Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/1988 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council and Planning Commission Eugene Community Conference Center, OINeill Room February 8, 1988 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Robert Bennett, Debra Ehrman, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten, City Council; John VanLandingham, Nancy Nathanson, Dorothy Anderson, Alan Yordy, James Ellison, Gerry Gaydos, Planning Commission. The Honorable Mayor Brian B. Obie called the joint work session of the City Council and the Planning Commission of the City of Eugene to order. I. SPECIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENTS (AWBREY/MEADOWVIEW) (MA 87-6) e Susan Brody, Planning Director, introduced the item. Teresa Bishow pres~nted the Planning Department staff report. She stated that in June 1987 the City Council initiated a series of amendments to the Metropolitan Plan regarding Special Heavy Industrial land. The proposed amendments include changes to the Economy Element, changes affecting the two existing special heavy industrial areas, and a plan amendment to expand the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) 200 acres north of Awbrey Lane east of Highway 99 for a special heavy industrial park. The three local planning commissions conducted a joint public hearing in August, which was continued in September because of the high degree of public interest. The Lane County Planning Commission recommended denial of the amendments by a 5:0 vote. The Springfield Planning Commission also recommended denial of the amendments on a 5:1 vote with exception of the proposal to halt allowance of on-site services at the Enid-Awbrey Special Heavy Industrial area. The Eugene Planning Commission recommended approval of the changes to the Economy Element 5:2; it voted 4:3 to expand the UGB for a special heavy industrial park; and voted 5:1:1 to adopt changes affecting the existing special heavy industrial sites within the UGB. If the council approves the amendments, they will be referred to the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners for a public hearing and action. If the three elected bodies do not reach - MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission February 8, 1988 Page 1 e e e agreement on the amendments, the issue will be forwarded to the Metropolitan Policy Committee for conflict resolution. All three elected bodies ultimately need to approve the amendments before they take effect. Ms. Bishow said an appeal of the amendments is likely due to the level of controversy and the diversity of individuals involved. In response to a question from Mr. Holmer, she said any appeal of the amendments would be heard by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). She said the City is required to forward any proposed plan amendments to the State 45 days prior to the City Council's public hearing. She said the letter from Jim Ross, director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), is in response to the referral. She said the letter primarily points out apparent gaps in the evidence supporting the plan amendments. She said it is not a mandate to deny the amendments. Ms. Bishow noted for councilors that verbatim language for the Economy Element text amendments is listed on page 6 of the Eugene Planning Commission's Report. She said the changes indicate that heavy industry is generally more responsive to environmental regulations than it was 20 years ago. In addition, external characteristics of the industry are changing. She said the draft policies and objectives in the report address the issue of encouraging heavy industrial development and the matter of improving railroad access to the sites. Text amendments to the existing Special Heavy Industrial Sites can be found on page 11. Ms. Bishow said the Metro Plan was initially created to address the relocation and expansion needs of existing heavy industrial firms. She said staff was reluctant to create a new category for the UGB amendment because there are already five industrial designations within the metro area. She added staff felt the existing Special Heavy Industrial category had the greatest potential to demonstrate a need for more of this type of land. Ms. Bishow said the item that will likely receive the most testimony is the proposed Urban Growth Boundary expansion for a Special Heavy Industrial Park. She said the amendment calls for annexation prior to development; the park shall be 200 acres with a minimum lot size of 40 acres that will not change following annexation; a comprehensive development plan shall be drafted. She said the industrial park is intended to be a "campus-like" setting for heavy industry that is aethetically pleasing. Ms. Bishow said the Planning Commission is recommending that use of the area north of Awbrey Lane be limited to those industries that are rail dependent. She said the type of uses currently allowed under the category include all primary manufacturing. Staff also feels that some secondary manufacturing, such as furniture producers, can be allowed. She said the council has the option of modifying the amendment to change the interpretation of types of uses. MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission February 8, 1988 Page 2 e Ms. Wooten asked if furniture manufacturing was discussed as a heavy industrial use during Planning Commission discussions. Ms. Bishow said furniture manufacturing would be classified as light/medium industrial use. She said staff and the commission generally feel this could be allowed under a broad interpretation of the amendments that takes into account secondary manufacturing firms that utilize local natural resources such as timber. Ms. Bishow said staff needs direction from the council on how it would like the amendment interpreted. Ms. Wooten asked what type of environmental standards are being discussed for the heavy industrial uses. Ms. Brody said State and Federal environmental standards, as well as regulations in the Comprehensive Development Plan, will apply to the site. Ms. Wooten said information in a previous Planning Commission packet referred to the possibility of aluminum smeltering firms being located on the site. She said the council and staff should be sure what types of industries are being considered for the site. Mr. Holmer asked for clarification of the letter from Mr. Ross, DLCD. Ms. Bishow said Mr. Ross is suggesting that the City Council defer action on the amendments and consider them as part of the Metro Plan update now under discussion. e Mr. VanLandingham said the four Planning Commission members voting in favor of the Awbrey/Meadowview Plan amendment were himself, Mr. Gaydos, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Yordy. Voting against the amendment were Ms. Anderson, Ms. Nathanson, and Eleanor Mulder, who is no longer on the commission. He stressed the Planning Commission did not reach its decision on a growth/no growth basis. He said the minority voted against the amendment because they felt the proposed expansion of the UGB does not meet State land use law criteria. He said the four in support of the amendment recognize the issue as complex and view it as a IIclose call.1I Mr. VanLandingham pointed out for the council some of the more important issues raised in the amendments. The first reason is the demonstrated need for more special heavy industrial use. He said the majority of the commission felt it should show a projected or general need instead of specific businesses waiting for industrial sites. He said Awbrey/Meadowview is distinct from Enid/Awbrey because the latter is in spearate ownership and does not have access by two railroads. Mr. Vanlandingham said the commission recognizes the restrictiveness of special heavy industrial zoning. He said the commission majority prefers the broader interpretation that includes secondary manufacturing. e Mr. Yordy said the entire commission experienced frustration in trying to accommodate a piece of land within the existing categories. He said Awbrey/Meadowview is one of the few sites in the urban area where an MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission Februa ry 8, 1988 Page 3 tit industrial park can be built to include both principal and support industries. He added more attention still needs to be paid to the issue of accommodating an industrial park. Mr. Vanlandingham said the dilemma facing the City is that the site must be distinguished from others for a better chance of approval by the OleO. However, the more narrow the criteria are, the more difficult it is to justify the amendments on the basis of need. Ms. Anderson reiterated Mr. Vanlandingham's statement that the issue is not growth versus no growth. She said the issue is about what makes sense from a legal and planning viewpoint. She reviewed the minority's reasons for opposing the amendment, including the necessity of a well- substantiated need and consistency between the comprehensive plan and the proposed amendments. She said the minority also favors more of a variety of uses at the park than the amendment calls for. She added the owners of Awbrey/Meadowview have also said they want a variety of uses at the park. e Regarding consistency with the comprehensive plan, Ms. Anderson said there is currently no zoning ordinance for the proposed amendment. She said the only example of such an ordinance has been adopted by lane County, and is too restrictive for the uses envisioned at the park. She said she disagrees with Ms. 8ishow over the City.s ability to broaden the manufacturing uses to include secondary industries. She said this would be in violation of the County ordinance. She pointed out that broadening the use to include light and medium industry also places the City in competition with other property owners who currently have unused industrial land within the UGB. She said the City should start from the beginning to develop a well-researched proposal to attract heavy industry. Ms. Nathanson said she is most concerned with the legal question that the amendment does not meet State criteria. She cited three issues that she said fall under the "problem of mixed signals" sent to the Planning Commission that in turn will be sent to the public. The issues are: 1) Does Eugene need large or small parcel sizes? She said the commission is trying to process both needs at the same time; 2) Is the proposal about heavy or light industry? 3) The proposed amendment is for 200 acres, but what is essentially being discussed is a park ranging between 200 and 700 acres. Mr. Holmer asked for clarification of the larger land parcels. Ms. Bishow said before the Wastewater Treatment Plant was purchased the property owners owned approximately 730 acres. About two hundred acres were later sold to MWMC, leaving the remaining 500 acres for possible development. She said the current proposal utilizes 200 acres, although it is understood the remaining approximately 300 acres will be proposed for development in the future. -- Ms. Wooten asked how the cost of expanding the UGB will be justified against the current capital improvement project schedule. Ms. Bishow MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission February 8, 1988 Page 4 e e e said it is hoped the City will try to minimize the use of public funds prior to development. She said it is expected that operational costs will be higher than development costs since infrastructure lines such as water and sewer are already in the vicinity. Ms. Brody pointed out timing is important if the council wants to have infrastructure improvements made before the site is shown to prospective tenants. Ms. Wooten said she would like staff to research the development costs associated with the site. Ms. Nathanson said part of the minority's reason for not supporting the amendments is that the City has already invested a significant amount of public dollars for developing in a westerly direction. Mr. Gaydos said timing is a crucial factor because the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of a developer paying the costs of extending the sewer lines to the sites. He noted there has also been a substantial amount of development north of the city such as the airport. In response to Ms. Wooten's comment about the cost, he said the majority of the commission felt the use of the property will not change until the City makes an effort to develop the area. Ms. Brody said it is important that sewer and other facilities also be expanded to serve the existing Enid/Awbrey area. Mr. Gaydos reiterated that some of the problems of developing Enid/Awbrey are a lack of dual-rail access, parcel size, and multiple ownership. He said it is imporant to consider that development of Awbrey/Meadowview might have a postive impact on Enid/Awbrey. He said the question that kept arising during discussions was the issue of timing and how long developers will have to wait before sites are ready for development. He restated that the majority of the commissioners believe that, despite the various problems, now is the best time to move ahead with development plans. Mayor Obie asked Ms. Anderson to expand on her statement that there should be a well-substantiated need for development to occur. Ms. Anderson said there is little evidence from the Metro Partnership and the Fantus Report to suggest that industries requiring large parcels of land and rail access are considering locating in the Eugene-Springfield area. Mayor Obie said that is difficult to understand in light of a memo from the Metro Partnership stating there is a need for heavy industrial property. Ms. Anderson said she understood the Metro Partnership.s testimony as saying there is a need for more variety in industrial sites. She said Vicki Dietmeyer, of the Metro Partnership, testified at a Planning Commission hearing that site development does not nessarily have to occur at Awbrey/Meadowview. Mr. VanLandingham said Planning Commission supporters of the amendment MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission February 8, 1988 Page 5 e e e contend there does not have to be data showing that a company was forced to look elsewhere because of a lack of industrial land. Those opposing the amendment think there should be such data before the site is developed. Ms. Anderson said the amendment's fundamental flaw is that the existing special heavy industrial category is too narrow. She added there is also a need to update the present industrial zones. Mr. Bennett asked if there is any way to measure the uniqueness of the Awbrey/Meadowview site. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said the law requires the City to state its reasons why expansion must occur on agricultural land versus other land. However, the law is not specific about what those reasons need to be. He said the council should be specific in its rationale when it ultimately rules on the amendments. Mr. Bennett said if the City is going to market itself to industry, it should have sites already developed to offer potential new firms. He asked for a legal interpretation of Mr. Ross's letter. Mr. Sercombe said there are different ways to apply the issue of need. He said it is his opinion that OLCO is focusing on the "exception criteria" that the City might cite as reasons why the land should not be subject to the present statutes. He said OLeO is saying the City will have to show apparently more objective data than what has been gathered so far to demonstrate a need to change the land use. Ms. Wooten asked if staff has developed a response to the Goal 5 wetlands issue raised in Mr. Ross's letter. Ms. Bishow said the City contracted with L-COG to conduct a GoalS analysis. L-COG hired a Portland biologist to examine the area. She said the only GoalS resource identified was a drainage ditch. Since the ditch has been used for drainage for a lengthy period of time, the staff report concluded there would be no adverse environmental impacts. She said the report does recommend improving the landscaping around the ditch to create a more conducive habitat for wildlife. She added the report should not be a key item since there were no other Goal 5 resources identified. Ms. Nathanson said part of the reason she studied the issue so carefully is because Oregon treats the subject of agricultural land seriously. She noted the City would not have to meet as many stringent requirements if the amendments did not involve agricultural land. One option still open to the City is to redefine unused, existing industrial land to avoid having to use agricultural land. In response to a question from Mr. Holmer, Ms. Nathanson said the land is currently used for growing grass seed. Mr. Miller asked what other land parcels are able to meet the rail access and ownership criteria that Awbrey/Meadowview does. Ms. Bishow said according to testimony there are four to ten possible sites, some in the Enid/Awbrey and Murphy Mill area. However, she said matching ownership MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission February 8, 1988 Page 6 e issues, rail access, vacant land, and proper zoning requirements is difficult. Mr. VanLandingham said Awbrey/Meadowview is the only site with dual competitive rail access. He said other sites also have development problems. Ms. Bascom asked why having dual railroad access is valuable. Ms. Bishow said Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific service different areas of the country. She added if the council approves the amendment, the Planning Commission is recommending that the council require the developer to consider establishing a public port at the railway dock. The reasoning behind this to allow the property south of Awbrey Lane to also use the rail facilities. Ms. Wooten said she would like more information about the ongoing project to redesignate existing sites with different zoning. Ms. Bishow said it would be easier to illustrate this with maps at the February 17 work session. She added staff has completed the inventory work and submitted it to the Planning Commission, and will only be doing further work at the council's request. e Ms. Brody said many of the existing industrial sites were discounted in favor of Awbrey/Meadowview because of a lack of rail access. Ms. Wooten noted that in addition to Awbrey/Meadowview there is a need for more site flexibility for smaller sites that could be designated as special heavy industrial sites. Mayor Obie asked if the debate around Awbrey/Meadowview can realistically not involve growth and no-growth issues. Ms. Anderson said she considers the issue to be about careful development and financial planning to ensure that the area has a marketable site package. Mayor Obie pointed out that in the case of the Cone Breeden site, community policy was not determined in time to accommodate the company. In light of that circumstance, Mayor Obie said there is validity in the Planning Commission1s argument about the need to have sites already prepared. Ms. Ehrman asked Mayor Obie to respond to Ms. Wooten1s question about how development of the site will be reconciled with the capital improvement project schedule. Mayor Obie said the site development will have to compete along with other priorities. Mr. Ellison said that when investments are not paying off, the City needs to shift its resources to other opportunities such as Awbrey/Meadowview. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission February 8, 1988 Page 7 e Mr. Yordy characterized the issue as a debate between a market-driven perspective and a strict, legalistic approach to planning. He said he is still concerned with some of the legal points raised by Mr. Sercombe. However, he said Awbrey/Meadowview offers the City a chance to grow and add to its inventory something it does not already have. Mr. Holmer said he is unsure about the division of fiscal responsiblity with regard to infrastructure facilities. He asked if it is contrary to public policy to expect the developer or owner to cover all infrastructure installation costs. Terry Smith, Public Works Department, said a distinction has to be made between traditional infrastructure facilities such as sewers and water, and others including public safety. He said most of the traditional facilities are available nearby and would be installed at the developer's cost. Public safety services are more expensive and do not typically undergo cost assessments in new developments. Mr. Smith said there have been cases, many in California, where developers have been charged for public safety services in the form of exactions. He said the City of Eugene does not employ such a practice. Ms. Ehrman asked if the City can single out one developer to pay for services that other developers do not. Mr. Smith said the courts have stated that the City must meet some standard for fair distribution of costs. Mr. Sercombe said the City charter also requires that the City e assess public work charges equally among properties. Mr. Gleason said over time approximately one-third of the cost of any building is borne publicly, while two-thirds of the cost is paid by the private sector. He said the fundamental problem of site development is that the one-third/two-third ratio is not being upheld by both parties. Ms. Wooten asked if the Planning Commission had considered incorporating Awbrey/Meadowview and Enid/Awbrey in the context of a larger airport vicinity refinement plan. Ms. Brody said planning staff has proposed addressing the airport issue in the updating of the Metro plan. She said staff is studying whether the airport should be included in the UGB and possibly annexed to the City of Eugene. She said still to be addressed is whether it would be better to wait on developing Awbrey/Meadowview until after the airport issue is resolved. Ms. Wooten suggested it might be beneficial to look at all the Awbrey/Meadowview and Enid/Awbrey sites in the context of a broader airport vicinity plan. Mr. Bennett asked how staff is addressing the zoning issues and other potential industrial uses of Awbrey/Meadowview. If the council approves the amendment, Ms. Brody said staff would translate the special heavy industrial area language into a zoning district. She said the council needs to answer whether the description in the amendment accurately describes the proposed site. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission February 8, 1988 Page 8 , Ms. Brody said one difficulty involved with the site is how to treat industrial lands. She said staff is exploring the possibility of using performance standards instead of using five separate zoning districts. She said some of the difficulties about what kinds of uses would be allowed at Awbrey/Meadowview could be resolved with the examination of performance standards. Ms. Wooten asked what prompted staff and the Planning Commission to take action on the Awbrey/Meadowview site at this time. Mr. VanLandingham said one reason is the importance of rail access to heavy industry. Another reason is that before now the industrial triangle has been considered more of a relocation site for heavy industry instead of a recruiting draw. Mr. Gaydos added it appeared there was more of an acceptance of industry during the Metro Plan Mid-Period Review. In response to a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Vanlandingham said the Planning Commision has not been influenced by industrial zoning in other areas around the state. Mr. Bennett said he hopes the final staff report will address the potential marketability of the site. Ms. Wooten said she would like more information about the range of uses being proposed for the site. She said she is uncertain about the tit viability of settling secondary manufacturing firms on 40-acre parcels. Ms. Schue asked what is being discussed as a typical parcel size. Ms. Bishow said the average parcel size is 2.3 acres. The minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. She said the bulk of the existing industrial land is in small parcels. She said testimony from property owners in the Enid/Awbrey area centered on the need for a range of parcel sizes and a reduction of the existing 40-acre minimum lot size. Ms. Schue asked if there has ever been an expressed need for a 200-acre parcel in the metro area. Ms. Brody said the only example of a company needing 200 acres was the General Motors plant. She said most of the requests to the Metro Partnership fall in the 20 to 50 acre category. Mr. Vanlandingham pointed out the City Council will have to tackle the contradiction of enlarging Awbrey/Meadowview parcels in light of requests from Enid/Awbrey property owners who want their parcels broken down into smaller lots. He said the Planning Commission's justification is that the Enid/Awbrey parcels cannot be packaged for rail access while under individual ownership. . Mr. Bennett said he would like to see staff inventory information of other industrial areas in Oregon. Ms. Bascom asked if there are alternatives to broadening the types of uses allowed in a special heavy industrial zone. Mr. Vanlandingham said he hopes Jim Saul, representing the Awbrey/Meadowview property owners, will have some answers to the MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission February 8, 1988 Page 9 . e e dilemma of definining the category enough for OLCO approval, but leaving it broad enough to attract a variety of uses. Mayor Obie reminded councilors that the study on performance standards will also address the issue of uses. Referring to information in the council's packet, Ms. Wooten said she would like to know how many of the 30 companies who requested information on sites of 20 acres or more actually looked at property in Oregon. Mr. Bennett asked about the quality of jobs that would arise out of a development on the Awbrey/Meadowview site. Ms. Brody said it might be easier to address that question at the public hearing immediately following the work session. The work session was recessed at 7:20 p.m. for the regular City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Micheal Gleason, City Manager (Recorded by Todd Nissen) mncc020888-530 MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission February 8, 1988 Page 10