Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/2002 Regular o City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19,2002 The city of Springfield council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Lundberg, Ralston and Simmons. Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Tim Harold, Administrative Coordinator Julie Wilson and members of the staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken. . SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Mike Kelly recognized Don Moore, Development Services Department, for 20 years of service to the city of Springfield. Don Moore shared comments regarding his working career at the city of Springfield. CONSENT CALENDAR IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEMS 4G AND 5C REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 1. Claims a. Approve the January 2002 Disbursements for Approval. 2. Minutes a. January 22,2002 - Work Session b. January 22,2002 - Regular Meeting 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances . Regular Meeting Minutes February 19,2002 Page 2 . . . a. ORDINANCE NO. 5997 - AN:t~Rb1NANdE:WITHDRA WING CERTAIN REAL ...- ".- "',"., ". ": ,- Y. '.._. PROPERTY KNOWN AS WILLAM~A1iE; ET.AL, LOCATED WITHIN THE WESTERN SPRINGFIELD AREA..N0&THOF THE WILLAMETTE RNER, SOUTH OF CENTENNIAL BOULEVARD, EAST .OF INTERSTATE 5, AND WEST OF KELLY STREET: TAX LOT 600 T17S R03W S33 MAP 14: TAX LOTS 1000, 1001. PART OF 1100, 1200, AND 1300 T17S R03W S34 MAP 24: TAX LOTS 6801, 7001,. 7002, 7003, 7100, AND 7101 T 17S R03W S34 MAP 13: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. b. ORDINANCE NO. 5998 - ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS SHOREWOOD PACKAGING, LOCATED IN THE MCKENZIE-GATEWAY CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, EAST OF 1-5, NORTH OF INTERNATIONAL WAY: PART OF TAX LOT 3101 T17S R03W S15: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. c. ORDINANCE NO. 5999 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS WILDISH. LOCATED IN THE GLENWOOD AREA OF WEST SPRINGFIELD, EAST OF 1-5, WEST OF FRANKLIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF 19TH AVENUE, NORTH OF NEWMAN STREET: TAX LOTS 1100, 1200,3800, 3900,4000,4300,4400,4500,4600, T18S R03W S03 MAP 11: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE GLENWOOD WATER DISTRICT. . d. ORDINANCE NO. 6000 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS PHASE 1 OF THE SONY FACILITY, LOCATED IN THE MCKENZIE-GATEWAY CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. IT IS BOUNDED ON THE NORTH AND EAST BY INTERNATIONAL WAY AND ON THE SOUTH BY DEADMOND FERRY ROAD: TAX LOTS 3502, 3600 AND PART OF TAX LOT 3403, T17S R03W S15: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. e. ORDINANCE NO. 6001 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS ARLIE & COMPANY, ET AL LOCATED IN THE GAME FARM ROAD AREA OF NORTH SPRINGFIELD, NORTH OF HARLOW ROAD AND FLAMINGO, SOUTH OF BELTLINE EAST, EAST OF GAME FARM ROAD, AND WEST OF THE MCKENZIE RNER: TAX LOTS 800,900,902, 1100, 1200, 1201. 1203, AND PARTS OF 1000 AND 1400 T17S R03W S22: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. . f. ORDINANCE NO. 6002 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS ARLIE & COMPANY/SYCAN B. LOCATED IN THE GAME FARM ROAD AREA OF NORTH SPRINGFIELD, EAST OF GAME FARM ROAD, SOUTH OF DEADMOND FERRY ROAD, WEST OF BALDY VIEW LANE: TAX LOTS 300 AND 700, T17S R03W S22: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. Regular Meeting Minutes February 19,2002 Page 3 . h. ORDINANCE NO. 6004 - ARbRDINANCE:WItHDRA WING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS WILDISFi INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LOCATED IN GL~NWOOD AREA OF WEST SPRINGFIELD, EAST OF 1-5, WEST OF FRANKLrNBOULEV ARD, SOUTH OF NEWMAN STREET, AND NUGGET WAY: TAX LOTS, 200,500, 700, 800, AND 900 T18S R03W S03 MAP 14: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE GLENWOOD WATER DISTRICT: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 6005 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS CLINE, LOCATED IN THE GAME FARM ROAD AREA OF NORTH SPRINGFIELD, NORTH OF HARLOW ROAD, EAST OF GAME FARM ROAD, SOUTH OF FLAMINGO AVENUE: PART OF TAX LOT 5700, T17S R03W S 22 MAP 41: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM. THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. 5. Other Routine Matters a. Approve the One- Year City Manager's Employment Contract that includes a 3% Cost of Living Increase. b. Approve Endorsement of 0 LCC Liquor License Application for Jason's Pub, located at . 1836 South A Street, Springfield, Oregon. . d. Approve Endorsement ofOLCC Liquor License Application for Time Out Tavern, located at 5256 Main Street, Springfield, Oregon. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Ordinances g. ORDINANCE NO. 6003 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS FITCH. LOCATED IN WEST SOUTHIWEST SPRINGFIELD, EAST OF ASPEN STREET, SOUTH OF JANUS STREET, AND NORTH OF THE WILLAMAETIE RIVER: TAX LOT218, T17S R03W S34, MAP 22: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HA TIFLED, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW, TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 4(G). THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR, 0 AGAINST, AND 1 ABSTENTION (FITCH). 5. Other Routine Matters. c. Approve Endorsement of OLCC Liquor License Application for Main Street Bar & Grill, located at 414 Main Street, Springfield, Oregon. . Coinmunity Services Manager Dave Puent provided information regarding this issue. He reviewed options before council regarding approval/denial of the endorsement. He said Regular Meeting Minutes February 19,2002 Page 4 . the council could grant, grant with conditions (placing conditions on the establishment), deny or provide no recommendation. Council briefly discussed the agenda item summary packet document, attachment 2, Springfield Police Department AIRS Calls for Service report. . Council discussed deferring a decision on this issue until more complete information and facts are made available. It was stated that there appears to be a significant problem, although, it may not necessarily be reflective of property owner/establishment problems. It is possible the establishment is the party that contacts the Police; Department to report incidents that occur at or near the establishment. Council discussed the need for more comparative information (is this the most active. police response area, is it average compared to other establishments, etc.). . Following discussion, it was agreed to table action on this item until the March 18,2002 council meeting. A public hearing will be scheduled on March 18, 2002. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG, TO TABLE ANY ACTION ON THIS ITEM UNTIL MARCH 18,2002, AND HOLD A PUBLIC HARING ON THE ITEM. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. . PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 2002 - 2007 Capital Improvement Program. City Engineer Al Peroutka presented the staff report on this issue. The draft 2002-07 Capital Improvement Program was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 15,2002 and by the Council in work session on February 4, 2002 and is now ready for public comment and final adoption. The Council reviewed the draft CIP in work session on February 4,2002 and approved the CIP as drafted to be brought to a public hearing at this meeting. After hearing public comments, council is requested to adopt the Capital Improvement Program. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH, TO ADOPT THE 2002 - 2007 FNE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT - PROGRAM. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Springfield Sign Code Update. . ORDINANCE NO. 10 - AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SIGN STANDARDS, AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING AND REPLACING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 8, SECTION 8.200 (2) (3) (4) (6) PURPOSE: SECTION 8.202 DEFINITIONS: SECTION 8.204 (2) (3) (5) DESIGN: SECTION 8.206 2 Regular Meeting Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 5 . 1 .' , , \ "'~:' , ~, " ~ ~ ,",.', . (a) (3) (6) CONSTRUCTION:SECTioN8.208(4)Pl) (c) PROJECTION AND CLEARANCE; SECTION 8.210 LOCATION AND SETBACKS: SECTION 8.218 GENERAL 0) (d) (e) (t) (2) (3) (4) (6): SECTION 8.220 INSPECTIONS: SECTION 8.230 ACCESS FOR INSPECTIONS: SECTIONK232 (5) NON-CONFORMING SIGNS: SECTION 8.234 (2) (7) (8) (0) (3) (4) (is) EXEMPT SIGNS: SECTION 8.236 (2) (6) (0) PROHIBITED SIGNS: SECTION 8.238 APPEALS: SECTION 8.240 0) (2) (3) (4) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SIGN STANDARDS; .SEGTION 8.242 (2) (a) (b) H-HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT: SECTION 8.244 0) (2) (3) (4) GENERAL OFFICE SIGN STANDARDS: SECTION 8.246 0) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCiAL: SECTION 8.248 (1) (2) (3) (4) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND MAJOR RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT: SECTION 8.250 0) (a) (b) (2) (3) (4) DOWNTOWN SIGN DISTRICT: SECTION 8.252 (1) (2) (3) BOOTH !(ELL Y SIGN DISTRICT: SECTION 8.254 0) (2) (a) (b) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1-5 MALL/SPORTS FACILITY SIGN DISTRICT: SECTION 8.256 0) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1-5 COMMERCIAL SIGN DISTRICT: SECTION 8.258 (2) (3) (4) (5) LIGHT- MEDIUM, SPECIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL SIGN STANDARDS: SECTION 8.2600) (5) (g) (h) BILLBOARD DISTRICT: SECTION 8.262 0) PUBLIC LAND AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: SECTION 8.264 (1) (2) (3) (4) SPECIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; AND, SECTION 8.266 SCHOOLS. . Community Services Manager Dave Puent presented the staff report on this issue. The Springfield Sign Code is amended on a fairly routine basis. Throughout the year, the Development Services Department collects suggestions from. contractors and business owners regarding reasonable improvements to the Springfield Sign Code and where appropriate, includes these suggestions as proposed amendments for the following year. On January 28,2002 the Council conducted a work session to review the proposed changes. Although many of the proposed changes can be considered minor housekeeping in nature, the more signific.ant proposed changes include the addition of a Glenwood Billboard District section 8.260, clarification of the Vision Clearance Triangle section 8.202, Appeals and variance criteria section 8.238, additional tenant signage in the 1-5 Mall District section 8.254, and increasing the allowable size of second story businesses signage section 8.248. There is no discernible financial impact to the city. The ordinance received a first reading by title. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. 3. Public Hearing Regarding the City Exercising Option Agreement and Agreement of Purchase . and Sale for Island Park Property and simultaneous sale of Island Park Property to Carolyn S. Chambers, Trustee ofthe Carolyn S. Chambers Trust. . RESOLUTION NO. 02-12 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXERCISE OF THE OPTION AGREEMENT AND AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE FOR ISLAND PARK PROPERTY DATED NOVEMBER 3,2000, THE ACQUISITION OF THE ISLAND PARK PROPERTY AND THE SUBSEQUENT SIMULTANEOUS SALE OF THE ISLAND PARK PROPERTY TO CAROLYN S. CHAMBERS, TRUSTEE OF THE CAROLYN S CHAMBERS TRUST. Regular Meeting Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 6 . Development Services Director Cynthia Pappas presented the staff report on this issue. Information reviewed included the following: · Whether the city of Springfield should exercise its existing option to purchase the Island Park Property for $2,605,450.00. · Simultaneously sell the Island Park Property to Carolyn S. Chambers, Trustee of the Carolyn S. Chambers Trust for the sum of $2,644,550.00 together with other potential monetary consideration and non-monetary consideration requiring the buyer to work in good faith with the city of Springfield and Willamalane Park District regarding accessibility and complementary use to Island Park. · Work in good faith with the city of Springfield in exploring the siting of facilities and businesses on the property and buyer contiguous properties to continue to foster and stimulate an economic resurgence for the Springfield downtown. Council should determine if it wishes to exercise its option under the existing Option Agreement and Agreement of Purchase and Sale between Island Park Partners, an Oregon. general partnership, which assigned its interest to Robert H. McCulloch, Terry Stimac, Greg Smith and Larry Baker as tenants by the entirety. The purchase price is $2,605,450.00. Carolyn S. Chambers, Trustee of the. Carolyn S. Chambers Trust under agreement dated 12/2/1980 as amended and restated has offered the sum of $2,644,550.00 and other monetary and non-monetary consideration. . The purchase from Island Park Partners and the sale to Carolyn S. Chambers, Trustee of the Carolyn S. Chambers Trust under agreement dated 12/2/1980 as amended and restated, would occur simultaneously. The funds for the purchase of the property from Island Park Partners would in fact be generated by the sale to Carolyn S. Chambers, Trustee of the Carolyn S. Chambers Trust. The city of Springfield would not give notice of execution of the Option until such time as we had signed an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Carolyn S. Chambers, Trustee of the Carolyn S. Chambers Trust. The Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Chambers would be contingent upon the purchase of property. The sale price would recover the amount of the option payments the city has made. Other consideration received by the city include: . (a) Buyer shall indemnify and hold harmless Seller with respect to any environmental issue on the real property; and (b) Buyer shall work in good faith with Seller for a unified development approach to the property; and (c) Buyer shall work in.good faith with the Seller to consider uses which provide .. accessibility to and enhance the use of Island Park; and . (d) Buyer shall work in good faith in concert With the Willamalane Park District regarding accessibility and complementary use to Island Park; and (e) Buyer shall work in good faith with the Seller exploring the siting of facilities and businesses which may be of a regional nature; and (f) Buyer shall work in good faith with the Seller exploring the siting of facilities and businesses which will continue to foster and stimulate an economic resurgence for the Springfield Downtown; and . In addition to the sale of the property other consideration which the city would be required to provide includes: . (a) In the event that Buyer submits a development proposal for a unified development approach to the Real Property and including Buyer's neighboring and adjacent parcels (Map and Tax Lot Identification No. 17-03-35-32, Tax Lots 3500,3801, 4000 and 4100) Seller agrees to negotiate in good faith for the vacation of A Street between Mill Street and Island Park at no cost to Buyer. (b) City shall undertake and complete its obligations under Section 30 of the existing Option Agreement between the city of Springfield and Island Park Partners dated November 3, 2000 and Agreement of Purchase and Sale described in Recital 1 concerning furnishing parking for Island Park Partners remaining property. Cynthia Pappas reminded everyone that as the buyer gets further along in the process and submits a site plan on this property, there will be opportunity for public comment. Those around the property will be noticed as well as those that sign up as interested parties. She again stated that opportunity will be provided for public comment. A public hearing will be held if the buyer does make a request, to the city, to vacate A Street. City Attorney Tim Harold provided council with a revised resolution which included changes noted in legislative format. Mr. Harold reviewed the changes made to the resolution and reviewed sections 2(h), 2(k), 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c). In response to a question from Councilor Hatfield, Cynthia Pappas clarified the following: . a. . The property being discussed had nothing to do with Island Park, itself. It is owned by Willamalane Park and Recreation District. b. Because the city owns the property option, Chambers Trust cannot negotiate directly with the property owners for sale/purchase. The option allows the city the right to purchase the property. The Trust is required to negotiate through the city. c. Since the city holds the option, the city is negotiating this transition with Chambers Trust. The city can place conditions on the sale of the property to the Trust. . Regular Meeting Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 8 d. Conditions would not exist if the TrUst wJs hegotHiting directly with property owners. e. Through this process, the city will recover some costs associated with the initial property option. f. The property owner will work in good faith with the city. Cynthia Pappas said the city must exercise the options by February 25,2002. City Attorney Joe Leahy said the city of Springfield will not exercise options unless the city has a written agreement with the buyer. In response to a question from council, Joe Leahy clarified language contained in section 2(k), property sold by,the buyer at any time within two years from the date of closing. He also noted that the conditions are set forth/described in the resolution document. Joe Leahy provided information regarding Water Street. He explained that the city will have an option for a vacation or a use agreement. Councilor Fitch reminded council of the five year goals, one which includes participating in a renaissance for Springfield. She said it is nice to see private development occurring. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. . 1. John Corliss, 13220ksanna Street, Springfield, referenced a correspondence he provided to council, dated February 19,2002. He said he had no real problems with approval of the proposed resolution. He said he would like to note that there is a close relationship between the buildings that are located on the site as well as the park site. He did not want to see a large box / structure developed on the referenced site. He noted the uniqueness of the site and would like to see it protected. He would like to see the public involved in the design of the site. 2. John Ohm, 2262 Ridgeway Drive, Eugene, representing Carolyn S. Chambers Trust, was available to answer questions from council regarding the proposal. He said one thing that attracted Chambers Trust to the site was the park. He said the park location is an asset that they would enhance, not destroy. They would be open to suggestions/public input when they get closer to the development process stage. Mayor Leiken would may all upon Mr. Ohm's later during this public hearing, should council have questions for Mr. Ohm. . 3. Hanalei Rozen, 1551 B Street, Springfield, supported comments made by Mr. Ohm regarding the importance of public involvement in the redesign process. She referenced the proposed site as the heart of Springfield. She said public input occurs too late in the current site review process. She said it is important to recognize the combined efforts' occurring at this time, such as the downtown specific plan. She discussed the importance of explaining, to the purchasers, the way to facilitate and receive public input during this process. She referenced the process the city of Portland, Oregon, uses to handle design of environmentally sensitive areas, which require submission of three alternatives for review. The three alternatives could be reviewed for implications and how each option serves the greater good of the city. She said we would need to look at the existing site Regular Meeting Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 9 . . , development code to see ihhere l~ ~ Way to rl1iik~ some type of accommodation for a unique change, without changing the entire code. She said she did not understand why the city could not stipulate that the sale,. after two years, entails all of the referenced requirements. If the property is sold, the buyer should still have to submit negotiations with the city. 4. Larry Reed, 722 County Club Road, Eugene, representing Arlie & Co., referenced a letter submitted to City Manager Mike Kelly, from Attorney, Laurence Thorp, attorney for Arlie and Company, requesting information regarding the referenced property. Mr. Reed said Arlie & Co. were not aware of the pending purchase agreement until reading an article in the newspaper. Due to Monday being a holiday (2/18/02) he did not have ample time to review documents related to this issue, nor was there enough time to negotiate with the city for the purchase. He commented on the conditions referenced in the resolution and did not see the conditions as unreasonable. Mr. Reed stated for the record that discussion with Island Partners did involve considerably more money than stated in the agreement. Because of the short time frame, not wanting to get involved in this transaction, and in the best interest and intentions of. the counciVcommunity, Arlie & Co. is not in a position to pursue the purchase of the site. . 5. Helen Wagner, 940 D Street, Springfield, representing Willamalane Park and Recreation District, spoke in support of the proposal. She said Island Park is a special place and ot belongs to the entire city. She has faith that Chambers Trust will make accommodations that will be suitable for all and enhance the park. She expressed support for the proposal. Councilor Lundberg asked John Ohm, 2262 Ridgeway Drive, Eugene, what intent is for . development of the property to be purchaed. He said they do not have any specific design but do have a vision which may include mixed use development, commercial office, service office, retail activity and residential. He said the development should enhance the park, as well as the entrance(s) to the park. He hopes it is developed to provide more security for the area, especially at night. They feel very comfortable working with the city of Springfield. Councilors Lundberg, Fitch and Hatfield expressed support for the proposal and acknowledged community benefits that may result from the proposal. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATIFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH, TO ADOPT REVISED RESOLUTION NO. 02-12, ALSO PROVIDING THE AUTHORITY, SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONDITIONS, TO EXERCISE THE OPTION AND ASSIGN OUR RIGHT AND INTEREST AFTER EXERCISING IT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. . BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE . 1. Testimony from G. Dave Hewitt Regarding a Request to Rescind Denial and to Rehear Annexation Request for Five Acres Known as Eagles Flight Subdivision. . Regular Meeting Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 10 Dave Jewitt, 1011 Harlow Road; suite 300, SpHfigfiei~; provided detailed testimony and requested council rescind denial of and to rehear annexation request for five acres mown as Eagles Flight subdivision. The council agenda packets included correspondence from Mr. Jewitt regarding this subject. Mr. Jewitt answered questions from council and said the applicants did not receive formal written notice regarding the pubic hearing date. He said the applicants were aware of the potential for the meeting to be scheduled on the date it was set, but they were not formally notified. In response to a question from Council, Mr. Jewitt explained that he did not represent the applicant(s) prior to the February 4 council action taken. Mayor Leiken thanked the applicants for being in attendance at the meeting this evening. Mayor Leiken spoke with Eric Gossler and Brian Pifer. He asked if they would like to have one spokesperson speak on this issue and allow ten minutes to testify. The offer was declined and each will testify individually, three minutes each. . 2. Eric Gossler, 1150 Weaver Road, Springfield, testified in opposition of Eagles Flight Subdivision proposal. He was unable to attend the February 4, 2002 council meeting. He thanked council for seeing through the issues that neighborhood residents have been looking at, as a neighborhood, for over two years. He said there are problems within the system, especially within his area. He said the neighborhood was very clear about what Cedar Creek can handle. He believes that ample notice was provided regarding the public hearing date, time and location. 3. Brian Pifer, 1453 North 66th Street, Springfield, Representing Thurston, completed a request to speak card but did not testify. 4. Larry Reed, 722 Country Club Road, representing Arlie & Co., spoke regarding this issue. He thought the development met all city codes and rules. He commented that studies were completed at considerable costs. He discussed the February 4 council denial. He explained that he contacted Peace Health to inform them of council action taken on February 4. He recommended council consider rescinding and rehearing the Eagle Flight Subdivision request. Councilor Ralston said his decision made on February 4 was based upon the fact that it appeared we still had a flood plain issue and those questions have not yet been answered. Decisions were not made based upon the applicants attendance at the council meeting. Councilor Lundberg said the council is proactively trying to address flood plain issues. Decisions were not made based upon applicant attendance at the council meeting. . Councilor Fitch referenced the upcoming four work sessions to be scheduled regarding flood plain issues. She said these work session meetings will provide good information to the council. Councilor Fitch supported rescinding action previously taken and as well as a motion to not schedule the public hearing on this issue until the flood plain work session meetings are held. . Regular Meeting Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 11 City Planner Jim Donovan responded to a 4liestion fr6Bi d::itincil regarding legal notification to the applicant. He said the February 4 date was verbally confirmed with the new property owner and the engineer, during a December meeting. He said the affidavit of service reflects that notice was sent to Mr. Gossler and Mr. Pifer. The affidavit of publication reflects that it was posted in the newspaper on January 16,2002. The requirements for public notice do not require that a notice be sent to the applicant. Councilor Simmons expressed concern regarding lack of notification to an applicant. He was opposed to rescinding the original action but would be open to hearing a further request, at some point in the future. Councilor Hatfield said staff does a very good j ob of notification. He said verbal notification is probably legally sufficient, although, he shared similar concerns with Councilor Simmons regarding written notification to applicants. He was opposed to rescinding action previously taken by council on this matter. Councilor Hatfield suggested applicants attend the work session meetings regarding flood plain Issues. Councilor Ballew said to rescind this would not necessarily set a precedent. She recognized council effort to gain knowledge through the upcoming flood plain work session meetings. She supported rescinding previous action taken by council on this matter. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH, WITH A SECOND BY COUCNILOR BALLEW, TO RESCIND THE DENIAL OF RESOLUTION NO.4, ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN BY COUNCIL AT THE FEBRUARY 4,2002 MEETING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR (FITCH, BALLEW, LUNDBERG AND LEIKEN) AND 3 AGAINST (SIMMONS, HATFIELD AND RALSTON). Council asked about the need to make a formal motion to delay the public hearing until the work session meetings are held on the flood plain issue. City Attorney Joe Leahy said council could 1) make a motion to delay until work session meetings are held; 2) delay until council schedules the issue again; 3) delay this issue until the applicant, if they decide to, agree to cover expenses to re- notice the public hearing. Dave J ewitt said the applicants are willing to pay the re-notice expense. The applicants have no objection to rescheduling the hearing so it follows council work session meetings regarding flood plain issues. Councilor Hatfield clarified that he is educated regarding flood plain issues in the Thurston area. He clarified that his vote to deny was not based on lack of education. He said, in his opinion, there are issues regarding the annexation request that were defective. He said the hearing should be scheduled far enough into the future so that the annexation request can be modified so it is acceptable to the city. He said the findings he stated on February 4 were related to merits of the annexation request. These would need to be modified before casting an affirmative vote. . Councilor Fitch recommended that council members notify staff of specific issues or questions regarding this issue so that they can work with the applicants on this matter. . 5. Donald Mainwaring, 480 I G Street, said he was pleased that the city was working with Peace Health on a site for relocation in Springfield. Mr. Mainwaring said he now understands that Peace Health is trying to do away with the existing Springfield Hospital. He said the City of Springfield should not spend taxpayer funds to help Peace Health relocate if they work against the people of Springfield. He would like the choice of two hospitals rather than only one. Mr. Mainwaring asked about initiating an address change. He said he lives on 48th and G Street. He would like to have a 48th Street address. Staff would contact Mr. Mainwaring. 6. John Bailey, 679 South 79th Street, Springfield, representing South 79th Street Water Association. He requested that council hear their case again. He hopes there is middle ground they can reach. He would like council to instruct staff to negotiate with them. Councilor Lundberg has met with Mr. Bailey and discussed this issue. During discussions with Mr. Bailey, they hope to reach some agreement about what needs to occur, understanding property owner concerns as well as the need for assurances for the city. . Councilor Hatfield agreed with comments by Councilor Lundberg. He said the taxpayers and the city need to be protected from potential liability related to this issue. He had no objection and was willing to continue to look for ways to resolve this issue in a way that protects the taxpayers of the city and can deliver water to 79th Street. Councilor Ballew suggested members of the 79th Street Association attempt to find a solution and that it not be left up to city staff to do so. City Attorney Joe Leahy recommended that the City Attorney review any proposed solutions prior to being presented to council. Councilor Lundberg agreed that these issues should be worked out in advance and reviewed by staff before being presented to council. Councilor Hatfield recommended that staff work with the Neighborhood Association and come up with a solution that is workable. DSD staff would serve as the contact. . 7. Cynthia Hart, 3130 Game Farm Road, Springfield, representing affected homeowner in the area, (Consent Calendar Item 4e). Ms. Hart is an active member of the Homebuilders Association, pro growth, but not pleased with the idea of Peace Health being constructed across the street from location. She said she is in the county, not city, and likes that. Ms. Hart expressed concern regarding the hospital development. She said we may end up with a situation similar to the River Road area. There will be pockets of county property, surrounded by new growth by the city. Eventually, the Game Farm area will be annexed and would like to see some concessions made by Peace Health. She had a concern regarding construction noise, dust problems, heavy equipment traffic, etc. Regular Meeting Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 13 . City Attorney Joe Leahy respohoed td a question from Ms. Hart and explained that the city has a noise ordinance that requires the developer to secure permission to perform construction beyond the normal daylight hours. He said the city has not yet seen a conceptual development plan from Peace Health. He said the public will have more than adequate opportunity to participate in a variety of meetings about what Peace Health plans to construct. He said when the development process does begin, much opportunity will be provided to interact and make cohcefus known. 8. Larry Reed, 722 Country Club Road, representing Arlie & Co., stated that Arlie & Co. continues to be interested in investing in Springfield. He said the company understands that the city has excess property and/or options on other properties. He said they have missed the opportunity to negotiate for the Island Park property. He would like to know what city policy and procedure is to dispose of excess property. The company does not want to miss future opportunities. City Manager Mike Kelly said at times the city has reason to dispose of surplus property. He said staff would approach the council and explain the lack of need for the surplus property and the fact that staff would like to have the property appraised and dispose of it. If the council approves the request, staff would advertise a public hearing, arid dispose of the property appropriately. . Mr. Kelly said the city does receive unsolicited offers to purchase city property, even if the property is not for sale. When an unsolicited offer is received, the party is notified that the property is not for sale, although, if they party would like to submit an offer, they can do so. If an offer is received it is brought before council for consideration. Council may direct staff to seek an appraisal on the property. Based on the appraisal amount, council may ask staffto negotiate a different purchase price than that which was offered. Mr. Kelly said when city property is for sale, the city typically conducts a lengthy advertisement, public hearing and receives all bids. He said the city has been approached a number oftimes on property that has not been for sale. When unsolicited offers are received, staff deals directly with the person making the offer. If council is interested in the offer, a public hearing is held. If council wishes to revise its policy the can do so. To date this is the process used to handle surplus city property. Joe Leahy said council may also consider a number of additional factors when reviewing proposals. Considerations, other than monetary, may include economic growth of the city or revitalization of a certain area, as well as other possible considerations. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. Correspondence from John and Jane Corliss, 1322 Oksanna Street, Springfield, regarding the city exercising option agreement and agreement of purchase and sale for Island Park property to Carolyn S. Chambers, Trustee of the Carolyn S. Chambers Trust. . 2. Correspondence from Carol Stem, 369 West D Street #1, Springfield, regarding purchase and sale ofIsland Park property, opposing change to the area and expressing concern for the environment. Regular Meeting Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 14 . 3. Robert Bruce Foster, 369 West I) sh'eet #1, Spt'irtgfield; regarding purchase and sale of island Park property, urging Council to reject the sale of this land to Chambers Trust. 4. Correspondence from Eric Gossler, 1150 Weaver Road, Springfield, representing Rural Thurston, regarding council rescinding action taken at the February 4,2002 council meeting, regarding Eagles Flight subdivision. 5. Correspondence from John E. Ardans, Family Billards of Springfield, 402 Main Street, Springfield, expressing opposition to the proposed issuance of a hard liquor license to Main Street Bar and Grill. 6. Correspondence from Candy and Gary Mathews, AKA, Main Street Bar and Grill, 414 Main Street, in response to correspondence from John E. Ardans, proprietor of Family Billards, 402 Main Street. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH, TO ACCEPT AND FILE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITION NUMBERS 1-6. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BIDS ORDINANCES . 1. Council Ward Redistricting - Final Boundary Map and Ordinance Adoption. ORDINANCE NO. 6706 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING WARDS WITHIN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DESIGNATING THE PRECINCTS THEREIN, AMENDING SECTION 2.005, TERRITORY-WARDS, OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNIClPAL CODE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (GENERAL) ORDINANCE NO. 6707 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING WARDS WITHIN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ADJUSTING THE BOUNDARIES THEREOF, AMENDING SECTION 2.005 OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNIClP AL CODE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (SPECIAL). City Attorney Joe Leahy presented the staff report on this issue. Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) has analyzed the 2000 Census data for the city of Springfield and prepared a final boundary map based upon Council review and direction provided at its October 8, 200 I work session. The ordinance formalizes the boundary line changes directed by Council at that meeting. Every ten years the U.S. Census Bureau conducts a census of the population. The data is used for a variety of purposes, including reapportionment of election districts. In 1981 and 1991 Springfield contracted with LCOG to analyze the 1980 and 1990 Census data, and determined several ward boundary scenarios. Ultimately, the Council adopted new ward boundary systems that were used. . At the work session meeting on July 23,2001, council reviewed a report prepared by LCOG and city staff that highlighted LCOGs analysis of the 2000 Census population for the city of . Regular Meeting Minutes February 19,2002 Page 15 Springfield. At that time council (iit~ctetl LCdG t6;ci~Velop three scenarios, a scenario of least change to bring the ward population plus or minus five percent of the equal population figure, a scenario considering growth in the coming decade and a scenario that was in between the two. On October 8,2001, council reviewed the report prepared by LCOG and city staff, which included the three scenarios council requested. At that time, council approved the growth scenario and directed staff to prepare a final map and descriptions based on the ward boundary line changes. IT MOVED BY COUNILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6006. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. IT MOVED BY COUNILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6007. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments a. Arts Commission Application Appointment. . Five positions on the Arts Commission expired December 31, 2001. All five members currently holding those positions are eligible to serve another term and all five members re-applied. Eleanor C. Palm has also applied for membership. The Council reviewed the applications of all applicants during the January 28 work seSSIOn. Arts Commission recommends that each of the five current commission members, John Keskinen, Judith Macomber, Scott Wylie, PJ Sargeant, and Nada Zawodny, be re- appointed to the commission, with terms to expire December 31, 2005. The commission further recommends that Eleanor Palm remain the top candidate to fill the next commission vacancy. The commission believes all six candidates who applied are well qualified to serve. All candidates possess expertise that will benefit the commission. The current members bring experience as well as their own expertise to the commission. Since applying, Ms. Palm has had a family illness with which to contend. She has expressed her interest in serving on the Arts Commission at a later date. All candidates meet the residence requirement that members have a business or reside within the 97477,97478, or 97482 zip code areas. . IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH, TO RE-APPOINT JOHN KESKINEN, JUDITH MACOMBER, SCOTT WYLIE, . Regular Meeting Minutes February 19,2002 Page 16 PJ SARGEANT, AND NADA zA WODNY TO tHE ARTS COMMISSION, EACH WITH TERMS EXPIRING ON DECEMBER 31,2005, AND FURTHER RECOMMEND THAT ELEANOR PALM BE CONSIDERED FOR THE NEXT ARTS COMMISSION VACANCY. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND o AGAINST. 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports. 1. Ward 2 Council Position. Councilor Fitch announced her intent to seek re-election as Ward 2 city councilor. She has filed the necessary paperwork with the city recorder. 2. Ward 5 Council Position. Councilor Simmons announced that he will not seek re-election as Ward 5 city councilor. He explained that he has served as a councilor for eight years, as well as serving for approximately four years on other committees. He said he has enjoyed serving as a representative and will miss staff and others. . Mayor Leiken said he would miss Councilor Simmons and said it was a privilege and honor to serve with Councilor Simmons. 3. Correspondence from Cynthia Sinclair, Justice of the Peace, Central Lane Justice Court, 220 5th Street, Springfield, regarding Springfield Municipal Code, Section . 5.400. Councilor Simmons referenced a correspondence from Cynthia Sinclair regarding the recently created Animal Regulation Task Force to deal with local issues regarding animals. Councilor Simmons discussed current budget issues facing the city of Springfield as well as the cost of animal control services in Springfield. He suggested the issue be covered during the budget review process. Councilor Ballew said before the city gives the County authority for animal control, this issue should be evaluated. She noted significant improvements in her neighborhood, regarding animal control, since the city employed an animal control officer. . Mike Kelly said a long-term employee/animal control officer resigned approximately six weeks ago. He said the program will be considered for reduction or elimination, during the budget process. Due to possible program reduction or elimination, the position has not been recruited for. At this time, limited animal control response services are being provided. Vicious dog complaints are being responded to by police officers. If a dog is running at large and threatening people and/or causing property damage, Police will respond. If a call is received for a dog at large, police will not respond. He explained that a position would never be eliminated without Council consent (as a Budget Committee member), although due to timing issues, the position