Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2002 Work Session . MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 The Springfield City Council met in regular session on Monday, November 18 2002 at Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Jesse Maine Meeting Room at 5:32 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Lundberg, Ralston and Simmons. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Kim Krebs, Police Chief Jerry Smith, and members of staff. 1. Museum Board of Directors Application Review and Appointment. . Museum Coordinator Kathy Jensen was present for the staff report. The purpose of this brief work session is to review and approve the applications for prospective Board members Janice Dunn and Beverly Medford. . Ms. Dunn and Ms. Medford have met with staff and Board members to discuss board service and each has attended a board meeting. Each applicant brings creative ideas and unique talents to the board. Ms. Dunn is a financial manager and has expertise in marketing. Ms. Medford brings experience with the Springfield community and a network of business associates from her real estate business. The board members agree that both candidates bring valuable expertise and contacts to the Springfield Museum. Ms. Dunn and Ms. Medford would replace John Moretti and Catherine Spencer, both of whom resigned. Ms. Dunn would replace John Moretti, whose term will end March 31, 2004. Ms. Medford would replace Ms. Spencer, whose term ends on March 5, 2005. The Springfield Museum Board of Directors recommends that the City Council approve both candidates for membership and appoint them at the Regular Session. The appointment would bring the Board to a total of eight members. Mw. Jensen responded to questions of the council. After discussion, council consensus was to appoint the two applicants as recommended. 2. Proposed Springfield Development Code Amendments. Planner Gary Karp was present for the staff report on this issue. He introduced Planner Linda Pauly who 'is also working on this project. The second phase of amending the Springfield Development Code (SDC) to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Clean Water Act (CW A), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW A) is being initiated~ Phase I was adopted on July 15th and became effective on August 14th of this year. The work plan for the city's overall ESA compliance project was approved by the City Council in 2000. . The primary focus of Phase 2 would be to amend current SDC landscaping regulations to address the following: Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - November 18, 2002 Page - 2 . . Under the ESA, Section 4(d) lists activities carried out by the city having a high likelihood of affecting salmon habitat. These activities include development, permitting and riparian area protection. . Under the CW A, the city must implement standards that are responsive to the stricter water quality standards (primarily because of water temperature problems) as part of. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II requirements for clean water discharges that would be effective for Springfield in 2003. Under the SDW A, the city must protect its groundwater drinking sources. Staff proposes to have the amendments for review and adopted by June, 2003. Councilor Ballew asked if the Natural Resource Study would impact this project. Mr. Karp said the projects are somewhat related, but will handled as a separate process. Planner Mark Metzger is managing that project and staffs are meeting on a regular basis to share information. Councilor Ballew asked if lowering the temperature of water would be passive similar to tree shading? Mr. Karp said yes. . Councilor Ballew asked if the city was only responsible for that part of the river that pass by our city borders, and is the county doing something in tandem with us that affect other regions of the river? Mr. Karp said the county would be accountable to those Federal regulations that affect their. regions ofthe river. We are fqcusing on the city limits and the UGB. There were discussions related to the counties responsibility of their portions of the river. Councilor Simmons said as an observation, he still holds that the allocation and the waterway map of the removal of the North Channel that runs through the Pierce property is not an environmentally sound position. Councilor Ralston asked a question related to Attachment 1-2 (2) of the Agenda Item Summary (AlS) "the SDWA because 100 percent of the City's drinking water comes from wells". He asked if that statement were true. \ Mr. Karp said that same issue was brought up during Phase 1. That statement may change based on whatever work SUB is planning on doing on the Willamette River. Councilor Fitch asked staff what their confidence level was in being able to complete all four phases by June of 2004, and ifthe city has to do any budget trimming, is there a way that this could be phased differently and still meet the requirements. . Mr. Karp said they are hopeful they can meet the timeline. He is not involved in the budget aspects, and said if a reduction were to occur, staff would probably have to reevaluate the timeline. Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - November 18, 2002 Page - 3 . 3. Update of the Glenwood'Riverfront Plan. Planner Susanna Julber was present for the staff report on this issue. She said the purpose of this work session was to provide an update of the progress of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan to the City Council. The second phase of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan is progressing. The city has received a TGM grant of$150,000 to further refine the concept plans developed for the riverfront during the 1999- 2001 biennium. Through September 2004 and into 2005, there are significant infrastructure projects being completed by the city and other agencies. Completion of these projects would help to facilitate redevelopment of properties in Glenwood, and it is critical that these projects are coordinated. It is important that the Riverfront Plan be adopted prior to completion of the infrastructure projects to guide redevelopment consistent with the nodal designation. Development Service Department (DSD) imd Public Works (PW) staff have been meeting monthly with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Springfield Utility Board (SUB), and Lane Transit District (LID), to coordinate the timing and details of the projects. The following is a list of projects affecting Franklin Boulevard and Glenwood: . · ODOT bridge preservation project: August/September 2003 · ODOr road overlay of Franklin Boulevard: September 2004 · ODOT sidewalk infill project: 2004 or 2005 · City sanitary sewer project: Timing of this project is currently being discussed. Either late 2003, or summer 2004. . SUB Water line project: February 2004 · LTD Bus Rapid Transit: Construction summer2003, opening date September 2004 · Glenwood Riverfront Plan adoption: Spring 2004. While these infrastructure projects would substantially improve the development environment, staff is researching other funding opportunities to further enhance the Franklin Boulevard corridor and the Riverfront Study Area. As our Market Analysis completed in Phase 1 of the project illustrated, significant private investment in the Glenwood Riverfront is dependent on several factors, including the transformation of Franklin Boulevard into an appealing, attractive, and safe corridor. Over the next 4-5 months, the city hopes to attain additional funding to assist in this transformation. Ms. Julber said possible funding sources include ODOT Transportation Enhancement Funds for street trees, sidewalks, and bike paths; Community Solutions Team Funds for a number of improvements; Federal funds for relocation of the power poles and lines; and Federal funds for construction of an ecological stormwater park. She said Cynthia Pappas, John Tamulonis and herself attended a meeting with the State a few weeks ago regarding the funding possibilities, in hopes to have the Community Solutions Team place this on their radar screen. They may pe conducting a site visit in January 2003. Ms. Julber highlighted the information contained in her attachments to the AlS. . Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - November 18, 2002 Page - 4 . DSD and PW staff will be coming back before the council over the next few months to discuss a design strategy for Franklin Boulevard that could be adopted and implemented when these infrastructure proj ects come to. fruition. Councilor Ballew said staff did a terrific job putting this together, and said her only concern is that the sewer construction and BRT station timing seem to overlap. Ms. Julber said DSD and PW staffs are currently discussing that issue. Timing will be critical and the hope is that the sewer is in place before BRT construction begins. She said the only station that it may affect is the middle station on Lexington. Councilor Ballew asked about Ecological Storm Water Parks. Ms. Julber said Mr. Tamulonis is hoping to address this issue and list it as a possible project for the United Front efforts to consider developing a regional storm water system, and integrate it into a park. Councilor Ballew said Mill Creek, Washington has a wonderful ecological park, and recommended that staff take a look at it. 4. Proposed Gateway Refinement Plan and Metro Plan Diagram Amendments Review (PeaceHealth).' . . Planner Colin Stephens was present for the staff report. He said a public hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission in December and City Council in January of2003. He . circulated two additional handouts for the discussion. He said before he begins his staff report, City Attorney Joe Leahy asked for an opportunity to address the council. Mr. Leahy said as council recalls six to eight months ago he sent a memo to Mayor and Council regarding the Peace Health McKenzie Willamette issues~ In the memo he addressed the necessity for council to review whatever type of applications is brought before the council to be viewed on the basis ofthe criteria, and ordinances, standards, and conditions currently in place. When this discussion was held before the Planning Commission, staff felt it was important to make it clear that there were two areas of concern. The first is an area that we call bias. That is anyone who comes before the council with an application, needs to have fair treatment in terms of their process. He said we can't all leave what we learn from our environment at the door, but what we can do is when we have these discussions to the. extent that is possible, each of us is going to judge an application on the basis of the criteria and information and standards, and not some extraneous standards that only lurk in the back of our mind, or may affect us in some manner. When an application comes before the council, that application is to be treated without bias. Under the courts standards, bias is having arrived at a decision before you listen to the information, consider the standards, and apply the standards to the facts. If you have already made a decision with respect to a particular application, before you have heard the infoimation and before you apply your standards to that information, then you are probably biased and probablyshould not participate in a decision regarding that particular matter. If you lean one way . Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - November 18, 2002 Page - 5 . or another, or have thoughts, that is not biased. Again, bias is having made a decision before hand and not being able to give an applicant a fair hearing. Mr. Leahy said another area of concerp. is the ethics issue. As to whether or not any councilors have ethics issues under ORS 244, that addresses the issue of feeling that because you think you have a conflict of some type, you are not able to make a fair decision. This would include financial gain, or you would avoid financial detriment by the decision that is made. When this discussion was held with the Planning Commission, the first two people who raised their hands were Commissioner Lee Beyer, who as council knows, is a member ofthe Board of Directors for McKenzie Willamette Hospital. Commissioner Beyer indicated that he had thought carefully about the matter, and felt that he could make a fair, non-biased decision, and offered to step aside if there was someone who had an interest in the matter; no one indicated a problem, and the Planning Commission went forward. The second was Tim Malloy, Chair of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Malloy indicated that he was an employee of Peace Health, although not an employee of the hospital, and felt that he had reviewed the matter and felt he too could give a fair, non-biased decision, and did not have a conflict of interest because it would not affect his pay in any way. Mr. Leahy said his preliminary research at this point on both of those issues is that both Commissioners will probably be able to participate in the decision if they continue to remain non- biased, and at this point he does not see an ethical conflict. . Mr. Leahy said from what he knows of each of the councilors backgrounds, one councilor is an official delegate or liaison to the McKenzie Willamette Hospital Authority, and said that should be put on the record, and assuming it would not be a conflict in any way or bias the councilor in any way as to any decision that may be reached. Councilor Ballew said she is the liaison to the Hospital Authority for McKenzie Willamette. Mr. Leahy asked if there were anyone who may have submitted letters to the editor indicating bias in this matter, and said if there is any disclosure in terms of bias, or traditional ethics issues that have been discussed; they need to be put on the record as well. Mr. Leahy said he would be addressing this issue again as we start down this process. He said the Planning Commission has a little more leeway based on case evaluation because as council knows, the Planning Commission in some circumstances is making a recommendation, and not making a final decision, particularly on the matter that council has before them tonight. He asked ifthere were any questions on these issues. Councilor Ballew asked if Mr. Leahy would be able to prepare a written or verbal briefing for the . council regarding what areas are outside the parameters that council should be considering. She said something that comes to mind is the issue of competition. . Mr. Leahy said competition is not a criterion in any ofthe ordinances, or policies that council has passed here-to-for, either for the Planning Commission or the City Council to utilize. We have not used that in the siting of other entities in the community. In order to assist the council, the City Attorney's office will continually remind the council on these issues, and staff will outline the criteria. That doesn't mean that someone who is opposed or in favor of the project can't find Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - November 18,2002 Page -:- 6 . another criteria that they would like to bring forward. However, if that suggested criteria is not a recognized criteria and included in the current policies and or ordinances, staff will point that out. Mr. Stephens said this work session provides an opportunity for the mayor and council to review PeaceHealth's request to amend the Metro Plan Diagram and the Gateway Refinement Plan (GR) and text. It will also allow staff an opportunity to respond to questions prior to the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. As Mr. Leahy said, staff discussed these similar issues at a Planning Commission work session. These amendments are intended to allow PeaceHealth to locate a regional hospital and associated medical uses while preserving residential densities and the potential for both commercial and residential nodal development at the Gateway MDR site. Approval of the proposed plan amendments would allow PeaceHealth to locate a hospital and additional commercial uses at the Gateway MDR site; a situation that cannot occur under the current GRP policies, plan designations and zoning. If the City Council approves these amendments, future council decisions regarding the hospital would revolve around the configuration, design and appearance of the development but not whether the hospital could or should be built at this site. . The two applications under review are intended to amend the Metro Plan and the GRP Diagram to allow for approximately 33 acres of Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) designation to be applied to the western portion of the site. The applications also propose to amend GRP text to set the policy piece that recognizes that a hospital use is appropriate at the Gateway MDR site, an area only considered for residential development in the GRP. The amendments would also require that a Master Plan, consistent with Springfield Development Code (SDC) Article 37, be approved by the Council prior to development. This Master Plan would replace the current Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) requirement, an antiquated procedure that has been replaced with the Master Plan application. The city is currently performing the analysis necessary to implement nodal development at six sites throughout the city by June, 2003. The Gateway MDR site is one of those sites. The proposed amendments preserve the city's ability to continue with the nodal implementation project while concurrently processing PeaceHealth's Master Plan application. Mr. Stephens highlighted the information contained in his AIS, and provided a quick overview regarding the Proposed Text Amendments, and Proposed Map Amendments. Mr. Stephens referred to his additional handout "Peace Health Plan Amendment Review Process Type IV", and highlighted briefly the steps and process. Mr. Stephens provided a summary of the site-specific amendments contained in attachment two. "Proposed GRP Text Amendments". He circulated an additional handout that highlighted changed recommended language to Attachment 2 page 7 "Add GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.7. Mr. Stephens reviewed in detail the applicants proposed language, and staff response to each of the text amendments. . Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - November 18, 2002 Page - 7 . Mr. Stephens and staff responded to questions related to transportation impact analysis, trip allocation plan, what impact this development might have on,the I-5/Beltline interchange, noise mitigation and funding issues. Mr. Stephens responded to questions related to the Gateway Refinement Plan, and whether staff would be making recommendations in the future to have consistent language in other refinement plans throughout the city. There were discussions related to riparian and water quality issues. Mr. Stephens responded to a question of Councilor Simmons related to Attachment 2-7 "Proposal and Application" process. He said the public involvement process is that which is mandated under the state requirements on land use issues. He said staff is bumping the Master Plan review up to a Type IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:36 pm. Minutes Recorder - Kim Krebs . AITEST: ( A .,., 0 fir, 1\"": ~ LJl./V"" IV v \' ( .