HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 11 Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Phase I AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/4/2012
Meeting Type:Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Gary Karp & Molly
Markarian/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-4611
Estimated Time: 20 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Community and
Economic Development
and Revitalization
ITEM TITLE: 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)
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a public hearing limited to a proposal adding student housing as a
component of educational facilities in Subarea C and a second reading on:
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.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
At the May 14, 2012 work session, Council directed staff to re-open the City
Council record and hold a public hearing to consider adding student housing as a
component of the educational facilities permitted in Subarea C.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum and Exhibit
2. City Council Minutes from May 21, 2012
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
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
Glenwood Refinement Plan Update 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.
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 five
issues raised during the public hearing. At the May 14, 2012 work session, Council
directed staff to prepare an additional work session discussion on drive-through
restrictions in Subarea D. Council also directed staff to prepare notice for and
schedule a June 4, 2012 public hearing on the limited topic of permitting student
housing within the Office Mixed-Use designation in Subarea C. On May 18, 2012,
notice was mailed to property owners of Subarea C and those who testified at the
April 2, 2012 public hearing. At the May 21, 2012 work session, Council clarified
the definition of student housing and directed staff to permit drive-through facilities
in Subarea D in certain circumstances. The Council will hold a third reading with
the option to adopt the Glenwood Phase 1 ordinance on June 18, 2012.
The Lane County Board of Commissioners had a first reading on the amendments
on March 14, 2012. At the April 2, 2012 joint public hearing, the Commission
chose to delay their decision until the Council action and moved to leave their
record open until June 20, 2012. Following the May 14, 2012 Council work
session, the Commissioners elected to hold a public hearing on June 20, 2012.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 6/4/2012
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Len Goodwin, Gary Karp and Molly Markarian BRIEFING
Subject: Glenwood Phase I MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: At the May 14, 2012 work session, Council directed staff to re-open the City Council
record and public hearing to consider adding student housing as a component of the educational
facilities permitted in Subarea C.
COUNCIL GOALS/MANDATE: Community and Economic Development and Revitalization
Adoption of Glenwood Phase I will represent the attainment of two targets associated with this
Council Goal: The area comprising Glenwood Phase I will be planned and zoned for
redevelopment; and infrastructure needed for growth will be identified and planned.
BACKGROUND: Over the course of the last three and a half years, City staff has worked with
partner agencies and stakeholders to prepare Glenwood Phase I to establish Refinement Plan
policies and Development Code standards for the Glenwood Riverfront. Numerous issues have
been resolved and modifications made to the proposed Glenwood Phase 1 as it has been
reviewed by citizens, the joint Planning Commissions, City Council, and County
Commissioners. At the conclusion of the May 14, 2012 work session, the Council directed staff
to re-open the City Council record and public hearing to consider adding student housing as a
component of the educational facilities permitted in Subarea C. At the May 21, 2012 work
session, the Council clarified the difference between dormitories and other forms of student
housing that would meet the definition of ‘household living’ residential uses as described in
Exhibit A.
The original intent of Subarea C (see maps in Exhibit A) was to preserve relatively large sites for
employment use; specifically, Office Mixed-Use on the riverfront with a circulation pattern
designed to include ‘super blocks’ with bike/pedestrian connectivity at the block level to support
this employment use. This was in response to the Commercial and Buildable Lands Inventory
and Economic Opportunities Analysis (CIBL) policy direction that all of Springfield’s future
employment on sites five acre or less would occur through redevelopment. The current
proposed Glenwood Phase I Refinement Plan and Springfield Development Code text requires at
least 50 percent of Subarea C to be reserved for office employment uses in order to maintain
consistency with policies contained in the CIBL and compliance with Statewide Planning Goal
9.
Subarea C allows up to 50 percent of the land area for “other” uses including hotels and a fire
station in limited specific locations. Educational facilities that are employment generators are
permitted outright in Subarea C, so high-density residential housing inhabited by students at
accredited educational facilities follows as a natural complement to this use. Therefore, student
housing could be permitted as part of the “other” use category if limited to the portion of
Subarea C north of Franklin Boulevard, in the vicinity of Glenwood Boulevard. The bottom line
is any combination of “other” uses permitted in this category cannot exceed 50 percent of the
land comprising Subarea C.
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 13
Staff conducted further analysis to determine if the modified proposal for Subarea C is
consistent with the applicable criteria of approval for Refinement Plan and Springfield
Development Code amendments specified in Section 5.6-115 which states:
“In reaching a decision on these actions, the Planning Commission and the City Council
shall adopt findings which demonstrate conformance to the following: A. The Metro
Plan; B. Applicable State Statutes; and C. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules.”
Staff determined that the modification of the proposal had potential implications for compliance
with Goal 12 Transportation. Staff reviewed the transportation impacts of allowing student
housing as a component of the educational facilities permitted in Subarea C. Student apartments
have half the PM peak trip generation of the Office Mixed-Use model while conventional
apartments have 92% of the Office Mixed-Use model. Consequently, staff concludes that the
designation and zoning of land to permit development of student housing in Subarea C complies
with Goal 12.
Staff determined that the modification of the proposal also had potential implications for
compliance with Goal 9 Economic Development. Staff reviewed the Glenwood Citizen
Advisory Committee’s (CAC) discussions that led to the CAC recommending a mix of
employment uses and other uses in Subarea C. The CAC contemplated/discussed ‘university-
related uses’ in Subarea C, particularly regarding employment-generating educational facilities.
Student housing was never discussed because of the High Density Residential housing provided
for in Subarea A, and to a lesser extent in Subarea B. Housing was discussed and dismissed on
south side of Franklin Boulevard in Subarea C due to proximity to the transfer station. The
following is a chronology of CAC discussions regarding proposed educational and housing uses
in Subarea C:
CAC Meeting #3, May 13, 2009
As part of the discussion about ‘what the riverfront will feel and look like,’ the CAC mentioned
that the north bank in Glenwood is well positioned to attract student housing, but the quality of
that student housing design was a concern. The staff response at the time was that this concern
would be addressed through the proposed design standards.
CAC Meeting #5, September 2, 2009
In responding to Crandall Arambula’s initial land use concept, one CAC member stated that if
student housing is developed, it should be kept away from other housing. The staff response at
the time was that high-density residential uses would either be permitted or not permitted; there
was no legal mechanism for restricting the placement of student housing within an area that
permits housing.
CAC Meeting #6, November 18, 2009
In responding to Crandall Arambula’s revised land use concept, the CAC articulated that: 1)
land southwest of the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection has the potential for
views and higher density residential land uses given the close proximity to the UO campus; 2)
student housing generally has a largely transient population. Staff responded to this feedback in
their land use proposal presented on June 30, 2010.
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 13
CAC Meeting #9, June 30, 2010
In presenting their initial proposal for land uses in Subarea C, staff stated that while the area was
proposed to be designated ‘Office Mixed Use’ with office employment uses being considered
the primary use, secondary uses could provide flexibility to address distinct opportunities and
constraints in Subarea C (such as narrow development area north of Franklin Boulevard,
significant wetland and riparian areas north and south of Franklin Boulevard, adjacency to Lane
County Transfer Station, border with Eugene, and very close proximity to the University of
Oregon). Since secondary uses are defined as being “incidental and subordinate to the primary
use,” staff explained that secondary uses would be permitted uses but would have to be
constrained relative to the total development area in Subarea C. Based on experience with
secondary use limitations elsewhere in Springfield, staff suggested that for many of the
commercial uses, such as retail, the constraint would be permitting the use only on the ground
floor of and integrated into an office employment development. Other secondary uses
(hospitality services, high-density residential uses, civic uses, and university-related uses) that
are appropriate and compatible with an office mixed-use orientation would be permitted outright
but restricted to specific portions of Subarea C. For instance, lodging was considered
appropriate for the portion of Subarea C north of Franklin Boulevard and the portion of Subarea
C southwest of the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection. Metropolitan-
oriented civic uses and high-density residential uses would be restricted to the portion of
Subarea C southwest of the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection. University-
related uses would be restricted to the portion of Subarea C northwest of the Franklin
Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection.
CAC Meeting #10, August 25, 2010
In providing feedback on the initial draft Land Use Chapter, the CAC discussed what
‘university-related uses’ that would be appropriate and compatible with an office mixed-use
orientation might include. The CAC was concerned that a broad ‘university-related use’
allowance might leave the door open to storage warehouses or development that would not
generate the activity day/night desired at the western gateway to Springfield. The CAC debated
whether an indoor track would create the consistent vibrancy desired for this area. The CAC
also expressed that certain university-related uses, such as classroom or research facilities,
would generate employment, so such uses should not be restricted in geographic scope. The
CAC suggested that a clearer explanation of the role of primary and secondary uses in a subarea
would help reduce confusion in the Plan text, and the CAC also stated that a more specific term
than ‘university-related’ should be used or examples of ‘ok’ uses be identified. In addition, the
CAC expressed concern regarding the proposal to permit residential uses in the portion of
Subarea C southwest of the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection in such close
proximity to the Lane County Transfer Station. Staff responded to this feedback in their revised
Land Use Chapter proposal presented on October 20, 2010.
CAC Meeting #11, October 20, 2010
In the version of the Land Use Chapter presented to the CAC at this meeting, staff articulated
that secondary uses in Subarea C together could not comprise more than 50% of the subarea (to
preserve the office employment land supply). Language was included to permit the conversion
of a hotel use to residential use given the tendency of hospitality uses integrated with office
employment uses to include some residential units. The university-related use language was
refined to read “university-related uses that take advantage of the proximity to the University of
Oregon and are compatible with the office mixed-use orientation of Subarea C, such as an
indoor track facility that is connected to nearby university office or medical office facilities and
lends itself to the creation of riverfront activity.” In addition, the possibility of residential uses
southwest of the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection was eliminated.
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 13
CAC Meeting #17, August 17, 2011
The CAC provided feedback to staff on the draft Plan District text at this meeting, including a
lengthy discussion about the definition of ‘educational facilities’ and in which subareas they
should be permitted. The CAC expressed an interest in broadening the definition, differentiating
primary/secondary educational facilities and higher education facilities, and emphasizing the
employment-generating potential of some educational facilities. Staff responded to this
feedback in their revised Plan District proposal presented on September 18, 2011.
CAC Meeting #18, September 18, 2011
The CAC provided additional feedback regarding revised text in the draft Plan District with
respect to the category of ‘educational facilities’. Staff responded to this feedback by further
refining the proposed Schedule of Use list in the draft Plan District.
Joint CC/BCC Public Hearing, April 2, 2012
The text of the draft Refinement Plan text presented to the elected officials referenced proposed
uses for Subarea C in the definitions of plan designations on pp. 32-33: “Office Mixed-Use is
established where office employment uses are intended as the primary uses. However, to provide
commercial services needed by office users near their workplace, limited small scale retail and
service uses are permitted if developed as an integral part of the office development. Additional
flexibility is also provided under this designation to allow for limited other uses that are
compatible with office development, such as commercial hospitality services, civic uses, and
educational facilities as stand-alone uses or uses integrated with the primary office employment
use in portions of the area designated Office Mixed-Use (employment-generating educational
uses may be considered primary uses).”
Permitting high-density residential student housing in Subarea C is in compliance with the 50
percent land area threshold for non-Office Mixed-Use. Consequently, staff concludes that the
designation and zoning of land to permit development of student housing in Subarea C as
described in Exhibit A complies with Goal 9.
Conclusion: The designation and zoning of land to permit development of student housing in
Subarea C as described in Exhibit A complies meets the approval criteria of SDC 5.6-115, as
explained in the Adoption Ordinance Exhibit A: Staff Report, Findings, and Order.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approving student housing as discussed in Exhibit A.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion of the issue addressed in this memo, as part of the
Springfield City Council public hearing to consider adding student housing as a component of
the educational facilities permitted in Subarea C to the Glenwood Phase I Ordinance.
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 13
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ALLOW STUDENT HOUSING IN SUBAREA C
Text revisions to Draft Glenwood Refinement Plan pp. 32‐33:
Office Mixed‐Use is established where office employment uses, including employment‐generating
educational facilities, are intended as the primary uses. To provide commercial services needed by office
users near their workplace, limited small scale retail and service uses are permitted if developed as an
integral part of the office development. Additional flexibility is provided under this designation to allow
for limited other uses that are compatible with the primary office employment uses such as commercial
hospitality services, civic uses, and high density residential housing affiliated with permitted educational
facilities..
Text revisions to Draft Glenwood Refinement Plan pp. 41‐42:
…office employment uses, as well as professional, technical, and scientific commercial service uses and
educational facilities, are considered the primary uses in Subarea C. Subarea C also allows retail sales
and services, eating and drinking establishments, and personal service commercial uses that
predominantly support nearby office employment uses. These supporting uses are intended to generate
foot traffic and have few external adverse impacts on office employment uses. Nevertheless,
commercial uses in Subarea C are limited to ensure land is developed for employment uses and to
concentrate a viable critical mass of retail, eating and drinking, and personal services development
opportunities in the residential mixed‐use neighborhood in Subarea A. Retail sales and services, eating
and drinking establishments, and personal services are restricted to the ground floor where the primary
use is office employment. However, uses such as child care, indoor recreation centers, cafeterias,
restaurants, or other contracted services for the benefit of office employees (and that do not generally
serve the public) are considered accessory uses and may be located anywhere within primary use
structures.
Subarea C additionally provides flexibility for other uses that address distinct opportunities and
constraints in portions of Subarea C. Nevertheless, to preserve the office employment land supply, these
other uses, in total, may not comprise more than 50 percent of Subarea C.
For example, lodging (such as extended stay hotels) is a typical component of office employment areas,
so in Subarea C, hospitality uses are permitted to take advantage of easy access to I‐5 and the University
of Oregon. Hospitality uses are only considered appropriate for the portion of Subarea C located
southwest of Glenwood Boulevard or fronting the proposed roundabout at the intersection of
Glenwood Boulevard and Franklin Boulevard. Given the tendency of some hospitality uses (especially
those integrated with office employment uses) to include some residential units, the conversion of hotel
use to residential use would be permitted in these instances.
Due to potential development challenges in the southwest corner of Subarea C posed by the significant
wetland/riparian areas as well as its immediate adjacency to Eugene the portion of the subarea south
of Franklin Boulevard and west of Glenwood Boulevard is well positioned to support metropolitan‐
oriented civic uses (such as a fire station).
Since employment‐generating educational facilities can be developed as primary uses in Subarea C, and
given the proximity to the University of Oregon and other institutions of higher education, high‐density
residential housing affiliated with permitted educational facilities is a compatible and complimentary
use.
Deleted: However, t
Deleted: also
Deleted: development,
Deleted: educational facilities as stand‐alone uses
or uses integrated with the primary office
employment use in portions of the area designated
Office Mixed‐Use (employment‐generating
educational uses may be considered primary uses)
Deleted: as secondary uses
Deleted: as secondary uses
Deleted: and the likely future restructuring of the
storage of materials and operation of the adjacent
Lane County Solid Waste Transfer Station to the
south,
Deleted: and very close proximity to the
University of Oregon, added flexibility in secondary
uses is provided for
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 13
EXHIBIT A
Text revisions to Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District Section 3.4‐245B
3. Office Mixed‐Use. Subarea C provides for office and commercial uses to help meet an identified
need for employment land in Springfield with riverfront views and access points to the
Willamette River that complement the adjacent high‐density residential mixed‐use
neighborhood to the east on the north side of Franklin Boulevard, and the same uses, with the
possible addition of civic uses, on the south side of Franklin Boulevard. In Subarea C:
a. Primary uses are permitted either as stand‐alone uses or within a mixed‐use
building:
i. Office employment uses;
ii. Professional, scientific and technical commercial service uses; and
iii. Educational facilities.
b. Other uses are permitted either as stand‐alone uses or within a mixed‐use
building. To preserve the office employment land supply, these other uses, in
total, are limited to not more than 50 percent of the gross land area of Subarea
C.
i. Hospitality uses provided they are located southwest of the intersection
of Franklin and Glenwood Boulevards or fronting the proposed
roundabout at the northwest side of the intersection of Glenwood and
Franklin Boulevards.
ii. Civic uses, such as a fire station, provided they are located southwest of
the intersection of Franklin and Glenwood Boulevards.
iii. High density residential housing affiliated with permitted educational
facilities with a minimum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre,
provided it is located on the north side of Franklin Boulevard, in the
vicinity of Glenwood Boulevard.
c. Additional uses are permitted as secondary uses only within mixed‐use buildings
to provide some of the business‐related needs of the primary uses. These uses
are: retail sales and services; eating and drinking establishments; and personal
service uses. To minimize the potential over‐supply of commercial land
inventory in proximity to commercial uses in Downtown Springfield or other
commercial districts in Springfield, and to preserve the employment land
supply, these uses are limited to:
i. The ground floor of a building;
ii. No more than 50 percent of the ground floor of a single building;
Deleted: p
Deleted: e
Deleted: ii.Hospitality uses provided
they are located southwest of the
intersection of Franklin and Glenwood
Boulevards or fronting the proposed
roundabout at the northwest side of the
intersection of Glenwood and Franklin
Boulevards. ¶
iii.Civic uses, such as a fire station,
provided they are located southwest of
the intersection of Franklin and
Glenwood Boulevards. ¶
Deleted: Additional uses are permitted as
secondary uses only within mixed‐use
buildings to provide some of the business‐
related needs of the primary uses. These
uses are: retail sales and services; eating
and drinking establishments; and personal
service uses.¶
Deleted: secondary commercial
Deleted: specified in Subsection 3.4‐245
B.3.b.
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 13
EXHIBIT A
iii. No more than 50 percent of the total ground floor area of a
development area; and
iv. No single commercial use shall occupy more than 10,000 square feet of
gross floor area.
Text revisions to Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District Section 3.4‐250
In Subareas A, B, C and D, the following uses shall be permitted in the base zoning districts as indicated,
subject to the provisions, additional restrictions and exceptions specified in this Code. Uses not
specifically listed may be approved as specified in Section 3.4‐260. Prohibited uses are listed in Section 3.4‐
255.
“P” = PRIMARY USE subject to the standards of this Code. Primary uses are defined in Section 6.1‐110
as “the principal use approved in accordance with this Code that usually occupies greater than 50% of
the gross floor area of a building or greater than 50% of a development area.
"S" = SECONDARY USE subject to the standards of this Code. Secondary uses are defined in Section 6.1‐
110 as “Any approved use of land or a structure that is incidental and subordinate to the primary use,
and located on the same development area as the primary use. Secondary uses shall not occur in the
absence of primary uses.”
“N” = NOT PERMITTED
SITE PLAN REVIEW SHALL BE REQUIRED for all development proposals within Subareas A, B, C and D.
Categories/Uses
Residential
Mixed‐Use
Subarea A
Commercial
Mixed‐Use
Subarea B
Office
Mixed‐Use
Subarea C
Employment
Mixed‐Use
Subarea D
Accessory Uses
A use or uses within a primary use building that is for
the residents’ or employees’ benefit and that does
not generally serve the public including, but not
limited to: building maintenance facilities; central
mail rooms; child care; conference rooms; employee
restaurants and cafeterias; indoor recreation areas;
and indoor recycling collection centers.
P
P
P
P
Commercial/Retail
Eating and drinking establishments whose principal
activity involves the sale and/or service of prepared
foods and beverages directly to consumers including,
but not limited to: bakeries; cafes; delicatessens;
restaurants; coffee shops; brew pubs; and wine bars.
S
P
S
S
Personal services whose principal activity involves
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: d.No residential uses are
permitted.
Attachment 1
Page 7 of 13
EXHIBIT A
Categories/Uses
Residential
Mixed‐Use
Subarea A
Commercial
Mixed‐Use
Subarea B
Office
Mixed‐Use
Subarea C
Employment
Mixed‐Use
Subarea D
the care of a person or a person’s apparel including,
but not limited to: fitness centers; spas; hair stylists;
shoe repair; dry cleaners; tailors; and daycare.
S P S S
Professional, scientific, research and technical
services are small‐scale commercial office enterprises
whose principal activity involves providing a
specialized service to others. These activities can be
housed in office storefronts, office buildings, or in
residential or live/work units where such residential
use is permitted by this Code and include, but are not
limited to: legal advice and representation;
accounting and income tax preparation; banking;
architecture; engineering; design and marketing; real
estate; insurance; physicians; and counselors.
S
P
P
P
Retail Sales and Services are commercial enterprises
whose principal activity involves the sale and/or
servicing of merchandise (new or reused), directly to
consumers. Examples include, but are not limited to:
bookstores; grocers; pharmacies; art galleries;
florists; jewelers; and apparel shops.
S
S
S
S
Educational facilities (1)
Public/Private educational facilities for primary and
secondary education S N N N
Public/Private educational facilities that include, but
are not limited to: higher education aimed at adults;
business, professional, technical, trade and
vocational schools; job training; and vocational
rehabilitation services. N P P P
Employment
Business Parks NNPP
Hospitals NNNP
Light Manufacturing uses engaged in the
manufacture (predominantly from previously
prepared materials) of finished products or parts
including processing, fabrication, assembly,
treatment, testing, and packaging of these products.
The uses are not potentially dangerous or
environmentally incompatible with office
employment uses and all manufacturing uses, and
storage of materials occurs entirely indoors. These
uses include, but are not limited to: manufacture of
electronic instruments, preparation of food products,
pharmaceutical manufacturing, and research and
scientific laboratories.
N
N
N
P
Attachment 1
Page 8 of 13
EXHIBIT A
Categories/Uses
Residential
Mixed‐Use
Subarea A
Commercial
Mixed‐Use
Subarea B
Office
Mixed‐Use
Subarea C
Employment
Mixed‐Use
Subarea D
Office Employment uses are typically housed in
buildings where there is limited interaction between
the public and the proprietor. These uses are
associated with the performance of a range of
administrative, medical, high tech, nanotechnology,
green technology, pharmaceutical and
biotechnology, information technology, information
management, and research and development
functions. These uses include, but are not limited to:
call centers, corporate or regional headquarters,
physicians’ clinics, software development, media
production, data processing services, and technical
support centers.
N
P
P
P
Recycling facilities that occur completely within
buildings and are located only on the west side of
McVay Highway.
N
N
N
P
Warehousing and distribution uses for the storage
and regional wholesale distribution of manufactured
products and for products used in testing, design,
technical training or experimental product research
and development permitted in conjunction with
business headquarters.
N
N
N
S
Hospitality
Conference/Visitor Centers include, but are not
limited to: conference hotels; visitor information
centers; museums; and conference/exposition
centers.
N
P
N
N
Hotels include, but are not limited to: inns, bed and
breakfasts, guesthouses, extended stay hotels or
apartment hotels, limited service hotels, and full
service hotels. Hotels may be converted to
apartments where such residential use is permitted
by this Code and the Oregon Structural Specialty
Code, related building codes, fire codes and
referenced standards in effect at the time of
application for a building permit.
N
P
P
N
Residential (high‐density)
Deleted: Housing…(high‐density), including, but ... [1]
Deleted: Apartments
Deleted: P
Deleted: P
Deleted: N
Deleted: N
Deleted: Condominiums
Deleted: P
Deleted: P
Deleted: N
Deleted: N
Deleted: Dormitories
Deleted: P
Deleted: P
Deleted: N
Deleted: N
Deleted: Live/Work Units
Deleted: P
Deleted: P
Deleted: N
Deleted: N
Deleted: Lofts
Deleted: P
Deleted: P
Deleted: N
Deleted: N
Deleted: Row Houses
Deleted: P
Deleted: P
Deleted: N
Deleted: N
Deleted: Senior/Congregate Care Facilities
Deleted: P
Deleted: P
Deleted: N
Deleted: N
Deleted: Townhouses
Deleted: P
Deleted: P
Deleted: N
Deleted: N
Attachment 1
Page 9 of 13
EXHIBIT A
Categories/Uses
Residential
Mixed‐Use
Subarea A
Commercial
Mixed‐Use
Subarea B
Office
Mixed‐Use
Subarea C
Employment
Mixed‐Use
Subarea D
Residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a
household that includes, but is not limited to:
apartments, condominiums, live/work units, lofts,
row houses, townhouses, and elderly‐oriented
congregate care facilities. P P P N
Parking
Public or private parking lots/structures SSSS
Public Open Space
Riverfront Linear Park/Multi‐Use Path PPPP
Park Blocks to include recreational facilities and
stormwater management facilities. P N N N
Public Utilities and Other Public Uses
Low Impact Facilities are any public or semi‐public
facility that is permitted subject to the design
standards of this Code, including, but not limited to:
wastewater; stormwater management; electricity
and water to serve individual homes and businesses;
other utilities that have minimal olfactory, visual or
auditory impacts; street lights; and fire hydrants.
P
P
P
P
Public uses including, but not limited to: fire and
police stations. N N P N
Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities.
Only flush mounting the entire antenna on a building
shall be permitted if: the connecting cables cannot
be seen; they are color matched to the building; and
they match the façade of the building. If conditions
do not favor flush mounted antennas, a stand‐alone
monopole antenna not more than 15 feet high,
measured from the place of attachment on the roof,
shall be permitted if the antenna is set back so that it
cannot be seen from street.
P
P
P
P
(1) Educational facilities include, but are not limited to: classrooms, auditoriums, labs, gyms and libraries.
Attachment 1
Page 10 of 13
EXHIBIT A
Attachment 1
Page 11 of 13
EXHIBIT A
Attachment 1
Page 12 of 13
Page 5: [1] Deleted mark7413 5/25/2012 2:06:00 PM
Housing
Page 5: [1] Deleted mark7413 5/25/2012 2:06:00 PM
Housing
Attachment 1
Page 13 of 13
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 7
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MAY 21, 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 21, 2012 at 6:00 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 Matthew Cox, Planning Secretary Brenda Jones and members of the staff.
1. Wastewater Service Extension Policy Discussion.
City Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item. On October 17, the City Council
held a Work Session concerning a request from a property owner on Anderson Lane for City
assistance with extending a public wastewater main to the property because the on-site septic system
was failing. Council requested staff to come back with a broader discussion on the City’s funding
policy concerning wastewater service extensions, which occurred at the Council’s March 19 Work
Session. At the conclusion of the March 19 discussion, Council requested an additional meeting to
discuss the Anderson Lane request in more detail.
As discussed in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, the property owner who made the initial request
was able to repair their septic system to alleviate their immediate need. Since staff received several
inquiries every year from property owners with septic systems about the process and cost for
connecting to the public wastewater system, staff believed that it was timely and relevant to confirm
whether Council wanted to modify its wastewater service extension policy.
The Work Session packets from October 17 and March 19 were attached to the agenda packet for
background. The focus of this discussion was on the estimated cost for an unannexed property with a
failing septic system to connect to the City wastewater system, and potential options for assisting the
property owner with that cost.
Tonight topics would include those properties not in the city limits, properties abutting city limits and
those within 300 feet of city service.
Mr. Vogeney said he would be discussing what the total cost would be under current policies and fee
schedules to get a property connected to city service. Attachment 1 of the agenda packet provided the
background information for a hypothetical situation of a home abutting city limits being served by
septic. Page 3 of Attachment 1 provided a summary table describing the different options available
and the costs associated with those options. The table also summarized the time it would take to get
through this process. A Local Improvement District (LID) process could take 12-18 months before
sewer connection occurred. A Public Improvement Project process could take 8-10 months. Costs to
the property owners could range from $15,000-$16,000 with the LID process, and $19,000 -$20,000
with the Public Improvement Project (PIP) process.
Council had provided staff direction not to have the City finance or reduce charges if someone needed
to connect to the sewer. To address a policy that could shorten the time frame of getting a property
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 7
annexed and connected to the sewer, they would need to look at a health hazard annexation process.
Currently, the City did not have anything in the code for an expedited process for a health hazard
annexation. The Council could adopt an ordinance that could expedite or shorten that time frame, or
perhaps allow a property owner to obtain service prior to annexation with an agreement they would
connect once annexed. Other options for discussion could include financing from the City for health
hazard annexations. Staff did not recommend that approach as it put the City at financial risk. A third
option could include developing strategies around the City’s Capital Improvement Program and master
planning. Council could provide direction to staff to plan, budget and prioritize projects to start
building and extending sewers, with the City being reimbursed when someone connected to the
system. That could be scaled back slightly by modifying the scope of the next Wastewater Master Plan
update to have a conceptual plan of how to get service to everyone, but not necessarily plan and
budget for construction. Something similar was done in 1991 with the north Springfield sewer study
showing where all sewers would go to connect all development. Since 1991 a number of
improvements had been built, although not necessarily in the location shown in the plan.
Mr. Vogeney spoke regarding financing by the City and noted there were advantages and
disadvantages in doing that regarding lien position. Staff recommended code amendments to expedite
annexations and policy implications of extra-territorial extension of sewers. If sewers were extended
beyond city limits, there would be policy discussions needed with Lane County regarding
jurisdictional issues. Staff also suggested modifying the next Wastewater Management Master Plan to
include looking more broadly at the conceptual service areas.
Councilor Ralston felt there should be an expedited process. It was expensive for a property owner to
have their septic fail and then hook up to City sewer. He noted the issues in the Cherokee Drive
neighborhood and said he was fine partially financing that because of the discrepancies through the
years. In general, he was not comfortable with financing although he knew it was a hardship. He
wasn’t interested in building the system ahead of development. The City was already struggling to find
funds for things we needed to build and repair.
Councilor Woodrow agreed that there needed to be an expedited annexation process. She wanted more
information on the LID compared to financing. She asked if there was a collection involved in the
LID.
Mr. Vogeney said if the City did a LID and someone chose to finance through that, the City would file
lien against that property which would be paid off when the property was sold. The property owner
would also make payments to the City at 6% for administration plus the regular interest rate. The LID
did provide a financing structure that put the City in the first position on the liens. The other financing
options could put the City in a lower position.
Councilor Woodrow asked if annexing and connecting to the sewer would increase the value of the
property.
Mr. Vogeney said it would depend on the property, but generally it would improve their value. When
annexed, it also increased the property taxes. It would be difficult to speculate how much, if any,
increase in value it would bring to a property.
Councilor Woodrow said she felt the City needed an expedited process. She favored the LID process.
Councilor Wylie said she would like to go with the staff recommendations and have them bring back
more information. That would cover the issues, allow an expedited process and provide more policy.
She was not opposed to the financing, but she preferred the LID process. Financing could possibly be
offered for a hardship case if needed. She asked about the difference in staff time.
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 7
Mr. Vogeney said staff would typically spend more time on the LID process, but the staff time was
reimbursed through the total cost paid by the property owners. On the Public Improvement Project
(PIP) process, the property owner only paid for the amount of time staff spent working on reviewing
the design and inspecting in the field, so it was much less. Again staff would be reimbursed for their
time through that process. The City provided the property owner with the option of the LID or PIP
process and let them pursue their preferred choice. Many tried for the LID first, but if they were not
successful in getting a petition signed by the other property owners, they elected to use the PIP.
Councilor Pishioneri said the health hazard annexation should be in the Code. The cost for the LID
seemed to be mostly City staff time. He asked if it would be less expensive for the property owner to
contract out that work.
Mr. Vogeney said it may not be less expensive. For the Cherokee Drive project, the City had staff
available. If the work was contracted out, the property owner would still need to pay the City for
administering and overseeing a consultant. He felt they got good value for the residents of Cherokee
Drive by using City staff.
Councilor Pishioneri said if a process or policy was set up for future projects, could they be sure City
staff costs would always be a benefit to the homeowners or would there be a process to determine at
the beginning of a project which would be the best for the property owner.
Mr. Grimaldi said it was always the City’s goal to bring it in at the lowest possible cost to the property
owner.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there was a demand for this right now.
Mr. Vogeney said staff had not gone out and solicited people that might be interested. They normally
responded to those that came to the City or called with questions.
Mr. Grimaldi said the demand happened when there was an emergency. Staff was trying to avoid the
situation of reacting to one person at a time and provide ways to respond better when there was an
emergency.
Councilor Pishioneri asked what type of outreach or education the City could provide.
Mr. Vogeney provided the example of the Cherokee Drive LID. That process was started with one
property owner approaching the City and canvassing the neighborhood to gather signatures.
Mr. Grimaldi said staff was not proposing to market formation of an LID or putting in sewers.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the City had data about septic systems that might be failing that were put
in about the same time.
Mr. Vogeney said it was difficult to get data on condition of septic systems as each one was dependent
on the care and use by the property owner.
Councilor Moore said she was concerned about the 195 people that were within city limits and were
not connecting. She asked if they paid wastewater fees.
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 7
Mr. Vogeney said if the sewer was stubbed to their property, they had been paying wastewater fees. A
couple of years ago, Council amended that ordinance and those people were no longer paying sewer
user rates.
Councilor Moore asked if the City was doing anything about preparing to connect them. Some
appeared to be fairly simple, yet some were more complicated and costly.
Mr. Vogeney said for those properties within City limits, the same policies would be applied for those
outside and abutting City limits with the exception of the annexation process. If the property was
within 300 feet of the public line, the owner would be responsible to extend the sewer. If they were
beyond 300 feet, the City didn’t have a program in place to extend the sewer, so would authorize Lane
County Sanitarian to issue permits to put in replacement septic systems.
Councilor Moore asked if it would be the property owner’s responsibility to extend the 300 feet to
their property. Yes.
Councilor Pishioneri recalled that the City had done an outreach to those property owners and
provided them with an opportunity to connect based on credit of what they had been paying in fees.
Mr. Vogeney said that was correct, for those that had a system to their property.
Councilor Pishioneri said some of those property owners did take advantage of that opportunity and
some did not, but they knew about it and had a specific amount of time to respond.
Councilor Moore agreed the City needed to have a policy for those that needed to annex into the City
in an emergency situation.
Councilor VanGordon agreed with the rest of the Council. As they developed a policy, they might
want to look at the annexation fee package. If a group of homeowners wished to annex, there could be
a package cost that was less than only one property annexing at a time.
Councilor Moore said there were several small islands in Ward 3 that had been annexed into the City
that were not abutting City limits. She asked if that had happened in the past when there was a need.
Mr. Vogeney said those were done when the Lane County Boundary Commission was in existence
and the rules were different allowing annexation of developing properties. Some of those may or may
not have services.
Councilor Moore asked how properties in Glenwood that had been provided services had been
processed.
Community Development Manager John Tamulonis said that property was annexed by going through
the right-of-way which was also annexed. Sewer extension was offered to several other properties in
that area which would have reduced the cost, but they declined. He noted the cost of annexing that
property.
Mayor Lundberg said she was also in favor of having some type of policy because there were
homeowners that would have issues with their septic. She agreed that those living in city limits that
were not connected would need to cover the cost of connection when needed. She agreed with
Councilor VanGordon about providing an incentive to take advantage of opportunities for groups or
neighborhoods to annex. Sewers could be addressed at that time.
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 7
Councilor Moore said annexation was a long-term benefit for the City.
Mayor Lundberg agreed. She asked if the feedback from the Council was helpful to staff.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if there was interest in anything to do with the CIP.
Mayor Lundberg said they would like to keep with the current practice.
Mr. Vogeney asked if Council would be comfortable with staff doing a more conceptual look at how
to serve the areas in the next Wastewater Master Plan update. Yes.
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.
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 five issues prior to adoption. At the May
14, 2012 work session, Council directed staff to prepare an additional work session discussion on
proposed drive-through restrictions in Subarea D, south of the Union Pacific Railroad trestle. Council
also directed staff to prepare notice for and schedule a June 4, 2012 public hearing on the limited topic
of permitting student housing within the Office Mixed-Use designation in Subarea C. The Council
would hold a second reading on the Glenwood Phase 1 ordinance on June 18, 2012.
The Lane County Board of Commissioners had a first reading on the amendments on March 14, 2012.
At the April 2, 2012 joint public hearing, the Commission chose to delay their decision until the
Council action and moved to leave their record open until June 20, 2012. Following the May 14, 2012
Council work session, the Commission elected to hold a public hearing on June 20, 2012.
Ms. Markarian referred to page 1 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet which outlined how the drive-
through discussion had evolved through the public process. Along McVay Highway they were trying
to maintain and enhance through trips, traffic flow and address the need to provide multi-modal
accessibility. Page 2 of Attachment 1 went into the reasons why the specific limitations in the exhibit
were being proposed. Staff’s recommendation was limiting permitting drive-through facilities in the
portion of Subarea D south of the Union Pacific railroad trestle as depicted in Exhibit A. That
language incorporated changes based on last week’s discussion.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the drive-throughs were subject to the ingress and egress to properties.
He asked if there was something in this language that articulated the specific distance formula.
Ms. Markarian said the distance was removed. Measures were put in place to ensure that someone
crossing from a public sidewalk to a building would have a safe crossing.
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 7
Councilor Pishioneri said the heart of the Refinement Plan was to cause less conflict with pedestrians
and vehicles, yet maximize the ability for a business to be successful and maximize accessibility to
businesses to people that had restricted mobility.
Councilor Wylie noted the section on page 2 of Attachment 1 that stated, “drive-throughs are designed
to attract and serve the automobile and generate excessive automobile trips”. She strongly disagreed
with that statement. She could use her vehicle to do a number of errands by using drive-throughs and
going to all of those stores and parking at each one would generate more trips and use of the
automobile. Drive-throughs were an essential part of the lives of people with limited mobility. She
knew they had made an effort to have drive-throughs in other areas.
Mayor Lundberg said perhaps they could remove the word “excessive” from that sentence. She didn’t
feel there was an issue in a parking lot of a building with a drive-through when she was walking. It’s a
whole new world trying to combine all of the modal forms of transportation. She felt staff had
addressed what Council was asking.
Ms. Markarian referred to page 2, Attachment 1 regarding the Student Housing in Subarea C. The
original intent of office mixed-use area was to preserve several relatively large sites for employment
use. Currently, office mixed-use allowed up to 50% use for other uses including hotels or fire station.
The Citizen Advisory Committee extensively discussed educational facilities or university related
facilities as employment generators. Council had asked staff about student housing in that area which
was a natural complement to those educational facilities that would be permitted. Staff did some
analysis regarding transportation trip impacts and how that would affect conclusions for that area.
Student housing would generate fewer trips than typical apartments so it would not be an impact of
Goal 12 compliance. Staff came to the conclusion that student housing could fit into that 50%
allowance for other uses.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was not sure he was comfortable with the word dormitories in this
section. He felt dormitories were different than student housing apartments.
Ms. Markarian asked if he would be comfortable with an apartment with five bedrooms.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would not want to restrict the number of bedrooms. He felt student
housing was more separate housing, compared to dormitories which shared common bathrooms, living
areas, etc.
Mr. Grimaldi said dormitories could be seasonal, but student housing was often year-round.
Councilor Pishioneri agreed and said dormitories had more transitory tenants than student housing.
Mr. Grimaldi said dormitories were normally under public ownership, while other student housing was
generally privately owned.
Councilor Pishioneri said he felt dormitories could also present safety issues.
Councilor Wylie said fire prevention for dormitories was different from apartments and was dependent
on criteria. Her understanding was that this provision was for apartments for students rather than
dormitories.
Mr. Grimaldi noted that another difference was that older students normally lived in student housing
apartments, while younger students lived in dormitories.
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 7
Councilor Pishioneri said dormitories just didn’t fit with the type of atmosphere that was desired in
Glenwood with nice development and stable populations.
Discussion was held regarding fire suppression in both types of facilities.
Ms. Markarian said dormitories were on the City’s list of permitted and not permitted uses. They were
currently permitted in Subarea A where all the other housing was permitted. Based on this discussion,
it might be helpful to hear Council’s input on dormitories in that area as well.
Mayor Lundberg said the goal was to have a sense of high density housing. The apartment style living
was more what Council was looking for in high density housing for this area. She understood
definitions needed to be included as student housing could include a broad range of housing.
Councilor Woodrow said dormitories tended to have a common living area. Student housing, as being
considered, had more privacy and self-containment.
Ms. Markarian asked if there was a legal opinion on whether or not they could restrict dormitories.
City Attorney Matthew Cox said they could look into that further and get back to staff.
Councilor Wylie said they needed to make sure they weren’t too restrictive, but needed the appropriate
language.
Councilor Pishioneri said communal living was significantly different to living in anonymity.
Mr. Cox said it was a good question to determine if high-density housing included dormitories.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder