Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/17/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 17, 2006 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, COUNCILOR ABSENTChris Pryor. : Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the July 17 work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Joint Meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission The council was joined by Planning Commissioners Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, and John Lawless; Commissioner Mitzi Colbath was absent. Mr. Duncan convened the July 17 work session of the Eugene Planning Commission. City Manager Dennis Taylor said this was a long-awaited opportunity for the council and commission to gain some clarity regarding the evolving understanding about opportunity siting, mixed-use centers (MUC), and infill, and to provide some context to the discussions councilors and commissioners had individually. City Manager Taylor introduced Principal Planners Kurt Yeiter and Steve Nystrom, from the Planning and Development Department (PDD). Mr. Yeiter stated this was an opportunity for the Planning Commission and staff to receive direction from the City Council on how to proceed with development of a work program. He said three topics, opportunity siting, infill standards for compatibility, and population allocations, had been outlined in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). He said commissioners Belcher, Duncan, and Lawless had been designated by the Planning Commission to facilitate the discussion. Mr. Duncan thanked the City Council for the opportunity to meet. He said the Planning Commission had discovered the face-to-face meetings helped the commission to understand what the council expected of it. He thanked the council for the additional funding and staffing allocated in the fiscal year 2007 budget that would help the commission accomplish some of the important programs, issues, and work plans it was undertaking. Opportunity Siting Mr. Lawless also thanked the City Council for the opportunity to meet. He expressed his hope that the work session would be an open conversation and exchange of ideas. He said the items were not intended to be a full work plan, but rather an outline of ways for the commission to move forward with staff and constituents to ensure everyone was on the same page. At the same time, it was important to move forward with identifying, preparing, and working with potential options for opportunity sites to reach MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Eugene’s projected density goals. He added that the commission received good input from citizens who clarified issues and raised new points of discussion about what opportunity siting could be and what it would do. Mr. Lawless said the process would an iterative one that would need to move forward a little bit at a time. He noted that Ms. Bettman previously suggested that one or two specific sites be identified for a pilot project. Mr. Lawless asked if the concept of targeting City-owned or City-controlled property for one of the first test cases would uncover opportunities from the private sector or neighborhoods. City-owned or City- controlled sites could have more limitations, thus making them more difficult to work with. Ms. Taylor arrived at 11:42 a.m. Mr. Kelly said opportunity siting, in combination with infill standards, could support the idea that growing more densely was desirable. Density needed to be selective, as one size did not fit all parcels, every R-2 zone, or every neighborhood. Mr. Kelly said his biggest concern about opportunity siting was the timidity of starting with one or two test sites. He would like to see the Planning Commission develop specific criteria with specific input from neighborhoods and the development community and move ahead on a broad number of sites. He asserted the City Council should not be involved in picking the sites, and the sites should not be restricted to City- owned or City-controlled sites. Ms. Bettman said the context of where opportunity siting originated had gotten lost in the year since the first council motion related to the topic passed. Nodal development originated with the Land Use Measures Task Force formed for the TransPlan update as part of the regional transportation plan to accommodate growth using land use measures and it had reached a dead end. It destroyed neighborhoods and degraded property values. Ms. Bettman asserted that opportunity siting needed a phased implementation and the first phase should be a demonstration site. Phase 2 should review identified MUCs and Phase 3 should look for broader applications. The concept of opportunity siting was getting broadened when it was strictly about housing density, not mixed-use density. Mr. Poling concurred with most of Mr. Kelly’s comments about the integrity of the neighborhood and the density. However, he preferred a limited number of sites as proposed by Ms. Bettman. He was not certain if the site selection should be approved by the City Council. In response to a question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Poling responded the City Council would not need to be more involved at the selection level if it was involved in identifying the approval criteria. Mr. Belcher saw the challenge as bringing together City staff, the neighborhoods and a developer willing to collaborate. He averred that the more restrictions were placed upon the physical location of proposed sites, the less likely it would be that the “magic mix” of all three willing partners would occur. Mr. Papé felt Mr. Belcher’s points were good ones, with the most difficult challenge being getting the private development community to see the vision. Making the numbers work would bring private developers into the process, but making numbers work in this community was very hard. He cited two th previous examples, the 29 and Willamette node and Garden Way node, where the council clamped down so strictly on standards that it led to the loss of potential diversity of development. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Papé supported the idea of a pilot project because it brought focus and initiated the process. Unfortunately, he said, the City did not have the resources to jump in like it should to assemble sites unless it was funded by the Budget Committee next year or existing resources were redirected. Ms. Taylor said the process should start slowly. She liked the pilot project concept and felt the council should be involved. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Kelly for his comments in clarifying the written material. She liked the idea of a test site because unless the City facilitated development, the private sector would not step up. She concurred with Ms. Bettman’s comment that nodal development never actually happened in the Royal Avenue node. Ms. Solomon thanked Mr. Papé for his questions because they echoed her thoughts. She maintained that it was important to identify incentives for private development to encourage participation before going forward. Mr. Lawless agreed that incentives were an important part of the equation. If the market was going to drive development projects, the City needed to provide an environment for the development community to be successful. He asserted that if the council wanted a pilot project, it needed to assist the development community in making the first couple of projects happen. In response to Ms. Bettman’s preference, Mr. Hledik said it was important to establish a dialogue among the neighborhoods, the developers, and the City to identify what the incentives might be and what the stumbling blocks currently were. For that reason, the commission suggested starting with A. Start with public outreach to explain programs and identify possible opportunity sites before B. Develop strategy to determine how to proceed and where to proceed. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Lawless if he had seen any models for how this was done in other places. Mr. Lawless replied the Portland Development Commission had been used as a resource in identifying, funding, and shepherding desired projects that were ultimately done by private development. He noted that the City of Eugene did not have the resources or the mechanisms in place to support what got those things off the starting block quickly. Mayor Piercy stated that the City has to develop a model for the capacity it has. Mr. Lawless said it was important to have mechanisms and protocols in place to evaluate potential sites to ensure that they fit in the neighborhood. He echoed Ms. Solomon’s assertion that it was in the community’s health interest and economic interest to bring some incentives to the table. He added that criteria needed to protect neighborhoods, but should not be so restrictive as to discourage good development. Ms. Bettman expressed difficulty with doing broad public outreach before the strategy was defined. It was important to have a framework to which people can respond. The strategy and the definition needed to be developed before soliciting ideas for sites. She asserted that upzoning to R-2 had resulted in very high densities in some neighborhoods, adding that downzoning could be an incentive in some situations. Ms. Bettman said the problem she had with the demonstration project being developer-oriented was lack of control on the part of the City over the balance between incentives and the standards. Mr. Duncan asked for a straw vote to determine if the City Council favored doing a pilot project first. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly replied that, at the very least, a vote should be taken by a show of hands. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the strategy development portion of the AIS which is now B but hopefully after the next amendment will be A, to add development of the purpose, definition and strategy for opportunity siting shall include the following components: ? It was a primary strategy for achieving residential density in MUCs. ? It focused density on targeted parcels of vacant or redevelopable property. ? It required a process that includes formal participation by neighborhood residents/resident businesses and neighborhood associations in site identification and selection, and the development of design standards for neighborhood compatibility. (Did not require evaluation of all potential sites.) ? It articulated design standards for infill. ? It provided for residential density upzoning as an incentive for compliance with design standards. The strategy also could provide other incentives to achieve outcomes of density and compatibility. ? It protected established residential areas by maintaining R-1 zones or downzoning for consistency with current built single-family use. ? It provided other protections where appropriate such as exclusions from the MUC boundaries as was done in the Walnut MUC, and limiting conversion of residential to non-residential uses. In response to Mr. Kelly’s question about the meaning of “primary,” Ms. Bettman said rather than blanket upzoning of residential densities in entire neighborhoods, those densities would primarily be achieved on opportunity sites. Mr. Kelly maintained that participation by neighborhood residents, businesses, and neighborhood associations in development of design standards did not mean approval. He noted some cities conducted formal predevelopment conferences with neighborhood associations before projects could move forward. Responding to Mr. Kelly’s question if there was any reason why the reference to design standards could not be “and/or design review,” Ms. Bettman said her intention was to avoid up a situation where there could be an alternate site review in which the City might approve a project without neighborhood involvement. Mr. Kelly asserted his intent was to give the Planning Commission and staff the ability to think of design review as one of the tools in the tool kit. Mr. Kelly expressed his discomfort with using downzoning to achieve desired densities, but did not want to exclude it. He noted the City’s second Ballot Measure 37 claim was a direct response to the downzoning that took place in the Chambers mixed-use area. Ms. Bettman maintained the City had the ability to change the zoning in residential neighborhoods for very high densities without protection for the rest of the neighborhood. She said in order for the City to grow, it needed to create a compensation fund to address Ballot Measure 37 claims or it would need to waive restrictions. Mr. Hledik asserted that design review or the design standards could ameliorate some of the Ballot Measure 37 concerns as long as they were done satisfactorily. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Solomon preferred public outreach first followed by strategy development. She felt the public could help clarify some of the issues related to opportunity siting. She strongly opposed to amending the strategy development on the fly, asserting it was bad government to do so. She suggested having a work session to address the issues raised. She said she would not support the proposed amendment. Mr. Papé concurred with Ms. Solomon and expressed concern about discarding design review and the design standards previously discussed by the council. In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Bettman said her amendment did not necessarily mean that a good opportunity site could not be considered outside of a MUC. Mr. Belcher asked if Ms. Bettman’s proposed amendment language, “It articulates design standards for infill” meant that progress on opportunity siting could not be achieved until infill standards were developed. Ms. Bettman stated a phased implementation could occur. Development of design standards at a demonstration site could be part of the project, while infill standards development could occur concurrently. She added she did not intend to lock identification of an opportunity site and development of infill standards for other locations. Mr. Belcher asked if the proposed amendment language “by maintaining R-1 zones” would restrict opportunity siting from R-1 zones. Ms. Bettman speculated there could be some very underdeveloped R-1 th zones, citing an area of Amazon Park and 29 and Willamette and noting the cost of redevelopment could be very high. She asked if Mr. Belcher was referring to vacant R-1 land. Mr. Belcher responded he was wondering about vacant R-1 land. In response to an inquiry from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Belcher said he had not received an answer to his question. Mayor Piercy indicated she was too uncomfortable with the unknown. She was concerned about restrictions that did not allow the City the freedom to move forward. She added she would be more comfortable with a straw vote that would give an indication of specific opposition. Mr. Kelly asserted this discussion had been taking place in one form or another for somewhere between twelve years and two years, depending on the definition. At some point, as the decision makers, the City Council needed to make some decisions. He feared the motion would die because of opposition from both sides of the aisle, which he thought would be unfortunate. He thought Mr. Belcher brought up a critical question that had not previously been raised. Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Bettman if, given the confusion around the last bullet, she would be comfortable with revising the last bullet in her motion to read “It protects established residential areas,” leaving identification of specific conditions for staff and the Planning Commission to resolve and bring back to the City Council. Ms. Bettman replied she would not accept that as a friendly amendment as it would remove protections from existing neighborhoods. She would be willing to revise the language that would not exclude the possibility that R-1 sites existed. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to amend the last bullet to read It protects established residential areas. The motion passed, 5:2, with Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor opposed. Ms. Bettman stated she would not support the motion to amend because it was now meaningless and MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 5 Work Session reinforced all of the ways in which density would be increased and neighborhoods destroyed without addressing how the neighborhoods would be protected The amended motion failed, 4:3, with Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Poling voting yes. In response to Mayor Piercy, Mr. Yeiter expressed optimism that that the Planning Commission could move forward to develop one or two test case sites. He added the discussion on the original motion reflected the Planning Commission’s conversations for years. City Manager Taylor added there was consensus to move forward with the public engagement process and return to the City Council with the strategy. While the process was oriented towards MUCs, it did not preclude other sites from being involved in opportunity siting. City Manager Taylor maintained that while there was opportunity in City-owned and City-controlled property, there was still an opportunity to seek other parcels that could be designated opportunity sites within an MUC or where there may be adjacent opportunities. Infill Standards for Compatibility Mr. Belcher stated the Planning Commission had developed a goal to develop a tool kit to do appropriate infill, determine what the problems were, and provide the basis for developing a work program that would allow the infill standards to be adapted to the neighborhood character with the involvement of the neighbors, City staff, and developers. Referring to Mr. Papé’s comment regarding the alternate path being a separate work program, Mr. Kelly said it was time to get back to the visual preference surveys. He added the coordinated work program was essential to look at close-in neighborhoods and at least part of River Road/Santa Clara, where immediate pressures existed. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that as the new standards would apply to privately owned properties, the question was whether the infill standards actually would diminish the market value. This would be an issue the Planning Commission would need to consider as it developed those standards. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the proposed language to include a scoping process to define the problems and impact of current infill, and to prioritize ensuing strategies in order of the easiest fixes that had the biggest impact to the more complex and expensive. Responding to Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman said this specifically called out doing the scoping in one of the neighborhoods, such as River Road/Santa Clara or Jefferson/Westside, to determine what could be done to mitigate undesirable infill. She clarified that her intent was for the amendment to apply to the entire process, not simply the neighborhoods cited as examples. Mr. Papé asked how this would apply in an actual application. Mr. Yeiter responded that the priorities would come back to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Belcher said it was ambiguous as to whether the “fixes” referred to areas or processes or both, adding that he would have a problem if it meant both. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 6 Work Session The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Population Allocations Mr. Belcher said this was the area where the Planning Commission held the least cohesive position. Some felt it was time to implement the City’s growth management policies while others felt this was a futile exercise. The lack of cohesion resulted in two suggested strategies: 1) Determine where we are now; and 2) Start looking at what the impacts or damages or improvements that opportunity siting and infill gives, and then come back and discuss what’s been learned. Mr. Duncan asked if the housing goal should be more large single-family homes, or more a European style with higher apartment buildings and more density. Ms. Bettman asserted that looking at population expansion was not necessary. She said population allocations were a mistake and housing units should be the focus. This assertion was supported by a study done by the Housing Policy Board that was a strategy for increasing density. She proposed postponing action on population allocations. Mr. Kelly disagreed. Although he agreed it was right to step back from the neighborhood-by- neighborhood target at this time, it was not feasible to intelligently ask a neighborhood how it could absorb more people if the City did not know what resources were available. He stated that the Region 2050 study that was out for public review included projection population data from Portland State University. If the estimates were not accurate, the worst result would be that the City was ahead of the game. Mr. Belcher proposed getting a base to start with. This would be an iterative process in which estimates could be adjusted over time. He opined the first iteration could be available in 12 to 18 months. Mr. Kelly maintained the issue was not counting either housing units or population, but counting both, and evaluating changing demographics as they would impact the mix of housing types. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the Planning Commission’s strategy for opportunity siting, infill standards, and population allocations, as outlined in the AIS and as amended through the discussion. In response to Mr. Papé, Mr. Yeiter explained that what was missing from the GIS process was housing projections that were required by the State to complete a buildable lands inventory. It would be easy to find out through the GIS system what vacant land was available or what developed sites were eligible for redevelopment. Mayor Piercy felt there was a difference between the population expected and the demographics desired for the community. She asserted that if the City continued down the current path, families would continue to move outside of the area. It was important to make decisions based on providing housing families could afford. Ms. Bettman said she would vote against the motion because direct protection for neighborhoods had been removed from the motion. Ms. Taylor said she would vote against the motion for the same reason as Ms. Bettman, and she was totally opposed to population allocations. The motion passed, 5:2, with Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Piercy expressed the City Council’s appreciation for the amount of effort and time the Planning Commission gave on behalf of the community. Mr. Duncan thanked the City Council for its direction. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission at 1 p.m. Mayor Piercy adjourned the City Council at 1 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 8 Work Session