Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/28/1988 Meeting (2) It M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Council Chamber--City Hall November 28, 1988 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Ruth Bascom, Freeman Holmer, Jeff Miller, Debra Ehrman, Rob Bennett, Emily Schue. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Roger Rutan. The adjourned meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by Mayor Brian Obie. Mayor Obie welcomed members of Boy Scout Troops 25 and 357 from Kennedy and Jefferson Middle Schools. I. PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSPLAN ANNUAL REVIEW Allen Lowe, Planning Department, gave the staff report. He said the amendments proposed in this year's review of the TransPlan affect the It following elements of the plan: Element III--Goals, Objectives and Policies; Element IV--Street and Highway; Element V--Bicycle; and Appendix C--Annual Plan Endorsement. Mr. Lowe said the proposed amendments to the Goals, Objectives and Policy element and the Annual Plan Endorsement element are designed to discontinue the annual endorsement process and to simplify the amendment process. In addition, a process for amending the TransPlan is put forth in Appendix C. Amendments to the Street and Highway and Bicycle elements include the addition, modification, and deletion of several projects due to the adoption of the Central Area Transportation Study and proposed projects associated with the Riverfront Research Park and Gateway developments. Mr. Lowe said the language in the TransPlan has been changed to reflect the fact the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) now sets policy direction for the TransPlan rather than the Metropolitan Area Transportation Committee (MATC) which has been dissolved. Another major change proposed is that there be action by the agencies which originally adopted the plan only when the plan is amended, rather than on an annual basis. The third major change is that a process be included in the plan for determining whether a project is regionally or nonregionally significant. A streamlined amendment process would reduce the need for amendments to be taken to all agencies for action. The Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), as the metropolitan planning organization for the TransPlan, would continue to ratify all amendments to the plan. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1988 Page 1 e Mr. Lowe said staff recommends that revisions to the assumptions used to model traffic flow and trip distribution be deferred until the next update of the TransPlan or until the TransPlan and Metro Plan are merged. Mr. Lowe said the Metropolitan Planning Commission and the Eugene Planning Commission have endorsed the amendments. The Planning Commission recommended that the council adopt the proposed amendments. Ms. Ehrman expressed concern about the number of projects being added to the short-range phase of the plan. She asked what the financial impact of these changes will be. Mr. Lowe said most of these projects were planned and have received higher priority for completion. A few of the projects were added with the adoption of the Central Area Transportation Study, which has occurred since the last review of the TransPlan. Ms. Ehrman asked whether the University of Oregon and Sacred Heart General Hospital participate in the planning of projects around their property. Dave Reinhard, Transportation Division, said in general both of these organizations do participate in planning projects which are around their property. Ms. Schue said the general direction of regional planning is to streamline the process as much as possible and to allow individual jurisdictions to make minor decisions without a, regional review. e Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. Gary Rayer expressed concern that no long-range transportation planning is occurring in the Friendly area neighborhood. He said the streets in that neighborhood are narrow and do not move traffic safely. Mr. Rayer felt that there were certain projects listed in the TIP which would have a further negative impact on transportation in the Friendly area neighborhood. He suggested that a transportation study be done for the South Hills area and the Friendly area neighborhood. Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. Mr. Reinhard said neighborhood-level transportation planning is important and generally is not included in the TransPlan. He said occasionally separate studies are done to deal with major neighborhood transportation issues. Mr. Gleason added that transportation planning at the neighborhood level is generally done in conjunction with neighborhood refinement plans. He said the City has not been doing many neighborhood refinement plans because of limited planning resources. Ms. Wooten felt the City would be saving time and money in the long run if there were a process for involving neighbors (in the absence of a refinement plan in their vicinity) in long-range transportation planning. Ms. Wooten felt it would be extremely important to include neighbors in the planning process surrounding the Fairgrounds. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1988 Page 2 e CB 4107--An ordinance adopting amendments to the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 4107 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. II. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE CONCERNING A STREET VACATION OF A PORTION OF WILLAKENZIE ROAD (ROBERT MELTEBEKE) (SV 88-4) City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. He said the request is for a vacation of a narrow strip of right-of-way located east of Coburg Road. He recommended that the council hold a public hearing and consider the vacation. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. There were no requests to speak. The public hearing was closed. e CB 4108--An ordinance vacating a portion of Willakenzie Road located east of Coburg Road and south of Beltline Road. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 4108 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. III. ORDINANCE CONCERNING HISTORIC PRESERVATION (CA 87-1) Teresa Bishow, Planning Department, gave the staff report. She said in mid-September the council conducted a public hearing regarding t~~ Historic Preservation Ordinance. At the end of September, the council held a work session on the ordinance, identifying key areas of concern and providing direction to staff on how to address those issues. Ms. Bishow said the draft e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1988 Page 3 e ordinance before the council reflects some of the changes suggested by the council. It has also been reviewed by the City Attorney for language clarification and text simplification. Ms. Bishow said the draft ordinance had been distributed to key members of the Planning Commission, Chamber of Commerce, and Historic Review Board. Comments received were incorporated into the ordinance. Ms. Bishow briefly reviewed changes that have been made to the ordinance. She said the draft ordinance states that historic landmark designation may be applied to interior features, thematic groups, and landscape features. The council indicated a desire to discuss landscape features further. If the council chooses to delete landscape features, reference to them in the definitions of historic landmark and thematic group will need to be deleted from the ordinance. Ms. Bishow said the draft ordinance also adds a requirement that City approval be obtained prior to installation of major new landscaping. At the council's request, a definition for major new landscaping was added. Ms. Bishow said the draft ordinance was amended to add a member of the Planning Commission to the Historic Review Board (HRB) in place of one of the profession positions. Ms. Bishow said the draft ordinance was amended to allow citizen-initiation ~f an historic landmark designation if a development permit is not pending e and a supporting petition signed by 20 Eugene residents is submitted with the application. Staff also recommends that a fee to help defray some of the costs be considered. Ms. Bishow said in the case of the designation of an historic district, privately-initiated requests must be submitted by the owners of at least one-third of the privately-owned affected property. The council also discussed the possibility of requiring half the owners of privately-owned affected property submit requests. The draft ordinance was amended to state that the HRB shall not designate an historic district if owners of 50 percent of the property object in writing to the designation at the time of the public hearing. Ms. Bishow said the draft ordinance was amended so that designation criteria is consistent with the Federal criteria. Significant new language was added to clarify the criteria. Ms. Bishow said in the process of determining whether to apply historic landmark designation, the HRB shall conduct an analysis of the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of allowing any identified conflicting uses versus preserving the structure or site as an historic landmark. If the property owner of the proposed historic landma~~ is in support of the designation, there is a rebuttable presumption that the values of preservation outweigh the values of using the proposed historic landmark for the identified conflicting uses. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1988 Page 4 -- e Ms. Bishow said the draft ordinance was amended to delete the HRB's ability to change the uses permitted. The HRB may forward comments to the Hearings Official if a change in zoning is considered. Ms. Bishow said the draft ordinance was amended to establish different provisions for moving and demolition. The ordinance also was clarified to indicate that the property owner has the right to demolish or move an historic landmark if the proper procedures are followed, and that the HRB shall require Hone or moreH of a set of actions to record the landmark. Ms. Bishow said the council expressed an interest in considering various incentives that may be provided to the owners of historic properties. The draft ordinance contains a reference to the City's existing historic loan program and the ability of the board or council to modify certain code regulations at the time of landmark designation such as a lot width and coverage. In addition, the City's Historic Zoning District can be applied to historic properties by the Hearings Official, thus changing the uses allowed. Ms. Bishow said the council had discussed imposing a time limit on the amount of time the HRB could require historic artifacts to be stored. Staff did not add a time limit to the ordinance. Ms. Bishow said if the council is still interested in the time limit, staff recommends a limit of two years. Ms. Bishow said the City Attorney's office has recommended that a fine of $1,000 per day be charged for violation of the ordinance. The City e Attorney's office has also recommended that no cumulative amount be imposed. Ms. Bishow said based on conversations with staff from the State Historic Preservation Office, the draft ordinance appears to be acceptable and will allow the City to maintain its status as a Certified Local Government. In response to a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Sercombe said the Goal 5 process requires a comparison of the use of the structure as an historic structure versus some other conflicting use. He said Section 2.407.5 of the ordinance was intended to identify a particular use against which to compare the historic use. There are two scenarios possible. One is where the owner has a use planned for the historic structure and wants to demolish or make a major alteration to the use; in this case, the plan of the owner would be the identified conflicting use. Another scenario is when there are no development plans for the property; in this case, the identified conflicting use would be the highest and best use of the property according to the zoning and land-use laws in existence. Mr. Sercombe said when the owner supports the designation. the balancing process will be less rigorous than in cases where the owner opposes the designation. Mr. Holmer felt that the ordinance is applying a different Goal 5 standard to historic property than what would be applied to other types of land. Mr. Sercombe said he does not believe Goal 5 applies to the writing of an ordinance. He said there was a sentiment among those commenting on the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1988 Page 5 -- e ordinance that a weighing process similar to Goal 5 be included in the ordinance, so this language has been included. Ms. Bascom said she would like to see the landscape features remain in the ordinance. She said the Mayor's Tree and Beautification Commission has thought of a number of situations where the landscape designation could be applied, and believes it has merit. Mr. Miller asked what happens when landscape features that have been designated die. Planning Director Susan Brody said the designation would automatically be removed. She added that the designation would only need to be removed by the HRB if the ground underneath the landmark has been designated. Henry Kunowski, Planning Department, said if a landscape feature has deteriorated beyond repair, the ordinance recommends that it be replaced with a reasonable caliber replacement in the same scheme of what was designated. Mr. Miller felt if there are many disputes over landscape features, it could be very time-consuming and costly for the City and property owners. Mayor Obie asked if landscape features can be designated as historic independent of a structure. Ms. Bishow said that it could. Mr. Bennett said the rehabilitation of historic properties is often very difficult and costly even wlthout consideration of the landscape features. He felt that in most case~ the importance of preserving the historic structure outweighs the benefit of preserving the landscape. Mr. Bennett e asked if there would be a way to preserve landscape features without including landscape designation in the ordinance. Ms. Bascom did not feel the landscape features would easily receive designation and felt the designation process would be applied with considerable care. Ms. Bishow agreed with Ms. Bascom and said in most cases, buildings would probably lead in the designation process. Mr. Miller said he still has several areas of concern with the ordinance and suggested that the council defer action and give the public another opportunity to review the ordinance. He said one of his major concerns is that the council will not be involved in the designation process unless a decision of the HRB were appealed. Mr. Miller said he is also concerned about the HRB being both an advocacy and an adjudicatory group; he felt this concern could be alleviated if the council makes the final designation decision. Mr. Miller said if the council decides to take action on the ordinance, he would support it because he supports the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Wooten and Ms. Ehrman favored acting on the ordinance at this meeting. Ms. Wooten said there has been much review of the ordinance by the City Council and the Planning Commission and that the public has also been given adequate opportunity to comment. Ms. Ehrman said the council could review use of the ordinance and problems that have arisen after it has been implemented for a period of time. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1988 Page 6 e Mr. Holmer said he also would like the council to further review the ordinance before adopting it. Referring to a comment made earlier by Ms. Bishow, that the ordinance is acceptable to the State Historic Preservation Office, Mr. Holmer said the City should write ordinances for its own benefit, not for the benefit of the State. Mr. Holmer emphasized that the City is strengthening the role of an advocacy group to make quasi-judicial decisions regarding the designation of property rights. Mr. Bennett said although he appreciates Mr. Holmer's comments, the support of the State with respect to how historic property is developed is extremely important. CB 4109--An ordinance concerning historic preservation; and amending Sections 2.402, 2.403, 2.404, 2.405, 2.406, 2.407, 2.408, 2.409, 2.1990, and 9.608 of the Eugene Code, 1971; amending and renumbering Sections 2.410, 2.411, and 2.412 of that code; adding new Sections 2.410 and 2.414 thereto; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill (with the addition of a two-year time limitation on storing historic artifacts and the addition of a fine for violation of $1,000 per day, with no cumulative limit), with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll e call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 4109 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:1, with Councilors Bascom, Bennett, Ehrman, Miller, Schue, and Wooten voting in favor and councilor Holmer voting opposed. IV. MPC RECOMMENDATIONS ON METRO PLAN UPDATE ISSUES Planning Director Susan Brody gave the staff report. She said that due to budget constraints and other work program priorities, the major update of the Metro Plan begun in 1987 will be discontinued. In response to this situation, the planning directors of Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield developed a variety of options for review by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). On November 10, the MPC met and developed tentative recommendations regarding the options. Ms. Brody said this is the council's opportunity to give comment~ or suggest changes to Councilors Holmer and Schue, the council's two MPC representatives, regarding the recommendations. MPC will take final action on the recommendations at its December 16 meeting. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1988 Page 7 e Ms. Brody briefly reviewed the major Metro Plan update issues as identified by the planning directors and the tentative recommendations made by MPC (see memo from the planning directors to the City Council dated November 18, 1988). Mr. Bennett said he does not like the proposed update process. He did not feel it would address the need for a comprehensive plan and felt that a number of minor changes undertaken haphazardly would undermine the integrity of the plan. Mr. Bennett added that the old process provided an opportunity for community input on the direction of the plan. Consequently there was community support for the plan when implemented. Ms. Brody said the preference of the planning directors is to continue the Metro Plan Update. She said the City was ready to devote the resources necessary to complete a successful update of the plan, but neither Springfield nor Lane County felt they had the resources needed to continue the update effort. Ms. Brody said the City of Eugene did not feel it could commit more resources to the update, so the planning directors met to generate these alternatives. She said the planning directors feel the options presented are the second best alternative to a complete update process. In defense of the alternatives, Ms. Brody said she feels it is sensible to tie local update of the plan to the State periodic review requirements because some of the same analysis is required in both processes. Ms. Brody e added that the plan is a dynamic document and that she supports the idea of continuing to do major intergovernmental studies and make changes to the plan between reviews when necessary. She said if amendments are allowed semi-annually rather than continuously, citizens will have a better opportunity to see the overall direction of the plan. Mr. Bennett reiterated his opposition to this approach. He stressed that the update is necessary to set the basic framework of the plan so that community members have a basis for making long-term decisions. Mr. Bennett added that although more frequent changes may be thought to make development easier, it will not. He felt less comprehensive planning makes it impossible to make long-term decisions. Mr. Gleason said the trend toward less comprehensive planning is occurring city-wide as well as metropolitan-wide. He cited the lack of refinement plans, and the need for industrial lands and commercial lands inventories as examples. Mr. Gleason said the options from MPC are the best hope for keeping some metropolitan planning focus with available resources, although they are "band-aid" measures at best. Ms. Schue said MPC agrees with Mr. Bennett1s viewpoint that a major comprehensive update process is best, but it is the prerogative ~f Springfield and Lane County not to participate. She said since Eugene is not in a position to cover more of the update costs, there is not much choice about how to proceed. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1988 Page 8 e Ms. Wooten said she agrees with Mr. Bennett's comments and would like the MPC representatives to represent this viewpoint to the MPC. She felt frequent changes will undermine the integrity of the plan and said the City has no obligation to process individual amendment requests semi-annually. Ms. Wooten said that with or without the support of Springfield and Lane County, the City needs to maintain its position of more comprehensive planning. Ms. Ehrman said while it is important for the council to express its concerns with regard to these changes to the other jurisdictions, vetoing the plan will only create hard feelings and would be counterproductive. Mr. Holmer agreed with Ms. Ehrman's comments saying that Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County form a partnership but in this case, two of the partners have abdicated from part of their responsibility in the metro planning process. He said he feels the recommendations adopted by MPC represent a fair and equitable way to acknowledge that there ought to be a comprehensive plan, but in the absence of resources to make this possible, an alternative process is necessary. He felt the recommendations should have council support. Answering a question from Ms. Wooten, Steve Gordon (LCOG representative) said this dilemma has caused staff to rethink policies regarding involvement in the Metro Plan and intergovernmental cooperation. He said the alternatives he sees to adopting these recommendations is for Eugene to consider funding all update activities, or, to try to make due with these alternatives as long as absolutely necessary. Mr. Gordon suggested that the source of the e immediate problems could be partially the result of a lack of intergovernmental cooperation in other areas. He said he hoped Eugene would not decide to do an update within its own boundaries, abandoning Springfield and Lane County. Mr. Gordon said while this is possible, it ignores the reality of a metropolitan region. He said it is debatable whether Eugene and Springfield are realistically two distinct cities. Mayor Obie asked where the money the City had budgeted for the update has gone. Mr. Gleason said some of the resources allocated for the update have been shifted to other projects such as the West Eugene Wetlands Management Plan. Ms. Wooten asked how much money Lane County and Springfield have withdrawn from the update process. Ms. Brody said including staff time, they have withdrawn approximately $75,000-$100,000. Ms. Wooten asked to see estimates of the cost for Eugene to continue the update activities within its own boundaries. Mayor Obie agreed that this might be the best solution, saying he is not convinced Eugene should compromise its planning process in the same way Springfield and Lane County seem ready to. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1988 Page 9 e V. APPOINTMENTS: BALLOT FOR APPOINTMENTS TO DOWNTOWN COMMISSION Ms. Wooten said she had listened to the tapes of the interviews with candidates for the Downtown Commission. Councilors submitted ballots indicating their choices for appointments to the commission. Mayor Obie read the vote tally, indicating that Mr. Olson, Mr. Jensen, and Mr. Brown each received seven votes. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to appoint Bjorn Olson, Cordy Jensen, and John Brown to the Downtown Commission to complete terms expiring December 31, 1992. Ro 11 ca 11 vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. VI. APPOINTMENTS: BALLOT FOR APPOINTMENTS TO EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN PARTNERSHIP Ms. Wooten said she would abstain from voting as she had not been present at the interviews with candidates for the Metropolitan Partnership. Councilors submitted ballots indicating their choice for appointment to the partnership. Mayor Obie read the vote tally, indicating that Mr. Neustadter had received six votes. e Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to appoint Roger Neustadter to the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Partnership for a term ending December 31, 1991. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:0:1, with Ms. Wooten abstaining. Mr. Bennett noted that all three of the applicants for this position were very strong. He said the fact that the council did not re-appoint Ms. Wagenknecht, the incumbent, is not meant to infer dissatisfaction with her prior performance as a member. Mayor Obie said he would convey this to Ms. Wagenknecht. VII. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 14, SEPTEMBER 28, OCTOBER 10, OCTOBER 12, OCTOBER 19, and OCTOBER 24, 1988 Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to approve the City Council meeting minutes of September 14, September 28, October 10, October 12, October 19, and October 24, 1988. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Obie adjourned the meeting to November 30, 1988. Respectfully submitted, e MINUTES--Eugene.City Council November 28, 1988 Page 10 '"i .". "',;.,.- :", .> '. -~-". - ~::7 y "y" ~< ,., " . "./ . . (~-~~'/~'~~/';'~-,-, . Micheal Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Tanya Northman) MNCC 112888-730 e e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1988 Page 11