Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/14/1986 Meeting M I NUT E S . Eugene City Council Dinner Work Session The Bon-sai Restaurant July 14, 1986 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Brian Obie, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Richard Hansen, Roger Rutan, Cynthia Wooten, councilors; City Manager Micheal Gleason; City Attorney Tim Sercombe; Public Information Director Barb Bellamy; Susan Brody, Gary Chenkin, Pat Decker, Teresa Bishow, Planning; Dorothy Anderson, Eugene Planning Commission; Gary Darnielle, Cindy Pappas, Lane Council of Governments; Marie Gray, Betty Donaldson, guests. Mayor Obie opened the meeting. Ms. Brody announced that Ms. Anderson was representing the Planning Commission and was available to answer questions. 1. WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN UPDATE Mr. Chenkin showed a map of the Westside Neighborhood, with boundaries at 7th Avenue, Lawrence Street, 13th Avenue, and Chambers Street. He said the area e current ly was largely residential, especially in the interior, with some mixed, commercial, and public facility use. He said the March 1986 plan draft was an update of a 1977 plan, and he said highlights would be reviewed. Mr. Chenkin said a community forum had been held in January 1985 at Lincoln School, and residents had been offered a chance to identify issues and to make comments. A nine-member planning team, composed of property owners, residents, and representatives of businesses and neighborhood social institutions, had been appointed soon after the forum and had met for about one year to study and develop a draft plan. Mr. Chenkin said that plan had been distributed to the neighborhood, and a neighborhood meeting had resulted in a few changes, which were included in Exhibit A, containing amendments recommended by the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission had held a public hearing on May 6, and a City Council hearing was scheduled on July 28 or could be postponed. Mr. Chenkin said the inner-city neighborhood was characterized by traditional residences and shared concerns with other neighborhoods about through traffic and incursion of commercial uses in residential a rea s . He showed maps of existing zoning, with low-density, R-2 and R-3, mixed-use, commercial, neighborhood commercial (convenience markets), and general office districts. Mr. Chenkin reviewed the first page of Exhibit A, noting that Implementation Strategy 1.3 would rezone a portion of the west side of Jefferson Street from e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session July 14, 1986 Page 1 R-3 to R-3/20 A, resulting in a maximum of 20 residential units per acre, instead of 35 units per acre. He added that 35 units per acre was excessive, . according to the Metropolitan Plan, and 20 units per acre would be consistent with that plan. Responding to questions, Mr. Chenkin sa i d the Planning Commission's recommendation of R-3/20 A was less restrictive than the R-2 zoning recommended by the neighborhood, which would have resulted in a maximum of 16 units per acre. He added that the Planning Commission had intended to provide a transition zone between the R-2 and R-3 districts. Mr. Chenkin reviewed Planning Commission recommendations concerning Implementation Strategies 1.4, 1.6, and 1.7 described on Page 2 of Exhibit A. He said Policy 2 of the Land Use Element, to support improving existing housing and reducing the number of substandard units, had been important to the Planning Commission and the neighborhood. He also said the plan contained several Implementation Strategies that had been suggested by the Historic Review Board, and those were noted. Mr. Hansen asked what type of progress had been made in improving residential housing in the area. Mr. Chenkin said progress had been substantial and was documented in the plan appendix of March 1986. Ms. Bishow said most Community Development Block Grant loans made in the area had been for owner-occupied residences. Mr. Hansen said he liked the improvement he had seen. Mr. Chenkin said the Planning Commission had recommended changes to Implementation Strategy 3.1 on page 3-2 to discourage rezonings from residential to commercial and to allow review processes in place to be used. Mr. Chenkin reviewed Policy 4 on page 3-6 of the draft plan, adding that an e amendment to the Metropolitan Plan would require a separate hearing, which could be held the same night as the hearing on the draft plan. He said the amendment process then would be referred to other jurisdictions, and final City Council action on the plan and on the Metro Plan amendment would follow. Mr. Chenkin reviewed Policy 5 on page 3-6, concerning the site of Lincoln Schoo 1 . He said the neighborhood recognized that the site probably would not be used as a school, but residents strongly favored retaining public ownership. If public ownership could not be retained, Mr. Chenkin said the neighborhood favored development that would be compatible with the adjacent area. He said the Planning Commission agreed with the neighborhood recommendation for application of a site review process, but had made some changes to make neighborhood recommendations less stringent. He also said the Planning Commission had strongly recommended retaining public ownership of Lincoln School if possible. Mr. Chenkin reviewed the policies on page 3-8 of the plan, for the Eastern Residential/Mixed Use area, which he said would retain residential areas. He said the policies for the Northern Residential area should provide a transition between commercial uses to the north and residential uses to the south. Policies for the West 7th Avenue Commercial area recognized continuing commercial uses, he said, and policies for the Chambers Street Commercial area recognized existing commercial uses, but discouraged expansion. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session July 14, 1986 Page 2 Mr. Chenkin reviewed changes described on page 4 of Exhibit A. He a 1 so reviewed the recommendations under the Transportation and Traffic Element. . Ms. Ehrman asked about the change on Jefferson Street from R-3 to R-2 or to R- 3/20 A. Ms. Anderson said John Stafford from the Neighborhood group had attended the work sessions. She added that the commission had liked the consistency with the plan in maintaining higher densities near downtown and had not felt that it would result in much change to the neighborhood. Mr. Chenkin reviewed the Public Facilities and Services Element. He noted that policies pertained to the li nco1 n School site, to the now closed Jefferson Pool, and to neighborhood crime. He said the plan findings and appendix contained additional information on crime in the neighborhood and how it compared to the rest of the Ci ty. He also reviewed the Neighborhood Character and Design Element. Mr. Chenkin said Chapter 7, Plan Implementation and Update Process, would be added to the draft plan, and he noted that the section included implementation priorities. Ms. Wooten asked about the Planning Commission's recommended changes to less restrictive language. She also asked whether the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow zoning processes to occur would be wasteful, given the. neighborhood's feelings and the policies to IIdiscourage" rezoning. Ms. Anderson said the commission had agreed with the neighborhood about the need to preserve its integrity, but commissioners had objected to the total ban and had felt that the hearings official could make equally effective decisions according to recommended language. Mr. Chenkin said the commission had agreed e to retain the restrictive language in one instance, which would prohibit any additional mixed-use zoning to the west. Responding to Ms. Ehrman's question, staff said the neighborhood team had discussed opening Lawrence to two-way traffic, but not at great lengths. Mr. Chenkin repeated that the public hearing was scheduled for July 28, or could be postponed, and final action would be taken after any Metro Plan amendments had gone to the other jurisdictions involved. He sa i d further discussions could be scheduled as well. Ms. Bascom said she had never heard of a Scarlet Oak and thought it should be Scarlet Maple. Mr. Chenkin said he would check that. Mr. Chenkin said an update of the plan would be considered, but was not required, every five years. II. LCDC PERIODIC REVIEW--METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS Ms. Bishow said the Eugene Planning program acknowledgement in September 1982 had included acknowledgement of the urban portion of the Metropolitan Plan, and a local mid-period review of the Metro Plan had been called for two years later. She said that review had some of the same objectives as the periodic e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session July 14, 1986 Page 3 ----- review, and the two processes had been combined as much as possible. She also said the Lane Council of Governments board in June had ratified the Metro Plan e Mid-Period Review amendments. Ms. Bishow said the periodic review had been designed by the State Leg;slature to ensure that acknowledged planning programs remained consistent with State goals. She reviewed the four main factors for conformance with State goals: 1) that the community has not changed to warrant readjustment of comprehensive plans, 2) that the community address any new goals or changes to State goals, 3) that the community address any changes to State agencies or programs, and 4) that any requirements pending at acknowledgement had been carried out. Ms. Bishow added that the State had made no requirements of Eugene at acknowledgement. She also said staff had prepared findings to substantiate conformance with all four factors, and those were included in packets. Ms. Bi show rev; ewed changes descri bed in the order. She noted that the Department of Environmental Quality had been concerned that the working paper dealing with air quality be updated along with the Metro Plan update. She said DEQ had requested that a plan policy be included to include an air quality reassessment as part of the next major update. She said similar requests had been made of Springfield and Lane County. Ms. Ehrman asked whether the City had the capability to conduct such a study, or whether it would contract with someone like the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority. Ms. Bishow said the City would work closely with LRAPA, and all working papers probably would be updated during the Metro Plan Update. Ms. Bishow said some changes had been made to the final order as a result of the recent appeals court decision regarding the Riverfront Plan amendment. e She noted a revision on page 2 of the order, adding to section E a reference to the plan amendment that occurred and concluding that the plan amendment was in conformance with statewide goals. Ms. Bishow said a revision on page 3 would add language concerning the Riverfront Park plan amendment and the Bloomberg Road area and would conclude that the two amendments did not significantly affect the overall industrial and commercial land inventories of the Metro area and that the cumulative effect of the amendments would comply with the plan. Ms. Decker said a new use, not contained in the Metro Plan, also had been added, but would result in no change to the inventory. Ms. Wooten asked about the change to the Bloomberg Road area. Ms. Bishow said that plan amendment had changed a property designation to Rural Industrial, which had essentially recognized an existing use and had allowed expansion of that use. Ms. Bishow noted that packets contained written testimony from Richard Gold and staff responses to hi s major comments; testimony from Al Urquhart, primarily on the Riverfront Park amendment; and written testimony from Barbara Kelley about the proposed wetland fill near Valley River Center. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session July 14, 1986 Page 4 Ms. Bishow said staff hoped to receive direction as to which parts of the periodic review order needed modification or strengthening. She said action e was scheduled for August 13, and she added that the council was the first elected body to conduct a public hearing and probably to take action. Ms. Bishow noted that Mr. Darnie11e was present to answer questions of L-COG. III. METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN Ms. Bishow said the Metropolitan Area Public Facilities Plan was required by the State Legislature to ensure that communities had action plans for providing needed services. She said the plan was required to address four areas of public facilities: Transportation, Sewer, Water, and Storm Sewer, and it examined projected needs, general financing, and revenue sources. Ms. Bishow introduced Ms. Pappas, who worked to coordinate the Public Facilities Plan among the three jurisdictions and other agencies. Ms. Pappas described the relationship of the Public Facilities Plan, the Metro Plan, and the TransPlan. She said the TransP1an was the Transportation element of the Public Facilities Plan and was incorporated by reference. She added that Transportation included a bicycle element and airport information. Ms. Pappas said the cost estimates, financing, and project phasing in the plan would not be incorporated as Metro Plan policy, but were included as technical information supporting the policies of the Metro Plan. Ms. Pappas said the Springfield and Eugene Planning Commissions had forwarded the plan draft and accompanying revisions to the two city councils. She said e the Lane County Planning Commission had examined more closely the Cedar Creek Basin, in the Thurston area, where a local flooding problem had resulted in a commissioner's request that the plan contain more detailed information. Ms. Pappas added that a Metro Plan policy assigning jurisdictional responsibility for the area was a possibility, and she said action was not planned for tonight because of possible revisions to the plan. She a 1 so said the Springfield City Council would hold a work session July 21. Ms. Bascom said she thought the State may have had a good idea, but it had then laid the responsibility on local jurisdictions. She said TransPlan had been available, but a storm sewer plan had not, and so a plan had been developed quickly and contained several inaccuracies and extravagant ideas. She asked how the plan would be useful to the local area. Ms. Brody said she thought the plan was useful. She noted that City staff had worked to have the Storm Sewer requirement deleted, because they had not believed the requirement accurately reflected the legislation passed. She added that staff supported the concept of the legislation, and she noted that the plan had been useful in terms of meeting with area service districts and of collecting varied information into one document. Ms. Bascom said she was surprised that joint police training facilities had not been included in the plan. Ms. Pappas said she thought future updates of the plan might contain additional service facilities like Library, Police, and Fire. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session July 14, 1986 Page 5 IV. DISCUSSION/OTHER ITEMS e A. Testimony from Al Urquhart Ms. Wooten asked staff to respond to Mr. Urquhart's communication of last Friday. Mr. Sercombe said he had not analyzed that yet, adding that he expected adoption of a periodic review recommendation to be postponed until later this month, and staff meanwhile would prepare a response to Mr. Urquhart's comments. Mr. Sercombe said he thought Mr. Urquhart raised some appropriate issues about Goals 15 and 5 and about whether changes had occurred that required examination as part of a periodic review. He added that more findings probably were needed. Ms. Bascom said she thought an issue that might need to be addressed was the expanding of requirements for Greenway management. Ms. Bishow said the last page addressed use management cri teri a for Wi 11 amette Greenway goals and contained reference to the current City efforts to amend codes to better address those criteria. B. Free Tobacco Samples Ms. Schue asked Mr. Sercombe to expand on his concerns regarding the issue of free tobacco samples. Mr. Sercombe said the ordinance as proposed would single out a particular product and attempt to prohibit any communication to the public about that product. He said the City Attorney's office review suggested that the ordinance could encounter problems from the Oregon or the U.S. Constitutions, because it was based on the content of the communication. Mr. Sercombe said the Tobacco Institute raised that issue in a letter the City e had received about a month ago. He said the ordinance might be defensible, but he suggested that it wo u 1 d raise serious legal issues if passed as written. Mr. Sercombe said the City Council in the next week or two could proceed with a public hearing on the ordinance as drafted, it could abandon efforts to pass the ordi nance, or it could direct staff to seek ways of broadening the ordinance to eliminate the content-based restrictions. He added that the legal issues were similar to those raised in discussions of the panhandling and solicitation ordinances. Mr. Sercombe explained that commercial speech no longer was considered outside the protection of the First Amendment, but the amount of protection offered was uncertain. He also said the Oregon Constitution could be interpreted more broadly than the U.S. Constitution, and recent cases in Oregon had allowed no restrictions whatsoever on the content of speech. Responding to Ms. Schue1s question, Mr. Sercombe said some actions, such as giving away products or discount coupons, could be considered forms of speech. Responding to Mr. Hansen's question, Mr. Sercombe said tobacco samples had been di stributed about three years ago near the mall. He sa i d permits currently were required for any commercial activity on the mall. Ms. Bascom said she thought complaints had involved giving away tobacco near schools, and e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session July 14, 1986 Page 6 she asked about similar ordinances in other communities. Mr. Sercombe said it currently was illegal to distribute tobacco to minors. He a 1 so sa i d the e ordinance could be broadened to prohibit the distribution of any free products. Ms. Bascom suggested passing the ordinance as drafted. Staff said that could be done but might result in defense expenses. Ms. Wooten said she thought a prohibition of all free gifts would be too broad. Mr. Sercombe said he understood that about five communities had adopted ordinances prohibitting tobacco distribution, and those ordinances had not been challenged. He said he could not predict whether the Eugene ordinance would be challenged. Mr. Hansen said he hoped the ordinance would not be passed. He said he did not think the problem was serious enough to warrant the effort or the risk of a legal challenge. Mr. Rutan said he agreed with Mr. Hansen. Ms. Ehrman said she thought detailed findings on health and safety issues would be needed to justify the ordinance. Ms. Schue said she favored going ahead with the public hearing. She said information was needed about the number of samples being distributed. Ms. Bascom said she agreed with Ms. Schue, adding that she thought health issues were well-documented. Mr. Rutan suggested trying to obtain information about the extent of the problem without holding a public hearing. He added that he thought government e at some point should get out of people's lives and stop trying to protect them from themselves. Mr. Obie suggested dropping the issue unless a majority of the council at a Wednesday meeting favored holding a public hearing. C. Urban Services Agreement with Lane County Mr. Hansen said he planned to meet with Mr. Gleason about the proposal to exchange services and finances with the County, and he urged councilors to raise any concerns. Mr. Gleason said a council work session was planned for August 23, and action would follow. D. Solar Access Ordinance Ms. Brody said the solar access ordinance would not be considered at the Wednesday meeting because it was still at the attorney1s office. She said information would be sent out again when that item was on the agenda. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Mi ea1 Gleason CHY' Manager e (Recorded by Leslte Scales) MNCC2714 MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session J u 1 y 14, 1986 Page 7