Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/31/2003 Regular . MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 The Springfield City Council met in a Special Regular Meeting at Springfield City Hall, Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, on Monday, March 31, 2003 at 7 :00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ballew, Burge (by conference phone), Fitch, Ralston, and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Interim Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Joe Leahy, Assistant City Attorney Meg Kieran, City Recorder Kim Krebs, and members of staff. Mayor Leiken asked those present to keep the country's troops in the conflict in Iraq in their prayers and thoughts, as well as Iraqi citizens. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Leiken led the Pledge of Allegiance. ORDINANCES . 1. Request for Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan Amendments Jo. No. 2002-08-243 and Jo. No. 2002-08-244 (Peace Health). ORDINANCE NO.1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING UP TO 33 ACRES OF LAND FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AT THE GATEWAY MDR SITE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. ORDINANCE NO.2 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GATEWAY REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT BY ALLOWING COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION AT THE GATEWAY MDR SITE TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY MIXED USE COMMERCIAL ON THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP: BY AMENDING THE GA TEW A Y REFINEMENT PLAN TEXT TO ALLOW FOR THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL METRO PLAN DESIGNATION TO BE AFFIXED UPON MASTER PLAN APPROVAL: TO ALLOW FOR THE MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT TO BE APPLIED TO UP TO 66 ACRES OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLAN DESIGNATION: TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HOSPITAL, ASSOCIATED MEDICAL, OFFICE, RETAlL AND RESIDENTIAL USES: TO PRESERVE THE POTENTIAL FOR NODAL DEVELOPMENT: TO REQUIRE A MASTER PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. . Mayor Leiken noted that oral testimony closed on February 19,2003, and the record was closed to written testimony on March 5,2003. The applicant had five days to prepare and submit rebuttal testimony. The council would deliberate tonight on the application for amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and Gateway Refmement Plan submitted 'Springfield City Council Minutes of Special Regular Meeting - March 31, 2003 Page - 2 . the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan submitted by PeaceHealth. Mayor Leiken called for staff and applicant summation, noting the public testimony portion of the meeting was closed and no new information would be submitted. Mayor Leiken reviewed the order of events for the meeting. Ms. Pappas read verbatim the ordinances before the council. City Attorney Leahy recollected the council's previous discussion of potential ethics issues related to the application and the potential of ex parte contacts. He asked if councilors had any change in circumstances regarding ethics as it pertained to the application in question. No ethics issues were reported. Mr. Leahy asked the council to report any ex parte contacts. No councilors had ex parte contacts to disclose other than those previously noted. Assistant City Attorney Meg Kieran reminded the council it was to base its decision on the relevant criteria, and staff would draft findings based on the council's deliberations in support of the decision; those findings would also based on the criteria. Ms. Kiernan noted the relevant criteria related to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) amendment and Gateway Refinement Plan amendments. She noted that the criteria were also contained in the staff report. Mayor Leiken called on staff for the staff summation. . Planner Colin Stephens reported that the staff recommendation was summarized in the staff report included in the meeting packet. He noted that a work session was held on March 17 to provide the council an opportunity to ask questions of staff. Mr. Stephens recommended approval of the application with three conditions of approval. The staff forwarded the Planning Commission's general recommendation and recommended conditions of approval to the council with three comments. The staff supported the first Planning Commission condition, calling for the master plan to contain a hospital, without changes. The staff recommended alternative language in regard to the second condition calling for the refinement plan amendments to sunset in the event a master plan for the hospital was not approved. He recommended that in such an event, the Planning Commission and City Council revisit the refinement plan with amendments that best account for conditions present at that time. Mr. Stephens noted the commission's third recommended condition for a 60- foot height limitation and recommended that issue be deferred to the master planning process given the lack of evidence in the record related to the height issue. Mr. Stephens reviewed alternative text proposed by staff, and indicated that it would remove the height restriction at this time, but it did not preclude a height limitation in the future. Mr. Stephens anticipated that the applicant, in its summation, would request two changes to the staff recommendation: 1) an exemption to the standards for the Mixed-Use (MU) zoning district and the Nodal Development zoning overlay; and 2) that it be granted all 33 acres of Mixed-Use Commercial zoning (MU C) on the site during tonight's proceedings. He offered to answer questions about the requested changes following the applicant's summation, but said that neither he nor any member of the City staff support any changes to the proposed recommendations . before the council. . 'Springfield City Council Minutes of Special Regular Meeting - March 31, 2003 Page - 3 . Mayor Leiken called on the applicant. Alan Yordy, 77 East 11 th Avenue, Eugene, Chief Executive Officer for PeaceHealth Oregon Region, thanked the council and staff for the many hours the City spent considering PeaceHealth's River Bend hospital project. He indicated that approval ofthe amendments meant that design/development work on the projectwould begin within a few weeks. Mr. Yordy requested clarification from the council in three areas related to the staff recommendation: 1) the height issue; 2) the location of the mixed-use commercial designation; and 3) what latitude existed in determining where nodal development standards would be applied. Mr. Yordy emphasized that PeaceHealth could not build a world class medical center with a 60- foot height limitation. He noted that the current Springfield Medical Services (MS) zone contained no height limit. He asked the council to indicate if it was prepared to maintain the current standard at this time. Regarding his second request for clarification, Mr. Yordy said that nodes come in many forms and have unique characteristics. PeaceHealth was committed to the Bus Rapid Transit station, but not all nodal standards the council was considering worked well for an employment node such as would be developed on the PeaceHealth property. He cited the standard that required all buildings in a node to be within 25 feet of a City street, pointing out that it did not allow for convenient patient drop-off and parking. He asked the council for latitude in how the standards would be applied. . Mr. Yordy suggested that the optional location for the MU C designation was along the extension of Pioneer Parkway. He asked the council to direct staff to prepare a map of the redesignated acreage on the PeaceHealth site as part of its approval. He indicated that PeaceHealth was willing to work with the City to map a prorated share of the 33 acres. He said that there was about 173 acres in the vicinity, of which PeaceHealth owned 160. He asked that a pro-rata snare of the 33 MU C acres be mapped on the PeaceHealth acreage using a map provided by PeaceHealth and included in testimony as a guide. Phillip Farrington, 677 East 12th Avenue, Eugene, Director of Land Use Development and Planning at PeaceHealth, said the City's MS zone lacked a height limit for good reason. He did not think it wise to handicap the design of a regional medical facility with such a height limit. Mr. Farrington said the height limits of other Oregon hospitals provided to the council by staff were not comparable facilities. He did not think that the public was served by a requirement that the facility be smaller than the one it was replacing spread out over a large area to the detriment of caregivers, the infirm, and the elderly. Mr. Farrington asked that the proposed height restriction be rejected and the provisions of the MS zone be applied. . Regarding the proposed height restriction, Mr. Farrington said that PeaceHealth took the advice of the City's consultant, George Crandall, and found many commonalities between his outlook and the application. Mr. Crandall had identified a similar core area for nodal development. Mr. Farrington emphasized the importance of that core area having visibility and access from Pioneer Parkway. He said the proposal respected Mr. Crandall's recommendations and provided for a mixed of high-intensity commercial uses, higher residential densities, as well as transit access. Mr. Farrington said that while some of the 33 acres ofMU C was proposed for the medical center campus, PeaceHealth was also proposing the plan designations to take advantage of the flexibility inherent in the district. The zoning would allow for the vertical integration of uses. The location 'Springfield City Council Minutes of Special Regular Meeting - March 31, 2003 Page - 4 . of the MU C next to the Pioneer Parkway would buffer neighborhoods from the medical center and was a more suitable use along the parkway than residential uses. Regarding implementation action 13.6, where PeaceHealth was offering alternative language, Mr. Farrington said that the applicant's approach was preferable to staffs because rather than preordaining the geography of the nodal overlay zone location, PeaceHealth believed that the standards contained in Article 41 represented a "one size fits all" approach that did not contemplate a development proposal of this magnitude or one that was subject to the master planning process. Mr. Farrington said that hospital-related uses have unique functional requirements that do not lend themselves to certain code standards, as staff acknowledged in the text included in Action 13.6. The site itself made literal application of some of the standards very difficulty. He said that the language proposed by PeaceHealth continued to give the City Council the final authority to determine the degree to which alternative standards meet nodal development objectives. Mr. Farrington said that PeaceHealth was a motivated property owner proposing a compatible mix of uses at densities that were transit-supportive. In addition, PeaceHealth was proposing an unprecedented level of investment in the community. He maintained the application met the applicable criteria, and noted that PeaceHealth consultants and staff were on hand to answer questions and respond to testirnonysubmitted by the public. He asked that the application, as modified by the suggestions offered by Mr. Yordy, be approved. . Mayor Leiken called on Councilors Burge, Woodrow, Ralston, Ballew, and Fitch to speak in that order during deliberations. He acknowledged the contributions of the late City Councilor Lyle Hatfield and former Councilor Christine Lundberg throughout the siting process. Mayor Leiken asked for council questions. Councilor Fitch referred to page 5-7, noting it addressed the property owned by Arlie and Company, and indicated that the MU C property would be distributed through the maser planning process. Mr. Stephens confirmed that fact, and said that the issue of fixing the location of the MU C property had been raised through the process of the application review. At this point, Mr. Stephens said, the City had no information in the record to inform staff as to the best location for the 33 aces ofMU C; for that reason, staff wanted to see the master plan before it made a recommendation. He confIrmed, in response to a follow-up question from Councilor Fitch that was his response to her question was the same one he had offered to the public, the surrounding property owners, the applicant, and the Planning Commission throughout the review process. There being no other questions, Mayor Leiken called for comments from the council. Councilor Burge concluded that the applicant met the relevant criteria related to the application. He said that many people offered opinions that claimed to represent different groups but they had no vested interest in Springfield and a history of opposing development proposals in the Eugene- Springfield area. He said that he found no authority in State law that prohibited a hospital from being located on the periphery ofthe community. He did not support the Planning Commission's conditions and supported the staff recommendation. Councilor Burge thought the height limitation was an arbitrary and subjective error that would restrict the development's design. He said that other issues such as the use of materials and textures and colors must be considered. . . Springfield City Council Minutes of Special Regular Meeting - March 31, 2003 Page - 5 . Councilor Burge noted his service on the Planning Commission and City Council during the process leading up to the adoption of the Gateway Refmement Plan, and said that there was always the understanding the plan was a general guideline and could not be overly specific. He further noted that he and others had been strongly concerned that the result of the plan could be extensive multi-family housing, which many opposed because of fears it would become ghetto- like. Councilor Woodrow thanked Mr. Stephens and other department members for their excellent staff work. He noted that he had received only one telephone call from a constituent, who opposed the proposal. Councilor Woodrow also found that the application met the relevant criteria, and said he supported the staff recommendation. Councilor Ralston thanked the Planning Commission for the work it had done in making its recommendation to the council. He also thanked the citizens who provided public input. As the council's liaison to the Planning Commission, he had listened to several hours oftestimony. He wished he had heard more from Springfield residents and more testimony directed at the criteria. Councilor Ralston did not find State planning goals 3 (Agricultural Lands), 4 (Forest Lands), 6 (Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality), 8 (Recreational Needs), 13 (Energy Conservation), 15 (Willamette River Greenway), 16 (Estuarine Resources), 17 (Coastal Shorelands), 18 (Beaches and Dunes), or 19 (Ocean Resources) relevant to the application. . Councilor Ralston believed that State planning goals 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards) and 14 (Urbanization) were satisfied by the application. Councilor Ralston discussed the State goals he believed could be met conditionally. He thought that State Goal 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources) could be satisfied with the addition of the Planning Commission's condition for a 60-foot building height restriction. He believed that the loss ofthe viewshedwas a serious concern that should be addressed at this stage in the process rather than through the master planning process. Regarding State Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services), Councilor Ralston said he believed that the goal could be met conditionally by tying the approval of the application to the appropriate funding. Councilor Ralston discussed State goals not met by the application. He did not think that State goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 (Land Use Planning), 9 (Economic Development), 10 (Housing), and 12 (Transportation) were met by the application. Regarding State Goal 1, Councilor Ralston said he disagreed with those Eugene councilors and Lane County commissioners who thought the decision was Springfield's to make. Springfield was being asked to make major revisions to two significant planning documents whose development had involved considerable public input and the participation ofthree local elected bodies. He believed that the relocation of Peace Health to the River Bend site would have a regional impact on transportation systems and on the regional transportation plan, TransPlan. . Councilor Ralston maintained that under Metro Plan Policy 7.b, such amendments must be referred to the other partners in the plan. Councilor Ralston said Goal 1 was not met because he believed there should be a regional approach to determine the location of hospitals. . Springfield City Council Minutes of Special Regular Meeting - March 31, 2003 Page - 6 . Regarding Goal 2, Land Use Planning, Councilor Ralston said that the absence of a master plan at this point reduced the City's ability to evaluate the impact of the application. He preferred to see a master plan before the amendments were approved. He believed that otherwise, the City would experience unexpected consequences in the form of increased costs and traffic. Councilor Ralston said that a main principle in the major plan was that urban development occurs in a compact configuration in a proscribed urban service area. He asked how moving the hospital to the edge of the community facilitated the planning objectives in the Gateway Refinement Plan, Springfield's Commercial Lands Study, and TransPlan. He concluded that it would not. He further objected that the amendments would eliminate the neighborhood elements of the commercial zoning and replace it with a hospital, commercial, and other uses inconsistent with the adopted claims. For that reason, Councilor Ralston believed that the review process lacked adequate public input and the application failed to meet State Goal 2. Councilor Ralston did not think that State Goal 9 (Economic Development), was satisfied by the application because no new jobs would be created. He said that construction jobs were temporary. The amendments did not adequately address the issue of increased health care costs to the community. Councilor Ralston said that even ifMcKenzie-Willamette Hospital moved to Eugene and did not close, Springfield would still lose jobs. He questioned the logic of two hospitals switching communities at a high cost, which the community would ultimately pay. He said the community should expect a full exploration of those issues before the council made an irrevocable decision. . Councilor Ralston suggested the potential that the traffic generated by the PeaceHealth development could discourage people from visiting the Gateway Center, having a further adverse economic impact on the community. Regarding State Goal 10 (Housing) Councilor Ralston said the application failed to satisfy- the goal because it would result in a loss of approximately 700 housing units from the number envisioned in the Gateway Refinement Plan. He added that the calculation assumed houses could be built in the floodplain. Regarding State Goal 12 (Transportation), Councilor Ralston asserted that PeaceHealth's traffic analysis indicated that the proposed land use changes would have a significant regional transportation system. He said that even if Pioneer Parkway was extended, several other major projects were needed, including intersection improvements at Highway 126 and Pioneer Parkway and the Beltline interchange. He questioned who would pay for those projects. He found the number of peak hour trips unacceptable and said the proposed trip cap was not a solution. Councilor Ralston maintained that the application failed to meet State Transportation Planning Rule 12. Councilor Ralston again called for a regional approach that made sense for all parties involved. Councilor Ralston said that he was not anti-growth, but thought growth must be managed to maintain the community's quality of life. He found it ironic that PeaceHealth left Eugene because the Eugene council was "changing the rules on them in the midstream," and now, he maintained, PeaceHealth was asking Springfield to change the rules. He did not support the application and thought it should be denied. \. . Springfield City Council Minutes of Special Regular Meeting - March 31, 2003 Page - 7 . Councilor Ballew said she had listened to the oral testimony and read the written materials and testimony, and believed that the applicant met the relevant criteria. She supported the staff recommendation relative to the conditions attached to the application by the Planning Commission. She thought limiting the height on the hospital at this time was premature, and said that the council needed to see the master plan before a decision on that topic was made. Councilor Fitch expressed appreciation to the stafffor its months of hard work and to the citizens who offered testimony to the council. She spoke oflate City Councilor Jesse Maine's hard work in bringing commonsense to many issues as it related to the way that such applications were processed. Because of his efforts, the application was considered a Type II amendment; it involved a specific property inside the City's city limits, did not change the UGB, did not change the Metro Plan jurisdictional boundary, did not require a goal exception, and did not include a nonsite specific amendment to the Metro Plan text. Councilor Fitch said for that reason, the decision on the application was being made by the Springfield council. Speaking to the remarks of Councilor Ralston, Councilor Fitch thought the staff materials addressed how the State goals were met by the application. She also supported the staff recommendation. While she believed the Planning Commission did a good job in its review of the application, she disagreed with its condition related to the height limitation. She said the council would have an opportunity to consider all the relevant factors related to that issue during the master plan review. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 1, WHICH AMENDS THE METROPOLITAN PLAN DIAGRAM WITH CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE STAFF-SUGGESTED CHANGES REGARDING THE HOSPITAL HEIGHT AND THE OTHER CHANGES AS DEPICTED IN THE COUNCIL BRIEFING MEMORANDUM; BASED ON EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND THE PLAN DIAGRAM AMENDMENT IS FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA OF APPROVAL AT SECTION 7.070(3)(A) AND (B) OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN ON APRIL 7, 2003, WITH SPECIFIC FINDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNCIL'S DELffiERATIONS TONIGHT AND IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AND SUBJECT TO NO OTHER FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS; AND INCLUDING AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 1 AGAINST (RALSTON). Mr. Leahy indicated that the emergency clause would be in the fmal order adopted by the council. April 7 would be the effective date of the ordinance. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2, WHICH AMENDS THE GATEWAY REFINEMENT PLAN TEXT AND DIAGRAM WITH CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE STAFF- SUGGESTED CHANGES REGARDING THE HOSPITAL HEIGHT AND OTHER CHANGES AS DEPICTED IN THE COUNCIL BRIEFING MEMORANDUM; BASED ON THE EVIDENCE IN RECORD AND THE PROPOSED REFINEMENT TEXT AND DIAGRAM AMENDMENTS ARE FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA OF APPROVAL AT SECTION 8.030(1)(2)(3) OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN ON APRIL 7, 2003, WITH . . . 'Springfield City Council Minutes of Special Regular Meeting - March 31, 2003 Page - 8 SPECIFIC FINDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNCIL'S DELffiERATIONS TONIGHT; AND INCLUDING AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE TO BE EFFECTIVE WHEN - ACTION WAS TAKEN. THE MOTION PASSED,WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 1 AGAINST (RALSTON). City Attorney Leahy confIrmed with Council President Fitch that none of the changes recommended by PeaceHealth were a part of the motion and the 60- foot height limitation recommended by the Planning Commission was not part of the council's action. Mayor Leiken commended the work done by staff. Mr. Stephens reiterated that he would request final action from the council on April 7,2003. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. ': Minutes Recorder - Kimberly Young ATTEST: ~l\. e., , lLXi<s~ City Recorder