Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/2003 Work Session . . . . ' . City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2003. The City of Springfield council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 27,2003 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Woodrow, Burge, Fitch, Ralston, and Malloy. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Tim Harold, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Ballew was absent (excused). Captain Harrison gave a brief update on Police Chief Smith. 1. Discussion of Campus Industrial Task Force's Proposed Changes to Article 21 of the Springfield Development Code for the Campus Industrial Zoning District. Economic Development Director John Tamulonis presented the staff report on this item. Chaired by Councilor Burge, a Campus Industrial Task Force took a 'fresh look' at the provisions of Article 21 for the Campus Industrial (CI) Zoning District. The Task Force suggestions led to a new way to look at the uses permitted in the zone, eliminated current ambiguities, encouraged multiple-use and multiple-story buildings, and set standards for current non-industrial firms to remain without being considered nonconforming uses. Attachment I in the agenda packet outlines the approach the Task Force took to improve the characteristics ofthe CI Zone. The Task Force focused on the use list and how the zone wants those permitted uses to 'perform' if they are to locate in the CI zone and be good neighbors in their operations. The Task Force was also concerned about retaining the value ofthe CI designation for manufacturing, wanted to encourage development ,of multiple-story buildings given limited land in CI, as well as the re-use of buildings. Attachment II in the agenda packet provides the full Article 21 with additions underlined, deletions shaded. and comments in italics on the reasoning for the changes to each part of Article 21. On October 20, 2003 the City Council heard information from Colliers International on the realistic expectations for development and re-use of existing Campus Industrial facilities in Gateway, given national, and international market conditions for the Campus Industrial uses allowed in Springfield. That discussion provided some perspective on the importance of flexibility in the uses permitted and their performance within this CI zone. Mr. Tamulonis referenced a map showing the Pierce Campus Industrial and the Gateway Campus Industrial areas. He pointed out the different industrial areas and noted some of the businesses in those areas. He explained how some of the current uses can change over time and the task force wanted to address this in their proposals. . . . . - City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 27,2003 Page 2 Mr. Tamulonis referred to attachment one which was included in the agenda packet. Attachment one gives a broad overview of Article 21, Campus Industrial Zoning District. The task force determined that if they made major changes to this, they could encounter legal issues. Such changes would have to be reviewed by the Metro partners and DLCD. Mayor Leiken asked who the members were on the task force. Mr. Tamulonis said the task force included Councilor Burge, Silva Sullivan (CDC Management), David Davini (G Group, LLC), Planning Commissioner Steve Moe, Jack Roberts (Lane Metro Partnership), Gary Karp and John Tamulonis (City of Springfield staff). He discussed some of the issues the task force looked at which are outlined in the staff report above. He said they looked at ways to maximize the use of these types of properties while keeping a minimal amount ofimpact on the surrounding properties. He discussed some of the issues of the different properties that were originally built in a way that may limit their future use. He said there are difficulties when leases are made and companies move in and the city has not been consulted as to whether or not they are an appropriate use in the zone. The city is looking at business licenses to help to monitor those types of issues. H~ said the task force looked at creating a distinction between industrial and business parks. They also looked at the issue of the amount of campus industrial land and how best to use what we have. He mentioned the Symantec building and how it was built to be partitioned into several configurations compared to the Sony building which was designed for a single purpose. Mr. Tamulonis asked council if they had any questions or concerns. Councilor Ralston asked if they were considering business licenses only for businesses in the Campus Industrial Zones. Mr. Tamulonis said that is correct. The issue of uses coming in that are not suitable for a particular zone, occurs in all zoning areas. Their proposal at this time only deals with those businesses located in Campus Industrial Zones. The task force did not look at every issue, but tried to look at monitoring the businesses that would go in. He said the task force found that many businesses need a license or some other proof of authorization to operate their business in a particular zone. Mr. Tamulonis said the city charges $30 for that type of documentation, so it would make sense to incorporate a business license to have it done right and allow the city to monitor the businesses more carefully. Councilor Malloy asked about the agenda packet attachment 2-2,21.030 Siting Standards: (1) The minimum lot size for ownership of 50 or more acres of unincorporated CI land that do not have Master Plan approval shall be 50 acres. The minimum development ar:ea for the CI district with Master Plan approval shall be 5 acres... ". He asked if that meant the city did not want anything new under 50 acres. Mr. Karp said this was for properties outside the city limits and a 50 acre limitation on lot size. He said it is somewhat of a catch 22 because in order to develop the property, it must be annexed into the city. He said it was part of the original article and the only part that was changed was the 'Master plan approval'. Mr. Tamulonis said this was put into place before any of this area was annexed. He said there are some large undeveloped lots that are not annexed. He noted those lots and some of the other smaller lots. . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 27,2003 Page 3 Ms. Pappas clarified that because the large undeveloped property outside the city limits exceeds 50 acres, it would be the only property that would require a master plan. Mr. Karp said there is only one property that is over 50 acres and that property would need to be annexed. Once the property is annexed, the minimum acreage required would be five acres in the Campus Industrial Zone. Discussion was held regarding the number of acres and whether or not a property could be converted to another use, Ms. Pappas asked if council needed a clearer draft of this language. Councilor Woodrow asked if the Campus Industrial Zone is the only zone the city has that has a limited use. He asked ifit could have a use come in that the city would not be aware of that is not allowed. John Tamulonis said it was designed for high tech manufacturing and there are a lot of uses that could come in. A business could come in without the city knowing until they were already in place. He gave an example of such a business. He said there is the shortest use list in Campus Industrial Zoning and that is where we limit new businesses coming into this area. Ms. Pappas said the Campus Industrial Zone is not the only zone that has uses come in that are not listed as appropriate. She said this also occurs in light industrial zone or commercial zone. . Councilor Woodrow asked how the city can monitor that. Mr. Karp said each zoning district has its list of uses and if there is a use requested that is not on the list, the developer would need to go through a process for approval. They would need to go ' through interpretation of the code, then go before the Planning Commission for approval. Another process could include amending the code. Councilor Woodrow said there is still a potential that a business could be operating outside of the perimeters of that zone. He asked if the only way to monitor that would be through business licensing. Mr. Tamulonis said they do receive complaints from neighbors or competitors who challenge a particular use in a zone. In some cases, the city has to ask the business to close its doors because it is not an acceptable use. Ms. Pappas said a business license would be a proactive way to monitor this. Councilor Woodrow asked if the Chamber of Commerce had been asked regarding business licensing. Mr. Tamulonis said that the businesses in the Campus Industrial Zone would be protected by having this business licensing in place. He said the Chamber of Commerce has been supportive of some business licenses, but not all. . Councilor Woodrow asked about attachment 2-10, item number (1) of the agenda packet "The following retail and service uses may be permitted as part of a large-scale light-manufacturing use or any permitted use located within a business park. These uses shall be exclusive of any . ' . " . . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 27,2003 Page 4 drive-through and shall not primarily serve the general public. Each use shall be limited to 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. Retail and service uses include, but are not limited to: ..." He asked if a barber or beauty shop serves the general public, or if it is just a matter of definition. Mr. Tamulonis said in some businesses you have a smaller use within that business. He gave an example of a four story building with multiple offices that house smaller businesses that serve only the people in that building. Ms. Pappas noted an example on Country Club Road in Eugene where an office building has a deli shop in one corner of the building. That deli serves the clients in that office building, but others from offices along that road can also use the deli. Councilor Woodrow said the wording in this seems contradictory. Councilor Fitch commends the staff and committee members for their hard work on this item. She said when Campus Industrial was started in the 1980's the terminology worked. She is glad to see that what is here now, may need to be adjusted to allow future use. She said attachment 2.8 of the agenda packet gives more flexibility. The end result is important. Mr. Tamulonis noted that he and Mr. Karp said any changes made should be revisited in two or three years to see if they are still working or if there needs to be some changes. He said staff could put this in as permanent changes to the code if council directs. They would go to the Planning Commission, through public notification as required by state law to the property owners, and then back to City Council. Mayor Leiken asked Councilor Burge ifhe had additional comments as the Chair of the Task Force Committee. Councilor Burge said part of this review was prompted by decisions made and authorization for businesses were questionable regarding compatibility with the existing land use codes. Part of this exercise was a validation for the existing business and their right to continue to be there. He noted a business that brought up this challenge when they were turned down for a permit to operate their business in this Campus Industrial Zone. Other existing businesses were in place with similar uses. He said Campus Industrial is a relatively new zone for our community. He explained some of the other industrial zones and that Campus Industrial was more of a professional approach to a new and modernized type of industry. He said it is very difficult to determine a difference between Campus Industrial Business Park and Community Commercial Business Park. He commended Mr. Tamulonis and Mr. Karp for their work and expertise on this item. It is very complicated and he doesn't believe the public cares what is inside as long as it is environmentally and socially compatible with the neighborhood. He noted the exterior ofthese businesses such as the landscaping, set backs, and design are important and makes the Campus Industrial District special. It is difficult to get beyond being ambiguous, otherwise it is too rigid to work. He said it comes down to common sense. We need to allow things to work within the realm of reason. He said the task force did a good job and the job needed to be done. This is a continuing process. Councilor Malloy asked about page 2-4 (c) of the agenda packet "Not involve outdoor storage of raw materials or finished products, or permanent outdoor parking oftrucks necessary for the operation of the facility." He asked if that refers to any vehicles, trucks, vans, etc. . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 27, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Tamulonis said it relates to any vehicle, but if the vehicles are out-of-sight, they are allowed. He gave several examples of businesses and how they contain or place their vehicles out-of- sight. Councilor Fitch asked what they need to do now. Mr. Karp said staff needs council direction to move forward with this to take it to the Planning Commission. Mayor Leiken noted two steps the State of Oregon took a couple of years ago. The first was a measure which allowed universities and the Oregon Health Science University to be much more entrepreneurial. He said one university has a very well established tech-transfer facility and another one gaining ground and becoming more aggressive in that as well. He said what the city is doing here may allow us to respond to what may come out of those universities. We need to be in that position. He said allowing this Campus Industrial with its flexibility is good. He commended the committee and staff for their great work. He suggested touring the Symantec building to see how some of these multi-uses are occurring. Councilor Burge said as a lay person, he believes planning should be more common sense and less punitive and restrictive. When he drives down Industrial Way, he looks for wage-providing jobs, nice looking buildings and a well-organized development. He said we need to be careful not to overplan. Council consensus is for staff to go forward with these changes. . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. \' Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa ~v~ Sidney W. Leiken Ma~r Attest: ~,hm-- Amy SOWi City Recorder .