HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/2012 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 14, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and
Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Discuss Public Involvement Procedures for the Development Community to Participate in Review
of Planning and Development Regulations.
Planning Supervisor Jim Donovan and Civil Engineer Matt Stouder presented the staff report on this
item. Staff recently completed a Developer Input Process (DIP) with members of the development
community, where work products were focused on customer service,, efficiency improvements and
changes to ministerial code provisions. Some DIP members expressed a desire to work on other larger
development related issues and staff has prepared a Developer Advisory Committee (DAC) concept for
Council's consideration.
The recent DIP was a successful collaboration between the development community and City staff on
continuous process improvement of issues prioritized by the development community. It was, however,
limited in scope and lacked the broader public involvement process necessary for larger land use
initiatives requested by some DIP members.
In order to provide the flexibility to accomplish those requests, the structure would best be similar to a
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), where Council would appoint a committee with specific goals and
the resources necessary' to provide broad public involvement. The Council would then review the
committee's work and provide direction to staff if some proposals were to be implemented. Attachment
1 of the agenda packet described staff's proposal in more detail.
The strengths of forming a DAC were in Council's participation in goal setting and committee selection,
broader committee involvement and input, and streamlined review of work products. These features
included the strengths of the former DIP process and allowed for a broader range of issues to be
reviewed.
If Council was amenable to forming a DAC, staff would move forward with solicitation of DAC
appointments for Council's consideration prior to summer recess, and initiate committee work over the
summer, before reporting back to Council in the fall on DAC priorities and issues.
Mr. Donovan said a concern was to streamline the process while tackling some of the larger issues.
Council involvement would be at two important junctures. The first was in the formation of the
committee. Staff proposed following the standard notification process and putting public notice out for
participation. The categories would be identified and submitted for Council to review and appoint
members. Staff would then work with the committee by providing resources and expertise, and assist
with the presentation to'be brought to Council. Recommendations would come to Council from the
committee with staff assisting. Council could then have work sessions and regular meetings to review
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 2
the recommendation and consider resources necessary to take on the range of recommendations. At that
point, Council could direct staff to move forward and prepare ordinances for amendments that could be
desired.
Mr. Donovan said a list of the recommended categories was included in the agenda packet for Council's
review and approval. If Council approved of those categories, staff would proceed with public notice for
applicants. The Developer Input Process Committee provided a list of things they wanted to follow -up
on from their meetings. Those items would be first to be reviewed by the new committee. They were
trying to capture a range of topics. Staff hoped to return to Council in the Fall after working with the
committee and prioritizing the issues. The Council would then confirm which issues staff would work
on with the committee considering resources and timelines.
Mr. Donovan said there was a range of members listed in the core categories from the building
community, consultant community, business owners, environmental protection interests, citizens at
large, and women in minority owned businesses. Staff was recommending 10 -12 people on the
committee to balance representation with the work of the committee.
Councilor Woodrow asked if this would be an established committee that would be addressing certain
tasks. She would like to see a Council liaison to this committee.
Mr. Grimaldi said there were two types of committees: one that had a sunset date and one that was
ongoing that never sunsetted.
Councilor Woodrow said she understood that once this was established, it would be an ongoing
committee.
Mr. Donovan said the committee could address a set of issues and at that time Council could either
continue it or sunset it. At this time, they were approving a structure for something that could be
repeated and building a model that didn't fit the standard approach. It would be at Council's discretion
whether or not it would be continued.
Councilor Woodrow asked if members would be selected in light of the particular issues it was set up to
address, or if the members would remain on the committee as new issues arose.
Mr. Donovan said the work would be starting out general. Presumably the issues would be development
related, but the population of the committee would be affecting the community as a whole. He felt they
would want to select a broad range of committee members.
Councilor Ralston said he looked at this as a temporary committee. Once the items had been addressed,
they could sunset. He noted that the core category included 10 members, plus all of those listed in the
discretion category. He, felt a Planning Commission member needed to be there and wasn't sure if a
Councilor needed to be; included. He was comfortable with the way it was presented.
Councilor Pishioneri said he had heard positive feedback from local developers about this committee. It
may sunset at some point, but he would like to see it as something that continued until such a time the
Council felt it no longer produced outcomes. He felt a Councilor should be on this committee to get
their input when the issues were brought to the full Council. He was also fine with having a Planning
Commission member. '
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 3
Councilor Moore asked about the time involvement with so many issues. The goals sounded admirable,
but she was concerned about staff time needed. She wanted to know if now was a good time to add
more to staff's work load with so many tasks currently underway.
Mr. Grimaldi suggested looking more into that later after the committee had met. The Council would
then review what the committee had come up with, the amount of staff time needed and the expected
result.
Councilor Moore said she encouraged public input, but with the Glenwood Refinement Plan, street
maintenance issues, staff was dealing with a lot.
Mr. Grimaldi said that was appreciated. They had also experienced staff reductions.
Councilor Wylie said sometimes committees were a good thing and sometime they were not. She was
concerned that it could bring up new issues making more work and a longer process. She liked
Councilor Pishioneri's suggestion that the committee could continue as long as it was something that
staff found was helpful. She would like to see it evaluated in about a year.
Mr. Grimaldi said the original committee noted that some of the processes, like site review, were done
differently in other jurisdictions. It might be good to evaluate what other communities were doing to
find efficiencies. There could be other issues similar to that to evaluate.
Councilor VanGordon asked if they would go to the original committee first for potential recruits to fill
the membership of the new committee.
Mr. Donovan said the public posting with identified positions would occur, but they would be notifying
the original members of the openings.
Mr. Stouder noted that some of those people could fit into multiple categories.
Councilor VanGordon asked how staff would keep contact with those members that were not selected to
serve on the new committee about the progress.
Mr. Donovan said they had established relationships with those . people and would continue to provide
them with information.
Councilor VanGordon said that was a positive that had come from this process. He agreed they needed
to have a check -in point to make sure this was a good use of time and resources. That check -in could be
in one year or after the first set of proposals was identified.
Councilor Pishioneri said if there was a Council liaison, they could provide information to the rest of the
Council on how things were going.
Mayor Lundberg said this process did initiate some developer concerns that the City had gotten off -
track. The City had been very good at working with the development community and that edge had been
lost. The City was in an economic environment that required us to be competitive with other
communities. She agreed with Mr. Grimaldi that we should look at what other jurisdictions were doing
that was more efficient and better received. It was legitimate to look at all of those issues. She also
supported having a Council liaison. It was helpful to have the Council liaison provide input when the
recommendations came forward as they would have been in on all of the conversations. They would be
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 4
a good sounding board. She would like the category for builders separated into residential and
commercial, as they were two different types of builders.
Councilor Ralston said he was not sure he wanted to look at what Eugene was doing, but was willing to
do what made sense. He asked about the category `environmental protection x2'.
Mr. Donovan said that would include people who would look at the quality of life, concern for the
environment and livability of the community. Staff felt having two members from that category was
proportional to the rest of the committee.
Councilor Ralston said he wasn't sure about having 2 people in that category. Sometimes
environmentalists and developers clashed.
Mr. Donovan said he felt having 2 was beneficial to get a better opinion.
Councilor Ralston said he didn't want them to be counterproductive. There were federal guidelines in
place that the City had to follow regarding environmental concerns.
Mr. Stouder said the term environmental was for someone interested in development, but not profiting
from the developer.
Councilor Ralston said the category of minorities that owned a business didn't need to be targeted, but
rather business owners in general. He didn't feel that category needed to be x2.
Councilor Wylie said she had discovered that now that we were involved in sustainability, there were
people that were experts in development and sustainability. Those experts could help to make people
aware of how to do things differently. She suggested changing the category of `environmental' to
` sustainability' .
Councilor Ralston said he would prefer calling it sustainability.
Councilor Wylie said `Women in Minority' was included in the federal regulations for bids, so she felt
that was an important category to keep. It could be one or two, but should be included.
The question about non - profits in the housing industry was raised. They were listed in the discretionary
category.
Councilor Pishioneri suggested adding x2 to the `business owner' category, with preference given to
specific types of businesses, such as those owned by minorities or women. That could also be addressed
under the discretionary category of `business owner — additional'.
Mayor Lundberg said it was always beneficial to bring detractors to the table. Having everyone that had
a vested interested involved was the best way to get cooperation. She was comfortable with the
categories as noted and said they may not get more than one in each position. She didn't want to be held
back if they didn't fill a category. She was comfortable with the committee categories, but would like to
separate the builders into residential and commercial builders.
Mr. Donovan said staff hoped to have 12 -14 people on the committee including a Planning
Commissioner and City Councilor. Council would set the priorities and agenda. Staff would work with
the committee, come back to Council with a report of the recommendations and the type of research that
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 5
needed to be done. They could then debrief and determine how soon the committee should meet again,
or if changes needed to be made.
2. Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Phase I (Springfield File Nos. TYP411- 00006,
TYP411- 00005, TYP311- 00001, TYP411- 00007, Lane County File No. PA 11- 5489).
Planners Gary Karp and Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield and
Lane County Planning Commissions conducted a public hearing on October 18, 2011 and continued the
hearing on December 20, 2011. Based on the record and the public testimony received, the Springfield
and Lane County Planning Commissions voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the project
proposal with 30 text modifications.
On January 23, 2012, the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners
conducted a work session on the proposed amendments. Issues raised by Councilors and
Commissioners at that work session were addressed during the staff presentation at the April 2, 2012
joint public hearing.
The Lane County Board of Commissioners had a first reading on the amendments on March 14, 2012.
Following the April 2, 2012 joint public hearing and Council -Board deliberations, the Council elected to
close the record and requested a work session to discuss the few remaining unresolved issues prior to
their second reading, scheduled for June 4, 2012. The Commission chose to delay their decision until
the Council action and moved to leave their record open until a third reading, scheduled for June 20,
2012.
Distinct place, identity, a gem, preserve the magic of the river, Glenwood as a bridge, Glenwood as a
diamond in the rough — these were some excerpts from the Glenwood Citizen Advisory Committee
(CAC) initial meeting and visioning session with staff when asked what about Glenwood should be
preserved. Among many other attributes, words describing a rare, special and irreplaceable nugget of
Springfield were mentioned a number of times. The Council and others had expressed similar
sentiments over the years and this vision helped shape the policy proposals for Glenwood Phase I.
Glenwood as a whole represented less than .02% of Springfield's urban growth boundary (UGB), and
Glenwood Phase I was an even smaller treasure.
Ms. Markarian discussed the issues raised during the April 2 Council meeting. The issues were also
noted in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet.
The first issue was Prohibition of Drive - Throughs. Ms. Markarian said information on this issue was on
pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. In that section, nodes were explained. In the past
Glenwood was designated as a node and Council had directed staff to expand that node through the
2030 process. The subarea D south was a potential future node with Lane Transit District's (LTD)
proposed expansion of the EmX facilities in the future. The Regional Transportation Plan also identified
that area as a potential future node. Through the process, staff felt the nodal characteristics would be an
attractor to significant development in that area of Glenwood and that auto - dependent and auto - oriented
uses could possibly detract from that concept. On page 3 of Attachment 1, the discussion moved into the
Transportation Planning Rule and that auto - related uses were counter to the nodal concept. Staff's
proposal for zoning and development standards supported the City's request for a trip reduction
calculation. That reduction was needed in order for development to occur concurrently with the phased
improvements of Franklin Boulevard. Springfield would only be eligible for that reduction if drive -
throughs were prohibited in the node. If drive - throughs were permitted outside of the node in Subarea D
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 6
south, it would make designating that area as a node less feasible in the future. Staff recommended
maintaining the proposed prohibition of drive - through facilities in Subareas A, B, C and D.
Alternatively, Council could direct staff to maintain the. prohibited use list as proposed within existing
and proposed nodal development areas which included Subareas A, B, C and north of the railroad of
Subarea D, and provide for an exception to the prohibition of drive - throughs in Subarea D south of the
railroad tracks under the circumstances highlighted in Exhibit A of the agenda packet. The restrictions
of Exhibit A allowed drive- throughs in Subareas D south, while trying to foster as much of a pedestrian
and bicycle friendly environment.
Councilor Ralston said he would have liked to have a map to remind him where the subareas were
located.
Ms. Markarian referred to a map on Attachment page 11. She noted where Subarea D was located on
that map.
Councilor Pishioneri asked for an example of a nodal development.
Ms. Markarian said some of the development Council saw on their tour of Hillsboro included nodes.
Councilor Pishioneri said drive -up coffee places and kiosks were very popular with residents. Based on
this Plan, they would only be allowed south of the tracks in Subarea D.
Mr. Grimaldi said it was not currently allowed in the Plan, but could be if Council chose to include the
alternative outlined in the agenda packet.
Ms. Markarian said this area was a potential node with a future EmX line planned for this area. They
were trying to prime it for transit oriented, pedestrian friendly development. She explained how having
drive - throughs could inhibit safe and pleasant pedestrian travel and could encourage more vehicle
traffic.
Councilor Wylie referred to the map. She was concerned that prohibited services were on businesses
that were currently in Glenwood.
Mr. Karp said all of those uses would stay until someone approached the property owner to redevelop
the property. At that time, the property would be redeveloped according to the approved Plan.
Ms. Markarian said a drive - through use was not the highest and best use of land. If a developer wanted
to put in a nice hotel or attractive apartment complex and they wanted to maintain the value of their
land, a drive - through could detract from the value of the land and they may choose not to develop.
Mayor Lundberg said the City first addressed nodes in the TransPlan process. Nodes referred to
employment centers where people lived, worked and played. The City designated the Franklin node, so
we were working within regulations already in place. That had already been done and high density
residential had been placed in that area. Subarea D was a potential node within a 20 year time frame, so
that was a different type of area. She would like to separate Subarea D out to look at possible drive -
through exceptions. She said there was a coffee shop near the EmX Station in Springfield and she didn't
think that devalued the property.
Ms. Markarian said staff had proposed drive - throughs in Subarea D while remaining as pedestrian and
bicycle friendly as possible.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 7
Mayor Lundberg said there were ways Council could get to where they wanted to be without having to
backtrack through State law and the other approved Plans.
Councilor Pishioneri said if they claimed the Plan was flexible, it needed to be. He didn't want
restrictions to prohibit developers from coming into Glenwood. He asked if the restrictions were
something the City was bound by per Administrative Rule or if they were someone's idea. He
specifically noted the restriction of drive - throughs at 400 feet.
Mr. Grimaldi said the number of feet was discretionary.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how hard it would be to allow a shorter distance once they had approved 400
feet.
Mr. Grimaldi said it would be better to choose what they wanted now rather than later.
Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted to know if there was a reason for 400 feet such as a conflict
regarding traffic issues.
Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett said drive - throughs would attract trips off the roadway that were not
normally in that site. Those vehicles would circulate through the parking lot across pedestrian way,
impacting the site by the trips pulled from the roadway. If the drive - through didn't exist, people would
come into the site for different purposes. The generation trips onto the site across the driveway would
be significantly lower. That needed to be contemplated when looking at types of uses. Each intersection
had an influence area where traffic was either slowing down or accelerating, and there were decision
points regarding lane changes. Driveways should not be in the influence area because there were
already enough decisions to make in that area. He provided the example of Highway 126 and 58`'' Street.
There were a number of factors that affected the influence area. That could be used as a technique to
give a specific number of feet for no drive - through facilities within the influence area of the
intersection.
Councilor Pishioneri said he just wanted to have a reason why there were prohibitions when a developer
or builder asked.
Mr. Barnett said if Council chose, influence could be used as a method.
Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted reasons for all of the restrictions so he could defend the Plan.
Ms. Markarian said part of the 400 feet was based on the influence area, and the other part was to create
a pedestrian friendly feeling. They looked at other jurisdictions that had addressed this issue and found
they had used 400 feet from intersections.
Councilor Woodrow said the exception noted under the drive - throughs allowed in Subarea D south,
(2)(b) would prohibit coffee kiosks.
Ms. Markarian said it enabled a drive - through as a secondary use.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if Council would prefer a different distance other than 400 feet.
Councilor Pishioneri said he didn't want to limit certain types of businesses.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 8
Councilor Moore said in looking at nodal development, they were looking at something new and
different, yet were stuck in something old and the same. She understood the proposal. She felt Council
needed to choose to do a nodal development which was a new way of looking at things, or not choosing
a nodal. She would be happier to base the restriction on influence of intersection as she felt it would
give more flexibility.
Councilor Ralston said nodal development had been discussed for many years, but he agreed they
needed to decide what they wanted. The more restrictions, the less likely development would occur.
Business determined if they could make it or not.
Councilor VanGordon asked what the current standard was in the City regarding drive - throughs.
Mr. Barnett said there was none. A traffic analysis would need to be done in order to make sure the
queuing distance from the drive- through back to the circulation on the site was adequate.
Councilor VanGordon asked about an example of a challenging drive- through.
Mr. Barnett said the Mohawk Taco Time had challenges.
Mr. Grimaldi said he was sensing Council wanted to allow drive - throughs in Subareas D. He asked if
setting criteria rather than a set number of feet would be more acceptable to the Council.
Councilor Pishioneri said he just wanted to be able to explain to people why there was a restriction. The
reason needed to be defensible and make sense.
Mr. Grimaldi said he believed criteria would get them there and provide predictability for development
Councilor Wylie said for years she had been in transportation planning. She believed the future lay in
multi -modal transportation and that the automobile would transition into non - harmful emissions, but
there would still be vehicles. She felt that some of this Plan was a direct attack on the automobile and
she didn't feel that was the future. If the senior citizen wanted to go out and do their errands, they
needed to be able to do them in a short distance. Taking away drive - throughs might force them to drive
farther around the community. She believed in reducing greenhouse gasses and in reducing vehicle
miles travelled, but they were transitioning into another era and this Plan was already technologically
dated. They needed to think about the real future before putting on all of the restrictions. She felt they
needed to go further than Mr. Grimaldi's suggestion and be careful how this Plan was designed. She
was concerned about how the restrictions were set up. We wanted to encourage modern development in
Glenwood.
Mayor Lundberg said if they changed things in this plan, they would have to change the other plans it
affected. Subarea D could include drive - throughs, but allowing them in other areas was very significant.
She agreed they needed reasoning for restrictions.
Mr. Grimaldi said they may need another work session. It was important that what was presented to the
Council on June 4 was acceptable to them. People were anxious to move forward with their projects.
The second issue was Peer Review. Ms. Markarian referred to Attachment 1 which outlined what was
intended and what was not intended. Peer review was not new to Springfield and had been used in the
past. Staff took the concerns from the Council and Planning Commissioners and recommended
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 9
additional clarifying language in the major modification section of the proposed plan district as shown
in Exhibit B of the agenda packet, to more clearly articulate the intent of peer review and that it was
limited to circumstances where a proposal sought a major modification. Because the decision to make a
major modification was voluntary, staff recommended that the code maintain the requirement that peer
review was at the applicant's expense.
Councilor Ralston asked a question about the new language. Highlighted areas were changes. He said in
the future he would prefer to have it in track changes to see what was added and what was removed.
Councilor Pishioneri said with this recommendation peer review was still going to be at the director's
discretion. There needed to be a lot of trust involved between the developers and the director. He asked
if there was a mechanism for developer to appeal the director's peer review recommendation.
Mr. Goodwin said any decision made by the Director was subject to City Manager approval. The City
Manager could change that decision.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would like that written in the language.
Mr. Goodwin gave an example of where peer review could have been used for review of a flood plain.
If a national specialist had already reviewed an area, there would be no need for peer review. If the site
was reviewed by someone not qualified, peer review would be required.
Councilor Pishioneri understood that and was comfortable with their process, but he would like to have
it written in the Plan.
Mr. Karp said that term was used throughout the code regarding Director discretion. Staff would talk
with legal staff about how it could be added.
Councilor Moore asked if flood plan review came under the definition of a major modification.
Mr. Goodwin said it could. He provided an example.
Councilor Moore spoke regarding the cost and asked if there were any situations where the City would
pay for all or part of the review. She asked if that had been done in the past.
Mr. Goodwin said there had been cases where the City had participated in peer review. He was reluctant
to put that in a codified form as it made it less flexible.
Mayor Lundberg said if the developer was truly unhappy with the decision by the Director, they could
contact their elected officials. There were recourses to how things got done.
Councilor Ralston said the language under peer review said it `shall' be at the expense of the developer.
He asked if that was too inflexible.
Mr. Goodwin said trying to address that was a delicate balance. He explained.
The third issue was Locating Parking in Subarea D. Ms. Markarian said a revised Exhibit D had been
sent out to the Council and was also distributed during the meeting. The information in the agenda
packet outlined the pros and cons of parking in the front of the building. There was a correlation
between transit ridership and the experience of walking from a transit station to a destination. Based on
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 10
conversations with the property owner earlier on this date, staff recommended Council direct staff to
allow parking on the front and side of buildings under the circumstances highlighted in the revised
Exhibit D. Previously, there had been a prohibition on parking in the front of buildings within 400 feet
of an intersection. That section was eliminated in the revision. On page 15 of Attachment 1 of the
agenda packet, Section 5.b.i. stated "if one row of visitor parking including a travel lane ... ". That
section had been amended to "two rows ".
Mayor Lundberg said staff had addressed the major concerns. She noted safety for employees of
businesses getting to and from their vehicles in the dark. This revision helped make it safer.
The fourth issue was Park Block Width. Ms. Markarian noted that Council had expressed support for the
park block concept to achieve objectives outlined on page 6 of Attachment 1: help meet the park and
recreation needs for adjacent high density residential mixed -use development; attract visitors and offer
usable recreational spaces for the general public that relieved user pressure from more sensitive natural
areas along the river; enable implementation of low - impact development approaches for the treatment of
runoff from adjacent streets and conveyance of treated stormwater from adjacent development to
management and /or water quality treatment areas; provide opportunities to raise public awareness about
the relationship between stormwater management and natural resource protection; and establish a
continuous view corridor from Franklin Boulevard towards the Willamette River. Council concerns
regarding width of the park block and what determined the width of the park block were also noted in
the agenda materials. Some of the factors for determining width included design factors in achieving
the stormwater objective and the recreation objectives. The width also had an impact on safe
intersections basing turn radii and the viability of queuing lengths. It was also determined by the
massive scale of surrounding buildings and providing a space to break up that mass. It was comparable
in total acreage to the minimum open space required in other areas in Springfield. The intent of the
policy was to see Willamalane, the City and the property owner collaborate together in developing the
park blocks. The implementation strategies about the size, user safety, and spacing configuration needs
were intended to provide certainty and specificity to the developers and the community. The minimum
of 150 feet provided certainty to the community that the park would meet the targets for all of the
objectives and would provide certainty to the development community regarding the expected scale of
the park blocks. It also established a benchmark the City could use to negotiate with developers. Exhibit
E clarified that final park block width was dependent upon the definitive stormwater management needs
of adjacent development and final park design needs. Staff recommended adding language to the Plan
district text as highlighted in Exhibit E.
Mayor Lundberg said one of the incarnations of the Glenwood Refinement Plan included dealing with
stormwater runoff in a way that was more of a feature rather than a culvert. This section of the Plan
accomplished this same thing, with a more natural way of handling stormwater.
Councilor Pishioneri recalled seeing something about a water inlet with a bridge over it.
Ms. Markarian said that was a design that could be incorporated by a developer. This section just added
language about the width.
The fifth issue was Access to the River. Ms Markarian said improving public connections to the river
was a key goal that guided staff throughout this process. They felt the proposed street grid, riverfront
linear park and riverfront multi -use path would enable public access to the riverfront for a wide range of
people of differing ages, abilities and income levels. That included vehicular access to the riverfront.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 11
Councilor Ralston said Roaring Rapids property went right up to the river. He asked what would happen
if another business wanted to have outdoor seating up to the river.
Ms. Markarian said there was a segment in the Plan that included an exception that grandfathered the
uses of Roaring Rapids and existing businesses.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there would be more issues for discussion.
Mr. Grimaldi said once Council agreed on these issues, they could bring up any others.
Councilor Moore asked about the path being continuous if existing businesses were grandfathered.
Ms. Markarian said the Plan addressed that in the language. The developer could provide the footprint
of their business north of the riverfront street provided that the development complied with all the
riparian regulations and multi -use path.
Mayor Lundberg opened up the discussion for additional issues.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about Subarea D and C and educational facilities. Subarea D was strictly
commercial.
Ms. Markarian said the citizen advisory committee had discussed educational related facilities in
Subarea C, but did not discuss housing as that was provided for in Subarea A and B. They did talk about
housing south of Franklin Boulevard and that it would not be appropriate because of the proximity to
the transfer station. They didn't discuss whether or not it was appropriate north of Franklin Boulevard.
She asked City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith to discuss this further.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if student housing could be allowed in Subarea C.
Ms. Smith said it was their understanding that this issue may come forward during this work session.
Staff had been coordinating with legal counsel and Lane County about the best way for Council to
procedurally evaluate that without subjecting them to an appeal or slow down the process. Currently in
Subarea C, residential uses were not allowed except for hotels. To address student housing, they would
be changing a use which was significant to a property owner. It was important to remember that the
Glenwood Refinement Plan was a jointly adopted plan with Lane County so there were additional
procedures that needed to be addressed together. This was an opportunity to evaluate this before they
adopted the Plan. She would recommend after talking with City staff and Lane County legal counsel,
that the Council reopen the record for the limited purpose of looking at residential uses in Subarea C
only. A notice was prepared that could go out tomorrow for a hearing on June 4. During the June 4
hearing, Council could conduct another reading, close the hearing, and close the record. Another reading
would need to take place, which could be done June 18. The City could then get information to the
County in early June. Lane County was scheduled to look at the Plan again on June 20, and were still
deciding whether or not to have another hearing at that time. The County would then need to conduct
another reading of the ordinance which could be in mid -July. Doing this would cause a delay of a few
weeks. She clarified that they would just be reopening the record for this Subarea C issue regarding
housing. Notice would only go to those that appeared at the joint hearing and to property owners in that
area. This process was true to what the City had done to date regarding public participation, would help
them avoid a LUBA appeal and allow them to look at a new option that could work for Subarea C.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 12
Councilor Pishioneri said he felt this was worth the effort and would not halt the process and the work
already done.
Councilor Ralston asked if doing this would be an issue regarding timing.
Mr. Grimaldi said the timing issue was important for people who were ready to develop. With the
proposed schedule, this could be done before Council's summer break.
Councilor Moore was not able to identify Subarea C on the map.
Mr. Grimaldi said staff could come back with more detail and maps before making a final decision.
Tonight they were looking to see if staff could do some work on this and bring back the details to
Council. The area they would be considering would be student housing only for schools such as the
University of Oregon, Lane Community College or Northwest Christian University.
Councilor Pishioneri said that was correct.
Ms. Markarian said the designation in this area was currently office mixed -use. Up to 50% could be
used for a limited number of other uses such as hotels or fire stations. The Plan didn't specify student
housing. She explained why the uses were originally chosen. If they added residential, it would fall
under the restriction of 50% similar to where hotels were identified.
Councilor Moore said the location made sense.
Mayor Lundberg said student housing made sense in Glenwood and there could be a need.
Ms. Markarian clarified this would be for student housing, not general housing. Yes.
Mayor Lundberg thanked staff for their work and bringing back alternatives.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
City Recorder