Joint hearing opened on Campus Industrial code amendments; council and county continue matter to May 5

City and county officials opened a joint public hearing on proposed text amendments to the Springfield development code intended to broaden the range of uses allowed in business parks within the Campus Industrial (CI) zoning district. The changes were initiated by a property owner seeking more tenant options for existing large office buildings in the North Gateway area.

Staff manager Andy (Springfield planning) told the joint meeting that the request was unusual because it was initiated by a property owner rather than staff. Staff described the Campus Industrial District as underused in places and noted a shift in local tenancy: several former manufacturing sites are now occupied by health‑related tenants and the area has “an evolution toward medical services and medical related industries.” The staff report said about 45% of campus industrial acreage is vacant or underdeveloped.

The nut graf: The applicant requested that business-park rules be clarified to allow certain government offices, educational uses and limited medical clinic space — explicitly excluding hospitals and urgent-care/emergency facilities — and that the city’s transportation analysis submitted for the Hawes property did not identify major impacts to intersections under the proposed changes.

Applicant counsel Andre Phelps and consultant Teresa Bishow described the amendments as a “surgical approach” that would not rezone the area to general commercial. Bishow told the hearing, “It does not convert this area to a commercial, general commercial district,” and said the proposal would preserve industrial character, landscaping standards and development controls while making some public-serving offices and clinics allowable as primary uses inside business parks.

Opponents, including counsel Michael Gilardi speaking for Richardson Sports, said the proposal would reshape the district over time, arguing it could produce more medical and public-facing uses than the comprehensive plan anticipated and that the city had not studied neighborhood-wide impacts on services and traffic. Gilardi told the council that allowing such uses “would further open the doors to medical uses,” and proposed limiting clinics to secondary uses with hours restrictions as a compromise; the applicant declined that approach.

Councilors and county commissioners asked procedural and substantive questions about hours of operation, the difference between primary and secondary uses, and whether additional time was needed to review late-submitted testimony. Several members expressed interest in further review. Because written testimony arrived late and some councilors and commissioners requested more time to review materials and to allow staff to respond, both bodies agreed to continue the public hearing to May 5 at 7 p.m. to allow the record to remain open and permit staff analysis and applicant rebuttal.

Ending: The City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners continued consideration of ordinance 25-03 to a May 5, 2025 hearing at 7 p.m. Staff will respond to written materials submitted by interested parties and the applicant may provide rebuttal at the continued hearing.