Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/10/1986 Meeting e e it M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber February 10, 1986 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Richard Hansen, Debra Ehrman, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Cynthia Wooten, Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan (8:50 p.m.-9:55 p.m.), Jeff Miller. The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. KICKOFF OF PROJECT CITY PRIDE--COUNCILOR BASCOM Councilor Bascom announced that Project City Pride will be initiated Tuesday, February 11, 1986, when six Oregon Maple trees will be planted on Franklin Boulevard. She presented a leaflet titled "Project City Pride" to the counci- lors. The leaflet describes the project, which is a community beautification campaign. The leaflet will be distributed to garden clubs and other organiza- tions in the City. II. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Obie introduced the public forum. He said it is an opportunity for citizens to bring subjects which are not scheduled for council consideration to the attention of the councilors. He said the councilors will respond later to the subjects presented. Joyce Owen, 2830 Emerald, represented the American Lung Association of Oregon. She asked the council to adopt an ordinance which will ban the distribution of free samples of tobacco products on streets, sidewalks, and parks in Eugene. Ms. Owen said tobacco is a deadly, addictive drug and the distribution of free samples is aimed at young people. She said the National Institute of Drug Abuse considers nicotine to be more addictive than heroin. She said tobacco causes many diseases. Smoking causes heart, vascular, and lung diseases, and smokeless tobacco causes cancers of the throat, esophagus, and bladder. She said children who chew tobacco are more likely to smoke cigarettes when they are older than children who do not chew. The use of smokeless tobacco is the fastest growing form of drug abuse among children. Ms. Owen said she has seen cigarette samples given to children who are obvi- ously under 18 years old, and smokeless tobacco is given openly to children as young as eight or nine. She said it is illegal to sell tobacco products to children, but it is legal to give samples of tobacco products to children on street corners. She asked the council to stop the distribution of tobacco samples on public thoroughfares. She submitted her testimony in writing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1986 Page 1 e Councilor Schue noted she will bring this item up at Wednesday's meeting under IIItems from the Mayor and Council." III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Fee Adjustment for Building Permits (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. Bill Guenz1er of the Public Works Department presented the staff report. He said a report titled IIProposa1 for Building Permit Fees and Plan Checking Fees" was discussed with the Building Code Board of Appeals and the Joint Committee for Economic Diver- sification and at a public meeting in the council chamber in December. He said the report includes information about building permit and plan examination fees. It was mailed to about 500 individuals and organizations in the City. It was sent to everyone who has received a building permit in the last year and a half. Mr. Guenzler said it costs the City about $1 million a year to operate the Building Division. He said about 30 percent of the cost of the Building Division is usually recovered in fees. Discussions about increasing fees were begun with Springfield and Lane County representatives in October 1985. e Using visuals, Mr. Guenz1er discussed fees charged by other cities. He said many Oregon cities increased fees in 1981 and 1982, but Eugene has kept its fees as low as possible. He said the staff recommended that fees for struc- tural permits be increased 50 percent, fees for plumbing permits be increased 50 percent, fees for electrical permits be increased 50 percent, the process- ing charge for mechanical permits be increased $15, and the fee for special investigations be increased to $30 an hour. He said the changes will result in an increase of 40 percent in the fees for one- and two-family permits. He said building activity increased 60 percent from 1984 to 1985 and the recom- mended increases would provide an additional $163,000 annually if the current activity continues. e Councilor Holmer said Lane County and Portland attempt to recover about 80 percent of the costs of operating their Building Divisions. He wondered why Eugene does not recover that much. Mr. Guenzler said the Eugene costs include expenses for zoning enforcement, sign code enforcement, and nuisance abatement which are not included in the Lane County and Portland costs. Also, the cost of local permits cannot exceed the cost of State permits unless documentation concerning excessive costs is presented at a public hearing. Public Works Director Christine Andersen reviewed the comments received at the public meeting about the increases. The comments concerned the effective date of the increases, fee increases in Springfield and Lane County, the relation- ship of the proposed City fees to State fees, and the need to reduce the systems development charge if permit fees are increased. Ms. Andersen said the staff recommended the fee increases become effective April 1, 1986, and the new fees will be similar to those charged by Springfield and Lane County. Discussing State fees, she said the Eugene plumbing permit fee is the only one that is considerably lower than the State fee and the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1986 Page 2 e e e City.s costs for issuing plumbing permits are considerably lower than State costs for issuing plumbing permits. She said systems development charges are different from building permit fees because systems development charges pay for the City's share of infrastructure improvements needed by new development. She suggested the systems development charges be reviewed later. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. John Bennett, 1686 Pearl, is Executive Officer of the Home Builders Associa- tion. He said developers realize the City has not raised fees for some time and has improved the permit and inspection program. He said developers appre- ciate the staff recognition that building permits help the whole community and, therefore, the developer and future occupant should not have to pay the entire cost of the permit. He said the Home Builders Association supports good, reasonable building codes and their consistent enforcement. Mr. Bennett said home buyers must pay many costs in addition to the Building Division permits. The up-front costs are usually included in the loan for a home and, consequently, the cost over the life of the loan is more than the original fee. He said the systems development charge is perceived as part of the building permit fees. He said home prices have dropped in the last few years when economic growth in Eugene has been slow. He suggested inspections by City officials be combined to reduce costs because the number of inspections and inspectors seem to have increased more than the code revisions would require. He said there may be more State inspections than necessary. He said Eugene seems to require more engineering data be submitted with plans than other cities in Oregon even though the same State code is used. Mr. Bennett recommended a fee increase be limited to 30 percent so that it does not seem so dramatic. He said the systems development charge was established to pay the costs of rapid expansion. Because the City has not grown much recently, he recommended the system development charge be reduced as much as the building permits are increased. He recommended the fee increases not be effective until June 30, 1986. Mr. Bennett said the Home Builders Association will cooperate with the City staff in streamlining the operation of the Building division. He said the association supports the creation of the Building Construction Advisory Committee. There being no additional requests to testify, Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. Councilor Miller wondered if the increase in fees would be offset by an increase in the number of people who do not get permits. Ms. Andersen responded that a double fee is charged if a building permit is not obtained before remodeling begins. She said the increased fees are reasonable. The increase for remodeling permits will be less than the increase for permits for new houses. She said that people in the building and remodeling community are responsible and get permits. Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Gleason said City revenues would be about $40,000 less if June 30 is the effective date of the fee increases instead of the April 1. He said many projects start before July 1. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1986 Page 3 e Answering questions from Mr. Hansen, Ms. Andersen said the Eugene systems development charge has paid the City's share of street reconstruction, traffic signals, and other improvements necessitated by development. When the council considers the systems development charge, the staff will compare the Eugene charge and its uses with those in other cities. She expects the staff report to indicate that the existing systems development charge will not be adequate for the improvements needed in the future. Replying to questions from Ms. Ehrman, Building Official Larry Reed estimated that less than 5 percent of the building in Eugene is done without permits. Enforcement action is usually initiated by neighbors or contractors. Ms. Ehrman favored an effective date of May 1 as a compromise. She will support the proposed fee increases because Eugene fees are low when compared to those of other cities and because the City will still not recover all the costs of the permit and inspection program. Mr. Hansen said that he appreciated the cooperative attitude evidenced in Mr. Bennett1s comments. Mr. Hansen said he will abstain from the decision concerning the effective date of the fee increases because of a vested interest. e Mr. Holmer will support the recommended increases, but he is concerned about the percentage of costs recovered with the fees. He said increasing fees is not the only way to increase the percentage of costs recovered. He said July 1 is an orderly date on which to change fees. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to direct the staff to prepare a resolution which will authorize the City Manager to adjust building permit fees and plan examination fees as recom- mended in the presentation. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to amend the motion to include an effective date of May 1, 1986, for the changes. Mr. Gleason said the construction season begins now, and an effective date of May 1 instead of April 1 will mean the City will collect about $40,000 less. Roll call vote; the amendment carried 6:0:1. Councilors Schue, Wooten, Holmer, Bascom, Ehrman, and Miller voted aye and Councilor Hansen abstained. Roll call vote; the motion carried 7:0 with all councilors present voting aye. Mayor Obie said he appreciated Mr. Bennett's testimony. Mr. Gleason added that the Home Builders and the Eugene Area of Chamber of Commerce have been helpful in redesigning the Permit and Information Center. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1986 Page 4 e B. Land Use Code Amendments (CA 85-7) (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Gary Chenkin of the Planning Department gave the staff report. He said one of the proposed code amendments will permit alley access lots to be the same size as lots with street frontage in the multiple-family zones if the alley access lots meet specific criteria. The change was suggested by a local builder to lower the cost of housing. Three other proposed amendments make "housekeeping" changes in the uses permitted in the RA and R-l districts, the density permitted in the GO district, and the annexation-zone change/sign district boundary change procedures. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. There being no request to testify, he closed the public hearing. CB 2873--An ordinance concerning land use; amending Sections 8.823, 9.060,9.384,9.386,9.546, and 9.674 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. e Council Bill 2873 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19376). I V. RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING CREATION OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Bill Guenzler of the Public Works Department gave the staff report. He said the Building Division staff and the Building Department Committee of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce discussed ways for citizens to give advice to the Building Official. About the same time, the Fire and Emergency Services Department found it needed a way to review proposed changes in the fire code with representatives of the construction community. To meet the needs, a Building Construction Advisory Committee has been proposed. It will provide a way for people to advise both the Fire Marshal and the Building Official. Mr. Guenzler suggested the council not take action on the proposal immediately because the Planning Commission asked the staff to review the section of the proposal that deals with land use regulations. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1986 Page 5 e e e Reviewing the proposal, Mr. Guenzler said the Building Construction Advisory Committee would advise the Building Official and Fire Marshal about procedures and practices. The committee's recommendations could be implemented adminis- tratively. If the Building Official and Fire Marshal do not agree with the committee's recommendations, the committee could appeal to the City Manager whose decision would be final. Mr. Guenzler said it will also be helpful if members of the Building Construction Advisory Committee testify before the State Hearings Official when changes in State regulations are considered. Mr. Hansen said the proposal did not make it clear that the committee will provide an opportunity for citizens to discuss problems. He said a mechanism for addressing concerns should be included in the proposal. Answering a question from Mr. Hansen, Mr. Guenzler said many people choose not to file an appeal with the Zoning Code Board of Appeals because it may delay a construction project and because the appeal process is too formal. The Building Construction Advisory Committee would create an informal process. Ms. Schue favored the concept of the proposal, but she said the two citizen positions on the committee should not be reserved for nominations from the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Holmer agreed with Ms. Schue about positions on the committee. He sugges- ted tenants and property owners be represented on the committee. He said the Public Works Department could probably create the committee without an ordi- nance passed by the council. Ms. Wooten appreciated the attempt to make everyone happy, but she did not think it is possible. She said land use regulations are the concern of the Planning Commission. If people wish to comment on land use regulations, they should communicate with the planning department. She asked why the mission of an existing organization was not broadened to include the review of new building and fire code regulations. She suggested an existing organization could also testify before the State Hearings Official. She said recommenda- tions from advisory committees sometimes make it awkward for City administra- tors to decide about implementing the recommendations. She did not think the proposed committee was a good idea. Responding to Ms. Wooten's comments, Mr. Guenzler said the staff decided the composition of the Building Code Board of Appeals should not be changed because it hears appeals that involve technical matters. He said the proposed committee would take 10 to 15 percent of a staff member's time. He said some issues that are presented repeatedly to the Public Works Department should be addressed although some things will always be controversial. Mr. Gleason said some proposed Changes in procedures involve trade-offs and it is appropriate to have them considered by people in the industry. Ms. Ehrman is concerned about the cost of a new committee. She said the staff and existing organizations communicate well with the public now, and the proposal is not clear about how the committee will improve communication. Mayor Obie said he will support a mechanism that will provide access to the City organization to people who are disgruntled. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1986 Page 6 e e e V. ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF AIRPORT ROAD AND HIGHWAY 99 NORTH FROM COUNTY M-2, M-2/SR, AND M-2/SR/ICU-10 TO CITY 1-2 LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND I-2/SR LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH SITE REVIEW PROCEDURES (Airport Road) (A/Z 85-3) (memo, map, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Terry Jones of the Planning Department gave the staff report. She said the council discussed the annexation proposal on January 29 and asked the staff to prepare findings for Option #2 and review the impact of excluding three additional tax lots known as Option #2A. She said Option #2 includes a larger percentage of consenting property owners than the original proposal and eliminates the island of unincorporated properties. It complies with the criteria for the annexation of industrial property in the Metro Plan. She said the service boundary in Option #2 is more logical than the service boundary in Option #2A. Answering questions from Ms. Bascom, Ms. Jones said the proposal included a recommendation that the site review suffix be attached to the zoning district for the properties with frontage on Airport Road. She said the site review suffix will address concerns about traffic on Airport Road, and the Entrance Beautification Study indicates that the suffix is appropriate because Airport Road is an important entrance corridor to the City. The annexation proposal only includes properties north of Airport Road on Highway 99, and that area is not considered an important entrance to the city. The site review suffix will probably be suggested if there is new development on properties south of Airport Road. Res. No. 3955--A resolution authorizing annexation of property located in the vicinity of Airport Road and Highway 99 North to the city of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Hansen moved to amend the motion to exclude Tax Lots 2004, 2005, and 2300. The motion died because it was not seconded. Roll call vote; the motion carried 5:2 with Mr. Hansen, Ms. Bascom, Ms. Schue, Mr. Holmer, and Mr. Miller voting aye and Ms. Wooten and Ms. Ehrman voting nay. Final Order No. AIZ 85-3--A final order rezoning property located in the vicinity of Airport Road and Highway 99 North from County M-2 Light Industrial, M-2/SR Light Industrial with Site Review procedures, and M-2/SR/ICU-10 Light Industrial with Site Review procedures and a Commercial Urbanizing Combining District with a 10-acre parcel size district to City 1-2 Light-Medium Industrial District and I-2/SR Light-Medium Industrial District with Site Review procedures. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1986 ~~7 . e e Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to adopt Final Order No. A/Z 85-3. Ms. Bascom said ways of making Highway 99 more attractive have been discussed during preparation of the Entrance Beautification Study. She said it would be appropriate to suggest that the owners of Tax Lots 1900 and 2001 plant trees along Highway 99. Ms. Jones said the site review suffix could be added to the zoning district of properties in the proposal with frontage on Highway 99. Ms. Bascom moved to add the site review suffix to the zoning district of properties in the proposal with frontage on Highway 99. The motion died because it was not seconded. Mayor Obie supported the amendment, but he could not second it. Ms. Schue said a mechanism is needed to make both developed and undeveloped properties on Highway 99 more attractive. She pointed out that site review procedures are implemented only when a building permit is requested. Mayor Obie directed the staff to propose a mechanism at a future council meeting which can be applied to all the properties on Highway 99 to make them more attractive. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:1 with Councilors Hansen, Ehrman, Schue, Holmer, Bascom, Miller voting aye and Councilor Wooten voting nay. Councilor Rutan arrived just before the vote and did not participate in it. Replying to a question from Mr. Hansen, Planning Director Susan Brody said annexation policies will be discussed at a work session of the council and the Planning Commission on February 26. the meeting at 8:55 p.m. (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) BLR:pm/ST961 MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1986 Page 8