector, and Mr. Beyer's comments regarding public funding. The problem was that there
weren't public funds to do projects that were done in years past in other cities. Mr. White's comments
made him understand this could be a destination opportunity. The University of Oregon had become a
brand name around the country because of the football program. It was important to have a connection
with the University of Oregon and Glenwood. He hoped the City would see that connection. The
University of Oregon was one of the few entities getting grants and funding in our area.
Councilor Wylie applauded everyone who had worked on this and their flexibility, coordination and
cooperation. She was very excited about the possibilities in Glenwood. She referred to comments
made by Mr. Hledik from Wildish and Rick Satre. She said she, represented an older population with
limited mobility. When planning, those people and people in their cars needed to be considered. She
often used drive throughs for services and enjoyed parking by the river to eat. Those types of spaces
could be limited in number and duration, but should be available. She also suggested limits for drive
throughs. She would like to see more flexibility regarding parking and drive throughs.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 12
Commissioner Bozievich asked when this would be coming back to the Board for the 3rd reading. He
asked if it was necessary to hold a 3rd reading, or if the Board could take action now.
Lane County Planner Mark Rust said the Board could take action tonight.
Commissioner Bozievich asked if the record would remain open or closed.
Mr. Rust said that could be discussed now if they chose. There was no request to leave the public
record open so it was at their discretion. The public hearing tonight was for two ordinances for the
Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner Bozievich agreed that there should be flexibility. He noted difficulties in areas, where
no parking was allowed in the front of buildings. When expanding street fronts in those areas,
buildings were moved instead of parking spaces. He noted another example that would allow
expansion with removal of parking spaces. A complete ban of on- street parking in front of buildings
left no flexibility for future transportation needs. A little bit of parking in the front of a building was
not a bad thing.
Commissioner Stewart asked what the normal process would be for a developer that wanted to
develop in Glenwood. He asked if they would still need to go through the Planning Commission with
City Council approval on some items. He was trying to understand the peer review process and
whether -or not it was a duplication of other requirements.
Mr. Karp said the Code would require a minimum 5 acre development area to allow for master plan
approval. That process would require Planning Commission review. Land along the Willamette River
would be in the greenway and would also require Planning Commission review. If someone wanted to
submit modifications to the Plan to allow development to occur and the department director wanted a
peer review as part of that application process, those applications would be processed at the same
Planning Commission hearing so as not to delay the process.
Commissioner Stewart asked if the City Council would be involved in any decisions.
Mr. Karp said the decision would be made at the Planning Commission level for Type III applications.
If the applicant or citizen disagreed with that decision, it could be appealed to the Council.
Commissioner Stewart said it sounded like instead of having peer review, the current process could be
changed slightly.
Mr. Karp said the rationale for peer review was to give the Planning Commission a second opinion, if
staff didn't have the expertise, for their consideration in making a better decision. Current City Code
regarding hillside development discussed the peer review process because of the geotechnical work
that was required for that type of development. In those cases, peer review was required and the
applicant paid. This was not a new precedent, but was establishing that same standard in Glenwood in
certain instances.
Commissioner Stewart asked what type of issue might arise in Glenwood to warrant peer review.
Springfield City Engineer Ken Vogeney responded to this question. In Glenwood they might be
looking for peer review for flood plain mapping as conditional studies or modification along the
City of Springfield
Council Regular. Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 13
waterfront were needed. The City did not have the expertise or staff to conduct in depth evaluation of
floodplain studies. They had used that in other developments.
Commissioner Stewart asked how the correlation between properties such as the one Mr. Paz spoke of
that were affected by both Phase I and Phase II was being addressed.
Mr. Karp said the property mentioned by Mr. Paz was in Phase L There were a number of properties
that went up the hillside that were zoned public land and open space. A_number of years ago one of the
property owners had approached the City about rezoning properties to commercial to allow billboards.
When looking at the boundary for Phase I, staff decided to include that hillside piece and designate it
employment mixed -use. Mr. Paz was supportive of that use. The regulations in the existing
Refinement Plan would stay in place until the Phase II Plan process was complete. If Mr. Paz wanted
to come in with an application for that property today, it would be permitted. There was an issue
regarding access as 22nd was a one -way dead end street. That issue neededto be resolved. It was
unclear whether or not that issue could be resolved with Mr. Paz's application, but he could talk with
staff about possible accommodations.
Commissioner Stewart asked if it would detrimentally affect what they wanted in Phase I if someone
developed in Phase II today. He was a firm believer in flexibility. This was great plan and he hoped it
would develop just as planned, but experience had shown that things didn't always work out that way
He noted some of the advantages they had in Portland that helped with their redevelopment.
Redevelopment in Glenwood would take some time. He wanted to make sure the Plan was flexible
and he was hearing that it was flexible. That would allow people to address drive throughs or parking,
The true Glenwood redevelopment may not look like the Plan for several years.
Mr. Karp said the Glenwood Refinement Plan was a 20 year plan, with 5 year increments to re-
evaluate. If someone came in with something totally different, staff would do. what they needed to do
to make it happen. Mr. White, in his testimony, had pointed out that there were some issues to be
resolved and felt he could work it out with staff. Flexibility allowed adjustments so the Plan didn't
need to be amended each time there was an adjustment.
Councilor VanGordon spoke regarding parking and maximums. He asked if there was anywhere in the
Lane metro area that was under a parking maximum requirement. He asked if there was a minimum
for parking.
Mr. Karp said there were no parking minimums.
Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett said the City of Eugene did have maximum standards in downtown.
Ms. Markarian said parking maximum were included in the Plan to assist with the commercial lending
process. The market would often dictate parking.
Councilor VanGordon asked if developers were concerned with parking maximums.
Ms. Markarian said the developers staff had talked with endorsed the parking maximums as it
provided them with flexibility. dependent on the type of business.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 14
Councilor VanGordon said the Plan provided the maximum and the market provided the minimum. He
spoke regarding Subarea D and if anyone had asked for a large expanse of parking in front of the
building.
Ms. Markarian said no one had made that request.
Councilor VanGordon noted where peer review was required in the Code (hillside development) and
where it was an option.
Ms. Markarian said the City could invoke peer review in some cases.
Mr. Vogeney said it wasn't specifically stated in the Code that the City could use peer review. For
engineering technical issues, he used his discretion as City Engineer to determine if peer review was
needed.
Councilor Woodrow felt this was an opportunity to have a different entity in Glenwood that wasn't to
itself, but was part of the bigger area which included the University of Oregon and Springfield
downtown and a future plaza. Glenwood was an avenue opportunity between those in addition to the
wonderful planning of what they wanted Glenwood to look like., There needed to be reasons for people
to go back and forth among these connections. All of the areas had the opportunity to thrive if they
worked off each other. There was an opportunity to use it all and that's where she saw the flexibility.
They needed to remember Glenwood was part of a whole..
Councilor Moore asked for clarification of the different types of mixed -use.
Ms. Markarian said typically mixed use designations needed to identify the predominant use. She
provided some examples.
Councilor Moore said there was a lot of riverfront area. She asked how flexible this Plan was for
zoning changes. She provided an example of a request for a hotel near the riverfront.
Mr. Karp said hotels were allowed in Subarea B and Subarea C. Staff didn't feel it made the best
planning sense to put hotels in industrial areas.
Councilor Moore said it sounded like there was not a lot of flexibility in that regard.
Mr. Karp said the Wildish property along the riverfront was vacant. He was not aware of any requests
for hotels along that area, but there could be interest if hotels were built out in the other areas and there
was demand.
Councilor Moore confirmed that the path would provide the access to the river.
Mr. Karp said the Commercial Industrial Building Land (CIBL) inventory required the City to focus
on the larger vacant industrial sites to be reserved for those uses.
Mayor Lundberg said she was happy about the flexibility and the idea that the Plan could grow and
change in regards to parking. She felt that they needed to revisit peer review carefully as it could be a
deal killer. There was a unique setting in Glenwood with the riverfront, the state highway, the
University of Oregon and high density residential needs. They could possibly move some of the
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 15
residential depending on development interest. Originally, there was going to be medium - density
residential where PeaceHealth built RiverBend, but through flexibility they were able to change. There
would be people that wanted to come to the riverfront. When they first started looking at Glenwood,
they saw what was hidden. There were a variety of transportation choices and they needed to keep all
transportation options available.
Board Chair Leiken spoke regarding peer review and asked if the Development Services Director
would have discretion on when that was needed.
Mr. Karp said the text stated, "the director may require peer review ". Before staff changed the
language based on Planning Commission input, it stated "required''.
Board Chair Leiken said that made sense. He provided some examples where peer review might be
necessary.
Mr. Karp said. it would depend on each individual case, but there was a lot of truth in what he was
saying.
Board Chair Leiken complimented the Plan. He would caution them not to go overboard on flexibility.
When developing a riverfront plan, they needed to develop it appropriately. He noted that several
years ago a hospital was looking at the Wildish site. He asked if that could be built today based on this
Plan.
Mr. Karp said that was correct. Staff had deliberately included that acceptable use in that area based on
that experience.
Board Chair Leiken said it sounded like the City was going to hold a work session before coming back
for their second reading. He asked the Board members how they would like to coordinate the dates.
County Planner Kent Howe said past practice had been that the City initiating the amendment acted
first, followed by the County Board. That was not a requirement, however, and they did have the
option to take action tonight. There was a possibility that the Springfield City Council might propose
some minor changes so it may be beneficial for the Board to wait.
Mr. Markarian said the Springfield Council could not act until their second reading. It was up to, the
Council whether or not they would like a work session before. the second reading. If Council had
direction they would like to provide to staff to work on and bring to that work session, they could do
that. The other option would be for the Council to hold their second reading without a work session.
Commissioner Bozievich said he was very excited about this plan. Glenwood could become a major
economic driver for all of Lane County. He was licensed by the State to do development plans and he
had done a number of them in Springfield. Having that license meant he was liable for the work he
did.. He had a real concern with peer review. Those doing the development were required to hire
licensed professionals, and those professionals had a duty under State law. The developers were
paying for those professionals and to require the developer to pay for that service a second time
seemed redundant and somewhat punitive. There were licensed geologists and engineers that only did
work within their expertise. He was concerned with the subjective nature of the peer review process in
the Plan. He noted issues that could be caused with the use of `may' in the Code. He recommended
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 16
that the City take a second look at peer review requirements. He also recommended that the Board
approve the second reading and move the 3rd reading to a later date.
Councilor Ralston said he still had a concern about maximum standards for parking and that it may not
be enough for a particular business that may want to build a restaurant. He asked if there was
flexibility for someone wanting more parking than the maximum.
Mr. Karp said if the master plan included a restaurant that a developer wanted to build in the first
phase of their four phase development, they would have a lot of open area that would be available for
parking which they could use. As the property continued to develop, some of those parking areas
would be removed. The Code did provide that if someone wanted more parking than the maximum,
they needed to consider a parking structure. As properties developed over time, a parking structure
would likely be needed.
Councilor Ralston expressed concern that a business could locate there and later find there wasn't
enough parking allowed. Parking structures were very expensive. He felt that took away the certainty.
Mr. Karp said the certainty was in,the master plan process. At that time, it would be explained what
would occur in each phase of their development. They would know the requirements from the
beginning.
Councilor Ralston asked who would pay if a parking structure was needed.
Mr. Karp said it could be private or a private /public partnership.
Mr. Barnett said the parcel minimum was 5 acres. If a developer wanted to put in a restaurant, it would
not take the full 5 acres. There would be other uses on that 5 acre site that could possibly share parking
with the restaurant and still have an adequate amount of parking for their use. There would also be
some on- street parking which would not be counted towards anyone's maximum. When looking at
initial stages of development, they would likely see the shared use and on- street parking before a
parking structure.
Councilor Pishioneri thanked staff for all of their work. He said he had an issue with the way the peer
review piece was worded.. He would, like information regarding that for an upcoming work session. In
looking at the -concerns, he saw a number of impediments for development. He noted the flexibility
that was incorporated regarding residential densities. He appreciated that flexibility, but didn't see
enough flexibility to bring in development in Glenwood. He spoke regarding drive throughs such as
banks and kiosk and.was concerned that there wasn't more flexibility for those uses. They needed to
look at small businesses and large businesses. He spoke regarding parking and asked to see how the
requirement of 150 feet that was noted in Mr. Hledik's letter was justified. This was a great plan and
it was good to have standards, but they needed to remain flexible so they didn't shut out businesses.
Ms. Markarian spoke regarding drive through facilities and why the prohibition was included in the
Plan.. One factor was safety for pedestrians. Another factor was that the State's Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR) required no drive throughs or gas stations. Drive throughs generated a lot of
traffic.
Councilor Pishioneri felt the drive throughs could and needed to be designed to be safe. He understood
the requirements from the TPR report, but wanted to see if there was another way to make it work.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 17
Mayor Lundberg said this was a huge project and there were a lot of decisions to be made. The
broader decisions had been made and now they needed to look closely at the details during a work
session. Some of the things for discussion during that work session included parking, peer review,
access to the river and drive throughs.
Board Chair Leiken said the Board of Commissioners would like the date for the second reading and
action by the City Council so they could incorporate that into their motion.
Mr. Grimaldi said originally they had the second reading for May 21, but the work session needed to
be scheduled first so that date would likely change. It was important for everyone to take the time
needed to make a good decision.
Board Chair Leiken asked how staff would like them to proceed.
Discussion was held regarding possible dates for the next reading by the Board and whether or not to
keep the record open. June 20 was a date provided for the 3rd reading.
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SORENSON WITH A SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER STEWART TO HOED THE THIRD READING ON ,TUNE 209 2012
AND LEAVE THE RECORD OPEN UNTIL THAT DATE. THE MOTION PASSED BY
A VOTE OF 4 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT — HANDY).
City Attorney Matt Cox said if the County kept the record open, the City may want to consider leaving
the record open until June 20.
The record would need to be closed before the Council made their decision.
Planning Manager Greg Mott said it was staff's objective for tonight's hearing to have Council hear
testimony and staff hear concerns about the ordinance. In anticipation of that occurring, a date of May
21 had been discussed for a possible work session. All of the issues raised by the elected officials
tonight were part of the record and there was nothing new in that respect. Staff's response would not
generate anything that was not already in the record. In his opinion, there was no reason to keep the
record open for staff to respond to those issues. If the Council wanted to leave the record open for the
public to provide additional testimony, that would be their choice. Based on holding a work session on
May 21, the Council. could be ready to hold the second reading on June 4. Regarding leaving the
public record open, there had been no request from the public to do so and there had been no new
testimony.
Mayor Lundberg said that sounded reasonable.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if closing the record would not allow someone to address some of the
comments raised tonight.
Mr. Mott said there wouldn't be anything to comment on until the Council held the work session and
provided direction to staff. The concerns raised tonight had not received unanimous support either
way, so until they determined how to resolve those issues during the work session, there was nothing
for the public to react to. They could re -open the public hearing after any changes were made. If they
did that, the Board would need to do the same thing. If the resolution Council came up with was
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2012
Page 18,
something that hadn't been seen or anticipated, staff would recommend advertising for a re- opened
public hearing.
Mayor Lundberg reconfirmed that both the public record and public hearing were closed for the night.
The Springfield City Council took no action as this was a first reading of their ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 9:07 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Attest:
aftU14",I-
City Reco er
)e Pishioneri
ddent