Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/23/08 WS and Mtg of URA M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon January 23, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Alan Zelenka. In the absence of Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy, Council President Chris Pryor called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Extra-Territorial Extensions Planner Steve Nystrom of the Planning and Development Department stated that the City’s recently adopted ordinance regarding annexation also included procedures for extra-territorial extensions. He said the purpose of the work session was to further discuss issues related to extra-territorial extensions, which were extensions of water or sewer service inside the City limits to serve properties outside the City limits but within the urban growth boundary (UGB). Mr. Nystrom said a fundamental premise was the City's existing policies around the provision of urban services and the strong position limiting those services to City residents, while recognizing there could be extreme or unique circumstances where extension of services to property that was not within the City limits was in the best interests of the City. He referred to the criteria under which those circumstances would be considered and stressed that it must be demonstrated that a property could not otherwise be annexed and that the property was not vacant. He said that emphasized that the extension requests were intended to accommodate existing situations and not further development. Mr. Nystrom provided several examples to illustrate when extra-territorial extensions might be requested. He pointed out that requests were rare, with three going to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission during the past ten years. Mr. Clark expressed concern that an owner of undeveloped property outside of the City limits but inside the UGB would have no ability to functionally use that property because of the system that was being created. He hoped that the issue could be raised during the council's joint meeting with the Lane Board of County Commissioners, along with a discussion of whether the County would assume responsibility for permitting. He wanted to clarify what options would be available to that property owner and who would have authority for services. He asked for an estimate of the amount of property that would fall into the category of undeveloped, outside of the City limits and inside the UGB and was not contiguous. Mr. Nystrom responded that there were two different elements: annexation provisions and extension of urban services. He said Mr. Clark's question arose from the annexation provisions and changes to State law that would MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2008 Page 1 Work Session make annexation more difficult for those properties. He said the council had authority to establish policy around expectations of development inside the City versus outside the City. Ms. Bettman expressed surprise that the County was considering taking over permitting in urban transition areas when the City already provided those services through an intergovernmental agreement. She understood there were criteria and unique circumstances under which extra-territorial extensions occurred and it would be difficult to anticipate all of those, which is why her motion focused on the process. She wanted to assure that a public hearing before a decision-making body would occur when the boundary commission no longer existed. Ms. Ortiz asked if local jurisdictions had contributed funds to the boundary commission and whether cities would be compensated for taking over the responsibility for annexations. Mr. Nystrom said that the boundary commission was a State agency and jurisdictions supported it through their contributions to Lane Council of Governments, which staffed the commission. He said any compensation for the City would come through related fees. Mr. Clark agreed that the council should be accountable for decisions, including annexations and extra- territorial extensions. He said extra-territorial extensions were likely to be controversial and asked for the criteria to be restated in any related ordinance. He wanted each application for an extension to be assessed in accordance with those criteria to remove any arbitrary elements. Ms. Bettman remarked that the criteria were in the ordinance, but because they were in several different places she was concerned that a request that was controversial could slip through without the stop-gap of a public hearing. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to pre- pare an ordinance amending the code so that the process for considering extra- territorial extension applications: 1. Requires a public hearing before the City Council and makes the City Council the final local decision-making body; and 2. Requires that notice of the City Council's public hearing be posted on the prop- erty which is the subject of the application so that the notice is visible from ad- jacent streets and that the notice be mailed to the appropriate neighborhood as- sociations, and all property owners and residents within 750 feet of that prop- erty's perimeter. Ms. Bettman further moved to direct the City Manager to hold any applications submitted for extra-territorial extension of water or sewer until the City Council has acted on this proposed ordinance or 60 days after the City Council holds a pub- lic hearing on the ordinance, whichever is earlier. Mr. Poling asked for clarification of the noticing requirements. Ms. Bettman explained that there had been problems in the past with property that was on a corner and notices were only posted on one street. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2008 Page 2 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Crest Drive Community Team Recommended Design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street and Street Design Standards Minimum Sidewalk Width for Crest Drive Area City Engineer Mark Schoening recognized members of the Crest Drive Community Team and their contributions to the project. He provided an overview of the “context-sensitive” process that resulted in a recommended design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street. He stated that a consensus model was used for decision-making and members indicated levels of support. He said three individuals did not concur with the recommended design at the final meeting based on concerns about the location of the sidewalk on Friendly Street, particularly that they were not always on the uphill side of the street. Mr. Schoening highlighted the design concept, which included 18-foot street widths with two 9-foot travel lanes and a sidewalk on one side alternating between uphill and downhill sides. He said there were numerous traffic calming devices throughout the area and all streets included stormwater facilities for their entire lengths. He said a budget appropriation in fiscal year (FY) 2009 would be necessary to move forward with design and construction in the summer of 2009. He estimated the total project cost at $5.75 million, of which $2.6 million was assessable to abutting property owners. He reviewed a number of options for funding the project as set forth in the agenda packet materials. Mr. Schoening asked the council to hold separate public hearings on February 19, 2008, with one hearing on the recommended design and the other on amending the design standards to allow a narrower sidewalk width in the Crest Drive area. Mr. Pryor solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman asked if the street designation could be changed to arterial or collector to make it eligible for funding with system development charges (SDC). Mr. Schoening said that could be done, but there were several projects in development that were relying on transportation SDCs and construction would be pushed out several years. Ms. Bettman commented that the project was a City priority and not initiated by the neighborhood and asked why it would not be eligible for SDC reimbursement. Mr. Schoening said the language establishing reimbursement fees dedicated those funds to pavement rehabilitation and restoration projects. He said all of those funds were currently being used on the existing improved street system with a focus on arterials and collectors. Ms. Bettman pointed out that redesignating the streets as arterials or collectors would make the project eligible for those funds and it would be a matter of shifting priorities from other projects to the Crest Drive project. She said that the capital improvement program (CIP) had $11 million reserved for upgrades and capacity enhancements and some of those funds could be redirected to the Crest Drive project if it was a priority. She asked for clarification of how the sidewalk exception from five to four feet would be applied. Mr. Schoening explained that the exception would be an amendment to the design standards applicable to all classified and unclassified streets, but it was specific to the Crest Drive area. Mr. Clark supported moving the items to public hearings. He noted that the purpose of the project was to make Crest Drive a narrow street to decrease the amount of traffic and that would seem to conflict with designation as an arterial or collector. Mr. Schoening said that traffic volume was one of five criteria for designating streets with the idea that the streets would form a network with collectors equally spaced MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2008 Page 3 Work Session throughout the City that tied into arterials. He said the context sensitive process set aside the issue of functional classification and focused on design. Mr. Clark favored looking at creative ways to finance the project without adding substantial new tax burdens, but he was reluctant to classify the street as an arterial or collector when the intent was to minimize the amount of traffic on that street. He said the project should be put into the mix of priorities that would be balanced during the budgeting process. He asked if the design included sloped curbs. Mr. Schoening replied that the design included a combination of vertical, flat and sloped curbs. Mr. Clark expressed concern with sloped curbs in a narrow street environment and the possibility that a vehicle could travel onto a sidewalk and injure a pedestrian or bicycle rider. Ms. Taylor said her concern was with the cost to property owners who would be assessed. She asked what consequences there would be if construction was completed and a property owner could not pay the assessment. Mr. Schoening said there was an income-based subsidy program or payment could be deferred until the property changed hands; however, a lien was placed on the property and the City could foreclose if payment was not made. Ms. Taylor felt the assessment was unfair, particularly since those who would benefit, such as properties in cul de sacs, would not have to pay as only property abutting the street would be assessed. She asked if the City could accept donations to help pay for the assessments of those who could not afford to pay. Mr. Schoening said the City could find a way to accept funds. Ms. Taylor asked why the neighborhood wanted four-foot sidewalks. Mr. Schoening said the consensus was that they better met the themes and values that the community team established. Ms. Taylor asked if the sidewalk could be located on the uphill side of the street for its entire length. Mr. Schoening said there was no physical reason the sidewalk could not be on the uphill side. Ms. Bettman asked if properties along Friendly Street would be assessed for parking. Mr. Schoening said those properties would only be assessed for lane width, not parking, as residents felt parking needs could be met with mountable curbs. Ms. Bettman stated that Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funds would be available for the project. Mr. Schoening said STP-U funds could only be used if streets were arterials or collectors. Ms. Bettman said the original intent was to reclassify streets after there was agreement on a design. She said there was no guarantee the council would move forward with a general obligation bond in May 2008 or the bond could fail. She said the council's transportation subcommittee did not anticipate the project when it recommended transportation funding options. She objected to placing the project on the list for funding from traditional sources. Ms. Taylor clarified that funding would pay the City's share of project costs and not be used to assist residents to pay their assessments. She asked if Mr. Schoening's reference to pushing out the construction timeline referred to the Crest Drive project. Mr. Schoening said it did as reclassifying the streets would place the project in competition for funding with many other projects that were further along in the planning and implementation process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Ortiz remarked that the longer a project was delayed the higher the costs to complete it. Ms. Bettman commented that the narrow street design was intended to minimize the impact of traffic, not minimize traffic. She reiterated that SDC and capital project funds should be available for the project. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to hold a public hearing on February 19, 2008, on the recommended design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street and a public hearing on February 19, 2008, on reducing the minimum sidewalk width design standard from five feet to four feet in the Crest Drive area. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2008 Page 5 Work Session