Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/1982 Meeting (2) . M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council City Council Chamber April 12, 1982 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Mark Lindberg, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. Mayor Keller welcomed Scout Troop 22. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS e A. Appeal of Planning Commission action denying a rezoning request for property located on the south side of West 11th Avenue, between Bailey Hill Road and Buck Street, from M-2 Light Industrial District to C-2 Community Commercial District (Phillip Marvin) (Z 81-18) (memo, map, and background material distributed) City Manaqer Micheal Gleason introduced Terry Jones, Planning. Ms. Jones said that the subject property is located on the south side of West 11th Avenue, approximately 500 feet west of Seneca Road, directly across from property recently rezoned to accommodate a Fred Meyer store. She said the request was for a change from M-2 Light Industrial District to C-2 Community Commercial District and involved two tax lots which are separated by 60 feet of City-owned property. She said approximately two acres of land was involved in the request. The .75 acres in the eastern parcel is developed with Cowboy Country, a ranch and farm wholesale and retail business. The 1.3 acres in the western parcel is vacant. The western parcel was created by a land partition which took place in 1981. Ms. Jones said that the south side of West 11th Avenue is zoned M-2. She said that the eastern parcel abuts a fast food restaurant on the east and a tool company on the south. The western parcel abuts a pizza parlor on the west and is vacant on the south. Ms. Jones said that the eastern parcel received conditional use permit approval in 1980, to allow establishment of the existing Cowboy Country business. She said that the Planning Commission originally heard the present request in a public hearing on December 1, 1981, and voted 5:2 to table the request until a study was completed of the West 11th commercial strip. On January 18, 1982, the Planning Commission reconsidered that decision and, by a vote of 2:5, failed to approve the zone change, thus denying it. Ms. Jones said that the reasons given for the denial were the need for a study of the West 11th commercial corridor to be completed before any further commercial rezonings are granted, and the fact that the West Eugene Industrial Study indicates that the area within the study boundaries should retain industrial zoning. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 1982 Page 1 e e - Ms. Jones discussed the issue of the interpretation of the Metropolitan Area General Plan diagram as it applies to this property. Ms. Jones said that the Planning staff did not believe that there was conflict between the plan and the present M-2 zoning of the property. She said the plan diagram is composed of "blobs" of color to indicate uses, but that this was not to be interpreted as a zoning map. She said that the plan diagram was a tool which could be used to guide future land use decisions and the timing of those decisions. Ms. Jones said that in determining whether the rezoning is appropriate, attention should be given to the text and policies of the plan, the zoning history of the area, and the needs and desires of the City. She said that staff recognized that the plan diagram does show strip commercial use extending west from City View to the commercial node at Seneca and West 11th, but felt that this should be balanced with the concerns expressed in the text of the plan over the proliferation of strip commercial development and the timing of land use changes. Ms. Jones said that the plan recognizes the existence of strip commercial uses, but indicates that such uses should be limited to existing locations and, when possible, transformed into a more desirable commercial pattern. She said that such transformation was difficult when uses on West 11th were considered on a parcel- by-parcel basis but that it could occur under the guidance of studies such as that currently under way for the West 11th Avenue commercial corridor. Ms. Jones said that the Planning Department had begun such a study and that Jim Croteau, Planning, was present to answer any questions about this study. Ms. Jones said that Randy Thwing, president of the Planning Commission, was also present to respond to questions on the decision of the Planning Commission. Ms. Jones said that on April 6, 1982, the Planning Commission had considered a zone change request for the Boatman property, located at the corner of Bailey Hill Road and West 11th Avenue, and that many of the same issues raised by the Marvin request had been raised at that hearing. She said that the Planning Commission had decided to postpone action on the Boatman request until its April 13, 1982, meeting, in hopes of receiving guidance from the council deci- sion on the Marvin request. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by councilors. The staff notes and minutes were made a part of the record. Public hearing was opened. Allen Johnson, 915 Oak Street, Suite 200, said he was an attorney representing Phillip Marvin and Cowboy Country, applicants for the rezoning. He asked that the following materials be made a part of the record for this hearing: the Metropolitan Area General Plan, the West Eugene Industrial Study, Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, and the staff notes for the December 1, 1981, hearing on this parcel. Mr. Johnson reviewed the history of the subject property and of this application. He said that Cowboy Country had been located on West 11th Avenue for a number of years. He said the business was formerly located in a building on the south side of West 11th, east of the present location. He said that two years ago the lease on that building expired, and Cowboy Country leased the front display area of the Industrial Finishes Building, located at the corner of Seneca Street and West 11th, next to the Fred Meyer property. Mr. Johnson said that Cowboy Country then applied for a conditional use permit for that site. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 1982 Page 2 . e - Mr. Johnson said that the experience of Cowboy Country following this condi- tional use application had been most frustrating. He said that the application was initially refused by the Planning Department, on the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator. Subsequently, the Planning Department accepted the application on the advice of the City Attorney. Mr. Johnson said that the request was heard by the Hearings Official and was denied. The applicant then appealed the denial to the Planning Commission, which overturned the denial and approved the conditional use permit. He said, however, that the approval included imposition of a fairly complex and unclear set of regulations. At that point, Industrial Finishes withdrew the lease, and Cowboy Country was forced to seek another location. Mr. Johnson said that Cowboy Country then leased property in the Nielsen Building, directly across the street from the Industrial Finishes building. He said that the property was in the same M-2 zone and seemed to be designated for commercial use in the Metropolitan Plan diagram. He said that Cowboy Country's application for a conditional use permit on this parcel was granted by the Hearings Official, again with restrictions attached that were difficult to interpret. Mr. Johnson said that subsequent efforts to lease a portion of the property had involved discussions between the Building Department and the Hearings Official, with the resulting delay causing the loss of a prospective t~a~. Mr. Johnson said that former Planning Department staff member Mary Briggs, who had handled the conditional use permit application, had suggested that Cowboy Country apply for a commercial zone change. He said that the applicant was unable to apply for the zone change until a tax exchange transaction was com- pleted. He said that his client filed for a change at the same time that Fred Meyer applied for a similar change from M-2 to C-2 for the property across the street. He noted that his client had supported the Fred Meyer request. Mr. Johnson said that during hearings on the Fred Meyer request, the issue was raised of conflict between land use designations for property in this area in the Metropolitan Plan and in the West Eugene Industrial Study and the Bethel- Danebo Refinement Plan. He said that at that time the staff and the City, through the Planning Commission, basically determined that the General Plan controlled and proceeded to zone the property commerical, despite the fact that the Fred Meyer property had been rezoned to another industrial use between time of adoption of the General Plan and the time of the C-2 rezoning. Mr. Johnson noted that his client's property had not been the subject of such a reaffirma- tion of industrial zoning. Mr. Johnson said that during the period when his client was preparing the appli- cation for rezoning, Planning Department staff members had not raised objections that there were conflicts with the West Eugene Industrial Study or with the neighborhood refinement plan, although they had discussed problems with the timing of the application and the need for a study of the West 11th commercial corridor. He said that at the December 1, 1982, Planning Commission hearing, the basic issues raised were the need for this study and the question of the specificity of the plan diagram designation. He said that on December 1, 1981, the Planning Commission tabled this application, pending completion of the West 11th study, and set no date for reconsideration. He said that planning commissioners did not learn until after the close of that hearing that the study was not yet funded and that its completion might not take place for a year or MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 1982 Page 3 - e - two. On that basis, the applicant filed an appeal to the City Council, main- taining that the decision to table violated the bylaws of the Planning Commis- sion and also violated laws of due process, because failure to designate a specific time for reconsideration was tantamount to denial. Mr. Johnson said that, on the advice of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission and staff decided they had made an error and held a second hearing on the item on January 18, 1982. He said there was no opportunity for public testimony at that time. He said that the issue of the refinement plan was raised at that hearing by a member of the commission and that one member of the commission found a statement in the plan to the effect that areas not otherwise specifically addressed in the map should retain their industrial designations. Mr. Johnson referred to the minutes of the January 18, 1982, hearing and noted that two commissioners had said that their intent to vote for the zone change had been swayed as a result of reading this new language in the refinement plan, despite the fact that the adopting resolution for the Bethel-Danebo refinement plan states specifically that the action recommendations in the plan are not City policy, and despite the fact that in consideration of the Fred Meyer request the staff had specifically stated that the General Plan is the controlling document. He said that what could have been a 4:3 vote to approve the application thus became a 5:2 vote to deny. Mr. Johnson said that his client was appealing the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson said there was a real problem when there are numerous planning documents with a poor definition of their relation to each other. He said that this confusion was increased with lapse of time and corresponding changes in regulations and interpretation. He said that the City needed to address this problem of the clarity and interrelationship of various plans as a part of its efforts to attract new industry to the area and as an important step toward acknowledgement of the Metropolitan Plan, particularly fulfillment of goals 9 and 2. Mr. Johnson said that for a long period of the time involved in the history of the various processes outlined above, no question was raised over the intent of the General Plan to designate this property for commercial use. He said that the City Hearings Official had specifically found that this property is clearly designated commercial on the plan diagram map. He said that this determination was never appealed or questioned by the Planning staff or the Planning Commis- sion, and that the applicant had relied on this determination. Mr. Johnson said that he did not feel the plan language calling for transforma- tion of commercial strip development to other uses was intended to indicate retention of industrial zoning for land in the area of the request. Mr. Johnson then addressed the new set of criteria that had been adopted by the City, during the two-year period of the various Cowboy Country applications, for making planning and zoning decisions. He said he agreed that the new criteria should apply. He said that his client could not demonstrate that "land already available in the zoning classification is unable to be served by adequate public facilities and services." Addressing the problem of an adequate supply of C-2 zoned land to meet the current need, Mr. Johnson referred to the staff recommen- dation for an item heard by the Planning Commission at its April 6, 1982, meeting regarding rezoning of property in the Chevy Chase addition on Centennial Loop (Z 82-5). He quoted from the staff notes, lithe necessity of showing public MI NlJTES--Eugene City Counc i 1 April 12, 1982 Page 4 - e e need is minimal in this case, since this request will meet public need by the application of appropriate City zoning to the property. The present request is essentially a housekeeping measure and will not substantially change the uses allowed in the subject property or affect the inventory of available residential 1 and one way or another. II He said that the staff notes also indicated that the Metropolitan Area General Plan was the governing document for the area in question. Mr. Johnson said he felt this indicated that when a zone request is clearly in conformance with the General Plan, the need requirement has already been satisfied. He said that unless this interpretation is used, adherence to the letter of the public need criterion would mean that as long as there is one available parcel of land of corresponding zoning anywhere in the City, a rezoning in that category could not be granted. Mr. Johnson referred to materials submitted previously to support the statement that there is not sufficient, available C-2-zoned land to meet the short-term needs of the City, defined as a six- to ten-year supply of land. Mr. Johnson said that it was important to note that this was not an abstract zone change request and that his client has a signed lease with Skipper's Restaurants, who are ready to begin construction within the next week. He said that this construction would employ 15 people. He said that his client had lost one potential tenant in the past month, due to confusion over the land use regulations. He said that if another tenant is lost, it is possible that Cowboy Country will discontinue operations here, and the opportunity to bring capital into the City from a thriving chainstore will be lost. Mr. Johnson said that staff had advised him tonight that the West 11th Commer- cial Corridor Study might be finished by early August, and that it is very likely the study will find that the subject property should be zoned commercial. He said staff had said that if the applicant would agree to a continuance of this hearing until the study is finished, the applicant would avoid the neces- sity of filing another application and perhaps not getting a hearing until October. Mr. Johnson said he felt, and staff seemed to recognize, that there is a strong likelihood that the study will recommend commercial zoning for this property, which is surrounded on three sides by commercial uses and would thus be unsuited for industrial use. He said there was thus no reason to delay rezoning of the property, since it can be recognized that the pattern of past planning decisions in the area has committed this ~arcel to commercial use in the future. Councilor Obie asked Mr. Johnson whether he was aware that if the City Council makes a decision on this item which contradicts the Planning Commission deci- sion, then the two bodies must meet jointly to resolve the issue. Mr. Johnson said he was aware of this and hoped that part of the Council's resolution would address holding that joint meeting soon after the Council's decision. Ms. Schue asked staff the status of funding for the West 11th Commercial Cor- ridor Study. Mr. Croteau responded that work on this study was under way in conjunction with the Willow Creek Basin Special Area Study, and that the Plan- ning Commission should receive a draft of the study in May. He anticipated that the Planning Commission would hold hearings on the study in early June, and that the City Council would consider and act on the study in mid-July or August. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 1982 Page 5 e e e Responding to a further question from Councilor Schue, Mr. Croteau said that Cowboy Country has a conditional use permit to operate on the subject site, but finds the conditions attached to the permit difficult. The requested C-2 zoning would alleviate this problem and would also allow additional commercial uses on the site. Ms. Schue asked why the eastern parcel was previously partitioned. Mr. Johnson said that the partition was made to allow access to the southern portion of the original lot. Ms. Wooten referred to a presentation recently made by staff to the Citizen Involvement Committee on plans for the Willow Creek Basin/West 11th Commercial Corridor Special Area Study. She asked whether the subject property was desig- nated as commercial in the preliminary map used in that presentation. Mr. Croteau responded that this area was not included in the map mentioned by Ms. Wooten. Councilor Wooten asked Mr. Johnson for further clarification of the discussion of the demonstrated need for additional commercially zoned land, which had been included in the Applicant's Statement of Appeal. Mr. Johnson introduced Bill Kloos, a land-use attorney and former City planner for the City of Honolulu. Mr. Kloss said that the materials referred to by Ms. Wooten included a needs analysis similar to that used to support the Fred Meyer decision. He said that the analysis was based on the assumption stated in the Metropolitan Plan that there should be a six- to ten-year supply of private, vacant, and therefore developable land that was zoned for commercial use. He said that he had then made an inventory of that type of land, using figures available from the Lane Council of Governments (L-COG). He said he had found that there is still a need for about 77 acres of commercially zoned land. Ms. Wooten asked whether this need was so great that the rezoning could not wait until the end of the summer. Mr. Kloos responded that the City is already in a deficit situation in terms of available commercially zoned land and that that deficit had existed for at least a year. Responding to a question from Councilor Smith, Mr. Croteau said that while there is a likelihood that the subject parcel would be recommended for commercial zoning in the Special Area Study, there is a current need to keep designations in the study area as flexible as possible to allow the study to respond to the mixed commercial and industrial uses in the area. Councilor Haws asked what the practical possibility was for the subject parcel to be used for any use other than commercial. He questioned whether any indus- try would want to locate in an area surrounded by commercial uses. Mr. Croteau responded that the potential use of a portion of the property for a Skipper's Restaurant would be permitted under the existing M-2 zoning, through the condi- tional use permit process. Mr. Haws asked if Skipper's would be interested in locating under the conditional use process. Mr. Croteau responded that there are other commercial uses in this area operating as conditional uses in indus- trial zones. Mr. Gleason said that a recommendation as to how the City will group commercial centers along West 11th, as opposed to spreading them out and extending the present commercial strip, will be made by the Planning Commission as a part of its recommendation to the council on the Willow Creek Basin/West 11th Commercial MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 1982 Page 6 e e e Corridor Special Area study. He said that the subject property would be a part of that recommended solution and grouping process. He felt that the question before the council was one of process; that is should land use decisions move from the general to the specific, with refinement planning occurring before site-specific rezonings? He said it was up to the council to determine whether the demands of time in this case were important enough to overweigh the need to follow this more orderly planning process. Mayor Keller called for rebuttal from the applicant. Mr. Johnson noted that the City Code definition of conditional uses in the M-2 zone had recently been narrowed considerably, in response to comments from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). He said that as a result of this change, a restaurant could only locate in the M-2 zone if it could be demonstrated that the restaurant is there to support existing industrial uses. He therefore felt that obtaining a conditional use permit to allow the Skipper's Restaurant to locate on the site was not a possibility. Mr. Johnson concluded by expressing the hope that the council would demonstrate its commitment to economic development and to accommodating new commerce and industry by over- turning the decision of the Planning Commission. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Councilor Obie said there was a need to clarify City policy in this area. He felt that a joint discussion between the council and the Planning Commission would help provide this clarification. He therefore encouraged councilors to overturn the denial of the Planning Commission and to approve the application, thus automatically triggering such a joint discussion. Councilor Miller referred to Mr. Johnson's statement that the Hearings Official had already made the determination that at least a portion of the property in question was intended under the General Plan for commercial use. She disagreed with this interpretation and felt that the record should be clarified to indi- cate that the Hearings Official had determined that a conditional use permit could be granted under the condition that the use would be primarily an indus- trial-wholesaling use, with incidental commercial permitted. She said it appeared that only the incidental commercial use had ever been established, but that this did not outweigh the original decision that the primary use should be industrial-wholesaling. Ms. Miller encouraged the council not to attempt to interpret the "blobs" of color on the Metropolitan Plan diagram by translating them into site-specific zonings. She said that the diagram had never been intended for such use. Ms. Miller felt that the major question before the council was determination of where the West 11th commercial strip is to end. Ms. Miller felt that the western edge of the Fred Meyer property on the north side of West 11th, and the western edge of the Pietro's Pizza property on the south side presented appro- priate boundaries for commercial strip development on West 11th. She agreed that a joint meeting of councilors and planning commissioners would be helpful in discussing this policy decision. MINUTES--Euqene City Council April 12, 1982 Page 7 e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be overturned, and that the C-2 zoning request be granted, with the notation that the City Council would consider it policy at this time to set the westerly boundary of the commercial zone at the western edge of the Fred Meyer property. Responding to a question from Mr. Obie, Mr. Sercombe said that the action of the council at this time would be preliminary, pending further discussion and action at the joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Ms. Smith requested that staff work to schedule the joint meeting as soon as feasible. Mr. Gleason said that this would be done. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Animal Control Ordinance Changes (memo, background information, and ordinance distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Assistant City Manager David Whitlow. Mr. Whitlow referred to the information session on this item, held at the council's March 10, 1982 meeting. He said that the proposed changes to the ordinance were intended to institute a fine for owners who refuse to claim impounded or abandoned dogs. He said the proposed changes would also lower the fee for licensing dogs, in an attempt to raise the percentage of dogs in the City that are licensed. Responding to questions raised by councilors at the March 10 meeting, Mr. Whitlow said that owners who fail to claim dogs would be cited and fined $25. He said that the proposed changes in the definition of vicious e animals would not affect the City's ability to declare an animal vicious. Mr. Whitlow noted that prior actions of the City in the area of animal control had paid off. He said that the City's emphasis on citation and return in the field had resulted in a reduction of the City's use of the animal shelter. He said it had been anticipated that 50 percent of the use of the shelter would come from the City of Eugene, but that this figure had actually been 35 percent, resulting in a reduction of $40,000 to $45,000 in the City's contribution for shelter costs. Ms. Wooten asked whether owners who are no longer able to care for their pets will still be allowed to leave their pets at the shelter for adoption. Mr. Whitlow said that owners bringing pets to the facility and wishing to leave those pets for adoption are encouraged to take the animals to the Greenhill Humane Society, but that Lane County would not refuse to accept such animals. Ms. Wooten asked the frequency of occurrence of the problem of owners refusing to claim dogs picked up for running at large. Mr. Whitlow said he did not have a figure for this, but that the number was large enough to present a problem. Mr. Lindberg said the proposed changes to the ordinance seemed to represent an appropriate continuation of the City's policy of education and enforcement. He asked what Greenhill does with animals that are not adopted. Mr. Whitlow said he would get this information and report back. He noted that Greenhill is located outside the City and is therefore not subject to City ordinances. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 1982 Page 8 e Ms. Miller said that the City should only be referring animals to Greenhill if Greenhill has a policy requiring provisions for neutering adopted animals. Mr. Whitlow and Mr. Gleason said that the City has been working to have the County adopt legislation requiring such provisions and will continue with thesf efforts. Public hearing was opened. There being no members of the public who wished to speak, public hearing was closed. CB 2444--An ordinance concerning animal control; amending Sections 4.355, 4.375, 4.380, 4.400, and 4.405 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2444 was read the second time be council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18945 II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING - A. Approval of Hearing Panel Minutes of March 15, 1982, and Findings of Fact (findings, and minutes distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Bert Teitzel, City Engineer. Mr. Teitzel referred to the April 6, 1982, memorandum on this item, which had previously been distrib- uted, and said he would respond to questions from councilors. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the Hearing Panel minutes of March 15, 1982, and findings of fact. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Levying of Assessments CB 2436--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way within and adja- cent to Treehouse PUD; sanitary sewer on Frederick Court from 35th Place to 450 feet west; and paving Dellwood Drive from 450 feet northwest of 38th Avenue to 650 feet northwest of 38th Avenue; and storm sewer between Dellwood Drive and 38th Avenue to serve lot 10, block 2, Clayton Hills Subdivision and lots 53 and 54 of Treehouse Subdivision (79-40). Council Bill 2436 was read by council bill number only. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 1982 Page 9 -- e - Mr. Obie moved~ seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18946 III. ITEMS FROM COUNCILORS Ms. Wooten read letters she had received from students at Edison School, expressing appreciation for a presentation she had made to them. Meeting was adjourned to April 14, 1982. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DCM:db/CM7b1 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 1982 Page 10