Loading...
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