Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 10/20/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall October 20, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson, Bonny Bettman. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He recognized Mr. Meisner. Mr. Meisner announced the death of Tom Wiper of the Eugene Library Foundation, who was instrumental in the construction of the new library. Mr. Wiper's funeral would be held on October 26 at 2 p.m. at the First Methodist Church, and with the council's concurrence, Mr. Meisner indicated he would work with Council Coordinator Lynda Rose to draft a letter of condolence to Mr. Wiper's family on the council's behalf. A. WORK SESSION: Annual Joint Meeting with Eugene Planning Commission The council was joined by Planning Commissioners Anne Marie Levis, Adell McMillan, John Lawless, Charles Rusch, Jon Belcher, and Mitzi Colbath. Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle and Planning Director Susan Muir were also present for the item. In the absence of City Manager Dennis Taylor, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson introduced the item, noting the council would consider the commission's work plan, including the work plan of the Historic Review Board, for adoption later in the meeting. Mayor Torrey presented Ms. McMillan with a plaque recognizing her 12 years of service on the Eugene Planning Commission. He expressed appreciation for her wisdom and common sense in regard to planning and City government. Mayor Torrey said she would be missed by the City. Ms. Muir noted the relationship of the commission's work plan to the Planning Division's work program priorities, adopted by the council in April 2004. Ms. Levis conducted the council through a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the past year's accomplish- ments and detailing the emphasis to be placed on the tops of mixed-use neighborhood planning and development of the "alternate path" approach to development applications. Ms. Levis invited comment at this point in the discussion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly thanked the commissioners for their service to the City. He referred to the topic of building relationships, expressing some confusion because at the last joint meeting, the commission had presented several process ideas, which the council had accepted. However, none were cited in the packet and nothing seemed to have occurred. For example, regarding how the commission conveys its opinions to the council, the commission had discussed sending memorandums directly to the council on controversial topics and that had occurred only once. Mr. Kelly said he would like to see memoranda from the commission reflecting the issues discussed by the commission when reaching its recommendations, the pros and cons identified in discussion, and the final votes. Mr. Kelly recalled that the commission had also discussed sending commissioners to various council meetings and he was unsure that occurred. Ms. McMillan indicated that it had. Mr. Kelly said the commission also recommended establishing councilor/commissioner %uddies" but he had no contacts. Ms. Levis said that occurred at differing levels. Mayor Torrey expressed concern about the growing incidence of NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) issues in the community, saying there were citywide implications to all issues but frequently, a small segment of the community that would be negatively impacted by an action or decision, drove an outcome that affected the entire community, which might have been positively impacted otherwise. He asked how that could be avoided, given that large segments of the community frequently did not see the value of contributing input. Mayor Torrey observed that the commission did not seem to have the same political pressure placed on it that the council received. He said the council needed a group such as the commission to weigh those community ramifications without pressure. Ms. Taylor believed all residents were impacted by political considerations, overt or not. She noted the termination of the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC), some of whose tasks the commission had assumed, and asked commissioners to comment on whether they believed a separate CIC was needed. Mr. Lawless believed that in regard to large-scale issues, the commission felt an intermediate dialogue about the issues and political ramifications of recommendations was lacking. He said he would like to see occasional work sessions between the commission and council regarding the reasoning behind its recommen- dations. In regard to the subject of the CIC, Mr. Belcher noted that the commission only addressed the land use component of what the CIC had done. The commission had considered one or two projects to this point, and he thought it was too early to tell if the committee would be missed. Ms. Levis agreed. She said the commission understood the reasons for the committee's demise but in a way she found it sad given how critical citizen input was. Ms. Taylor hoped the CIC would be revived. Ms. Taylor said she wanted to know the reasons for the commission's decision, what the vote was, and why commissioners voted yes or no. Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the %uddy" approach employed by the commission. He suggested there were political, technical, and budgetary differences between the work of the council and commission. He said the council was always provided with some information about the budgetary consequences of its policy decisions, and he suggested the commission should be provided with similar information. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Speaking to the issue of political pressure, Mr. Meisner pointed out that residents often know they will have an opportunity to testify before the council on an issue and may bypass the commission process. He believed the testimony the commission received still gave it sense of what the council could expect. Mr. Meisner recalled that two councilors had been assigned to work with the commission on the Growth Management Study, which had worked well and helped to bridge communication gaps. He suggested a similar approach be considered in the future for some projects. Mr. Pap6 said he would have liked to have had dialogue with the commission regarding its Crest Drive area street classifications recommendations. He thought it would be useful for the council and commission to meet more often, such as twice annually. He apologized that the commission had not been involved in the reprioritization of the Planning Division's work program. He hoped the commission shared those priorities. Mr. Kelly liked the idea of a twice-a-year check-in and reiterated that a memorandum from the commission on its recommendations would be useful. He also liked the idea of more dialogue between the council and commission. Ms. McMillan thought the commission could play a role in providing a more global review of issues, and she assured the mayor that the commission took that element of its job seriously. She said commissioners did not think of themselves as being part of any particular neighborhood or area of the city, but considered themselves representatives of the entire community and looked at the city as a whole. Mayor Torrey urged the commission to make sure its message was loud and clear to the public so the more global messages were not obscured. Mr. Belcher reviewed the commission's progress on mixed-use neighborhood planning. He invited comments at this point in the presentation. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the new energy and ideas, but expressed frustration it was taking so long for the City to implement mixed-use development. There was no actual example of mixed-use development or redevelopment for the council to point to demonstrate the results of the approach. Mr. Kelly spoke to the issue of NIMBY, saying it was essential to get neighborhood buy-in for development, but the community had to accommodate growth. He suggested that the City establish growth targets for each neighborhood based on existing population. The City could work collaboratively with the neighbor- hood on how to accommodate that growth. Mr. Kelly said that articulating the goals of mixed-use development was important. He suggested one goal related to transportation, and noted the City was subject to State mandates related to transportation with which it was not in compliance. He suggested that the commission consider that issue, and what to do if the City was unable to meet the mandates. Mr. Kelly asked what happened to the money allocated for the site-specific node planning and code changes. Ms. Muir said it had been used in tandem with the State Transportation Growth Management (TGM) funds for the mixed-use development planning project. Mr. Kelly requested a rough accounting of those funds. Ms. Taylor liked the mixed-use concept and the idea of more neighborhood consultation. She pointed out the City had a goal of protecting established neighborhoods. She expressed concern about the three types of mixed-use areas being contemplated by the commission, as the council had previously decided against MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 2004 Page 3 Work Session having three types and against commercial nodes. She said that Valley River Center was not a node. Mr. Belcher said the designations were not exclusive but were a focus for the commission. For example, the commission had discussed the potential that some of the parking at Valley River Center could be redevel- oped as residential, and in that case the area could be a mixed-use node with a commercial focus. The commission was talking about the emphasis of the nodes, not exclusive uses. Mr. Lawless added it was the commission's intent to avoid taking a cookie cutter approach to the different neighborhoods. The commission was looking for ways to balance the desired goals for the mixed-use areas. He said that preserving some neighborhoods from growth because of their unique character meant it would be impossible to spread growth out evenly across the community. Some neighborhoods would be more affected. That was a difficult issue to deal with. Mr. Lawless said the commission was looking at new areas for mixed-use that it had not considered before. Mr. Pap6 shared Mr. Kelly's frustration about the allocation of funds, saying he thought the money allocated by the council would cover the costs of the mixed-use planning process and the backlog of remands to the Land Use Code. Mr. Coyle said the money was programmed for a two-year period commencing in June 2004. He anticipated staff would request carryover of those funds in the next fiscal year. Ms. Muir reported that the council funding was being supplanted by some grant funding. With regard to the Land Use Code amendments, she said staff had commenced work on the minor amendments with the commission, and she anticipated work on the larger code revisions would start in January 2005. She believed that the work involved could be done within six months. Mr. Pap~ joined in Mr. Kelly's request for an accounting of the funds allocated to the division by the council, adding if the money was to be carried over, that was a budgetary decision to be made by the council. Mayor Torrey was happy to see the term "nodal development" had been abandoned because it was confusing and difficult to explain to residents. Mayor Torrey suggested the City missed an opportunity with regard to the Chase Gardens nodal develop- ment. He believed the council had wanted too much and had been willing to lose everything if it did not get what it wanted. He suggested the commission could institute a checkpoint during which an independent auditor aware of financial and land use issues was consulted about the implications of the City's require- ments. He believed the community was the loser because the City had been unwilling to give in on some minor issues that would have benefited residents of the Chase Gardens area. Mr. Kelly disagreed that the council had not compromised in regard to the Chase Gardens development. Councilors had given up on several design features that both the commission and council thought important to mixed-use development. When final adoption occurred, all that was left was two-story development on the main commercial street and doors onto the street. Mr. Kelly said those elements spoke to the commu- nity's goals. Development of the land to the minimum density requirements for commercial and residential would not have resulted in a good use of the land. Mr. Kelly believed the council was aware there was a chance that the requirements could postpone development on the property. Mr. Kelly recalled that the council had directed staff to solicit ideas for additional code changes from the public and asked the status of that effort. Mr. Coyle indicated that those ideas would be sought through the public process associated with code changes related to policy issues, and the council would consider them in that context. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor suggested that if the mixed-use areas had no standards there was no purpose to them. Mr. Pap6 noted the council had not been unanimous about the standards to be applied to the Chase node, and expressed hope that the commission's examination included consideration of a set of underlying principles related to density and transportation rather than requirements. He believed the previous approach lacked the needed "give and take" between the City and developer. Mr. Lawless reviewed the commission's approach to the development of the alternative path. Mr. Lawless invited comments and questions. Mr. Meisner said Eugene had the habit of assuming it was so different and unique it had to invent a new solution. He said "this is not new stuff," and expressed hope that the commission was employing as much outside information as possible, particularly in light of diminishing Planning Division resources. He hoped the City was looking at what other communities had done. Ms. Muir assured him that was occurring. Mr. Meisner questioned how the commission could accomplish the work plan without more resources. He reiterated his request that the commission take advantage of the experience of others. Mr. Kelly shared in Mr. Meisner's remarks and suggested that staff examine what was done in Canada. Mr. Kelly thought the alternate path was an exciting way for the community to realize its goals while allowing developers to do creative things that matched those goals, even if it did not meet the "letter of the law." He encouraged the commission to think as broadly as it could. He recommended the commission review the work done by the "Gang of Four," the four community groups which had been charged by the mayor to review the Land Use Code Update prior to its adoption. Mr. Kelly envisioned two different paths through the code, one the proscriptive approach and one a more performance zoning based approach that allowed a developer to avoid the proscriptive approach. Mr. Pap6 concurred with Mr. Kelly's remarks. Mr. Kelly said Chambers node as a pilot was fine, but he wanted the commission to think in a broader context and could develop a work plan to complete the alternate path in the year. Mr. Kelly recalled that the Gang of Four had been hung up by who the approval body for the alternate path would be. He thought that the ultimate resolution to that question would be a key to the community's acceptance the alternate path, and he encouraged the commission to look at what other communities did. Mr. Pap6 noted the point system used by the City of Denver in its alternate path approach. Mr. Kelly said the City of Austin used a similar approach. Mayor Torrey asked the departing commissioners to comment on how the City could use the commission's time better. Mr. Rusch thanked the council for the opportunity to serve on the commission. He had learned a great deal and hoped to continue to contribute. He thanked the commission for its high-level discussions and conviviality. Mr. Rusch said he found the lack of long-range planning to be frustrating. He had expected to do more such planning. He would have been happy if the commission could have worked to address the issues of full MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 2004 Page 5 Work Session employment in a "steady state" economy. No one knew how to do that. Instead, people were committed to growth as an economic driver, and he did not think that was sustainable. He believed that a group needed to investigate that topic. He was frustrated by the mayor's comments that the commission should engage topical issues as they arise as he had wanted to do that repeatedly. Issues would flare up but they never came before the commission, or he would attempt to raise them but was warned off because of the potential the commission could act as an appeals body at some point in time. Mr. Rusch suggested the commission's quasi judicial role be split off as a responsibility because it restricted the commission's ability to discuss topical issues. He indicated he was leaving the commission for personal health issues and had thoroughly enjoyed his time on the commission. Ms. McMillan said she was not as frustrated as Mr. Rusch because she had a different understanding of the commission's role. She liked the quasi judicial role of the commission. In regard to the Mayor's question, she said she was excited about the alternate path and thought the commission and council had the obligation to address the issue because of the promises made in the LUCU. She thought the commission's approach was the right one. She also concurred with Mr. Meisner that there were many examples to look at, and cautioned that the City would have to keep cost in mind as some approaches were very expensive. Ms. McMillan thanked the council for the opportunity to serve an additional term and said she would miss the commission. She also thanked the commission. Ms. Taylor thanked Ms. McMillan and Mr. Rusch and suggested the commission consider having the departing commissioners return in an advisory capacity from time to time to take advantage of their experience and points of view. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Rusch that growth was not sustainable. She said both Mr. Rusch and Ms. McMillan would be missed. Mr. Kelly concurred with the comments of Ms. Taylor in regard to the service of Mr. Rusch and Ms. McMillan, and said he liked Ms. Taylor's suggestion that the commission call on retired commissioners for advice. Mr. Lawless said the commission hoped to foster more collaboration when controversial issues such as the East Campus planning process arose. He thought it would put the community miles ahead in reaching positive outcomes. Mr. Lawless believed the commission needed to examine its bylaws and procedures for possible changes. He said the commission was constantly challenged by the internal conflicts created by various planning documents, and advocated for integrating the longer term planning occurring through the Region 2050 process into the Land Use Code Update and commission processes. He also advocated for aggressive and mandated updates to neighborhood refinement plans. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Planning Commission work program contained in the attached FY04 Annual Report, including the Historic Review Board FY05 Work Program. Mr. Kelly said the collaborative model was fabulous, as demonstrated by the East Campus planning model. He encouraged the commission to consider how that type of process could occur more routinely. He said that collaboration only works if all parties were asked to collaborate. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly suggested the Growth Management Study was a fundamental document for the commission to consider as it worked on the alternate path. Mr. Kelly said the work plan did not provide him with a way of judging whether the plan had been fulfilled in the future, and he did not know what it meant to adopt the motion. He preferred to have staff rework the Planning Division's work plan and turn it into a Planning Commission work plan. At this point, he was considering offering the body a substitute motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 regarding possible code amendments related to the siting of medical facilities, Ms. Muir indicated that was to be addressed in the Land Use Code amendments process. Referring to the identified emerging issues, Mr. Pap6 said that he preferred not to put the River Road/Santa Clara transition project on the top of the priority list without more discussion with the neighborhoods groups about other plans that also needed to be updated. Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Kelly's interest in measurable outcomes. Mr. Meisner suggested the possibility that the Coburg Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor might not be the next BRT route given the complications facing that route, and the commission might need to be prepared to have some flexibility in that area. Mr. Meisner asked if the work plan could be accomplished with existing staff. Ms. Muir said the staff resources were forecast where possible; in some instances, it was very difficult to forecast resources without getting into more detailed work program planning. Mr. Meisner hoped the commission and staff would be willing to request additional resources if needed. Ms. Taylor wanted to know what happened to the Land Use Code remand items formerly on the top of the priority list. Ms. Muir indicated the Land Use Code Update remand items came up in April 2004 when the council discussed the Planning Division work program, and the work item was not identified as a high priority at that time. The work task in question was now item 43 on the priority list. Ms. Taylor said if the commission found the council-approved work plan was not working, it should return to the council and let it know. With regard to Mr. Pap6's comments regarding the code amendments associated with medical facilities siting, Mayor Torrey said that depending on where the hospitals located, doctors and clinics would be seeking to relocate as well, and he wanted to know how soon those people would have predictability from the City. Mayor Torrey noted the presence of residents from the River Road area at the meeting, and asked why the council would want to move forward and work on issues in that area before it found out whether there was any willingness on the part of County River Road residents to cooperate. He had never heard the council give any direction to City staff to attempt to annex River Road residents not already in the municipal boundaries, and he got frustrated when he got e-mails from residents insinuating the council had done so. He asked that those writing such e-mails stop doing so until they had information to the contrary. Assistant City Manager Carlson said the City staff had never been given any direction to pursue annexation in the area in question. Staff had the results of the work done by the River Road/Santa Clara Urban MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Services Committees, and it was working to implement those recommendations. The final report discussed a transition plan, and many translated that as an annexation plan; however, that was not the intent. Assistant City Manager Carlson pointed out that a transition to City services did not necessarily entail annexation as the transition of services happened all the time in many different ways. Annexation may be the ultimate transition but the City was not actively pursuing it. Mr. Lawless left the meeting. Mr. Kelly did not think that things had changed so fundamentally that staff could not forecast the needed staff resources. He acknowledged the work program was aspirational but he continued to be concerned about the lack of outcomes in the program. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the Historic Review Board Fiscal Year 2005 work program, and to direct staff to return with a Planning Commission work program organized similarly to last year's work program. Mr. Meisner said he would have been able to support the motion if it supported the two work plans and directed staff to return with a time line. Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion. Ms. Taylor withdrew her second. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion with the addition of a sen- tence that read ~to direct staff to provide to the council, in a timely fashion, a timeline that differentiated between Planning Commission activities and Planning Division activities." Assistant City Manager Carlson clarified with Mr. Kelly that he was proposing that staff provide the council with a time line at a later date, not that the work plan come back for adoption. The amended motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the work plan by making work task item 43 a high priority. The motion died for lack of a second. The motion as amended passed unanimously, 6:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 2004 Page 8 Work Session