Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/1983 Meeting (2) e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers October 24, 1983 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Emily Schue, Brian Obie, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, John Ball, Betty Smith, and Cynthia Wooten. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Mark Lindberg Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Land Use Application Process Revisions (CA 83-1) (memo, ordinance, and background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Gary Chenkin of the Planning Department presented the staff report. Mr. Chenkin reviewed the e October 24 Planning Department memorandum, stating that the item had already been discussed at the joint meeting with the Planning Commission on October 19. For the benefit of the record, he stated that the revisions were the first product of the Coordinated Permit Counter Task Team and that the task team would be submitting to the council a progress report on other aspects of the permit process. Referring to the zone change procedures, he explained that the obliga- tory joint meeting with the Planning Commission would be deleted if the revisions were approved. He then reviewed the proposed process for zone change requests. He stated that appeals would be heard on the existing record and not on any new evidence presented. Mr. Chenkin stated that Tim Sercombe of the City Attorney's Office was present to answer any legal questions. Mr. Chenkin said that a letter from Bill Kloos, received on October 21, 1983, was added to the material distributed to the council. He stated that Mr. Kloos felt the Planning Commission had reversed its position on the parking variance approval criteria. Mr. Chenkin explained that the commission had not made a decision on the criteria until making its final recommendation on August 15, 1983. Mr. Chenkin suggested that the council hold the revisions over until November 16, 1983, for final action. In response to a request for more background on the parking variances, Mr. Chenkin stated that the six criteria for granting a variance were listed on the reverse side of the variance flow chart. He said staff had originally felt the last three criteria listed were sufficient for making a determination. He said that comments received from lone Pierron had caused staff to reconsider its position and finally decide to leave the ordinance as written--in other words, require all six criteria. Mr. Chenkin said that this would be a policy decision e to be made by the council. The public hearing was opened. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 1 e Speaking in favor of the ordinance: Jim Saul, 2780 Elinor Street, Eugene, representing the Planning and Land Use Committee of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, stated that the committee supported the proposed revisions. He expressed the committee's appreciation to Mr. Chenkin and other Planning Department staff for their time in reviewing the procedural changes with the committee. Mr. Saul said the committee wanted to emphasize the fundamental principle of providing for an original determination and then only one appeal beyond that determination. He said the committee felt it important to simplify the procedures. Commenting on specific aspects of the revisions, Mr. Saul said the committee supported the proposed Zone and Sign District Change procedures as recommended. He said the committee recognized that some sensi- tivity might exist on who should hear appeals, but he stressed that the council should recognize the committee's preference for only one appeal hearing. Mr. Saul said the committee supported the recommendation which focused criteria on the Metropolitan and applicable neighborhood refinement plans. He said the definitive approval criteria for Sign District Boundary Changes was welcomed. Mr. Saul stated that the committee disagreed that all six criteria should be applied to parking variances. He said the majority of parking variances involved reduction of parking requirements for certain specialized housing situations. He said the committee felt the first three criteria would be prohibitive when coupled with the criteria specifically related to parking. He said the committee realized that a review of the parking ratios would be part of the overall code update process but that it could not be assured of the outcome. e lone Pierron, 1360 Ferry Street, Eugene, stated that she supported Section 9.752(1) and (2) of the Eugene Code (parking variance criteria) as recommended by staff. She said that more errors existed in Mr. Kloos' letter than were addressed by Mr. Chenkin. She said that she had performed substantial research into zoning law while writing a brief for the Land Use Board of Appeals. She stated that she had also been a librarian for many years for the Bonneville Power Administration and the University of Oregon Bureau of Governmental Research and Service. She briefly reviewed the problems and concerns raised with the acceptance of zoning codes in the 1920's and the subsequent development of the Eugene Code Section 9.752 (1) (a) and (b). She stated that these criteria were found in similar language in the zoning codes of approximately 20 cities comparable to Eugene. She said the criteria served the dual purpose of pro- tecting the individual from too rigid a code and protecting the community from an over-zealous applicant. She said the criteria also served to guide the decision-makers who apply the code. She said the courts had developed case law which ensured reasonably consistent interpretation on appeals from findings based on the criteria. She said Mr. Kloos desired to exclude these criteria when considering off-street parking and loading variances. Referring to Mr. Kloos' letter of October 21 outlining his client's proposed expansion of the Bijou Theater, she said the Planning Commission had granted approval of the second theater contingent on an off-street parking variance. She said that LUBA ruled that the commission had misapplied the law of variance in Oregon in that the practical difficulties cited were self-created. She said the reversal of the commission's decision was based on higher court opinions in Oregon that hold that 1) a person cannot create one's own land use practical difficulties and e MlNUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 2 - -- e then request relief; and 2) justification or need for variances cannot rest solely on an applicant's desire to enhance profits from the property. She said that Mr. Kloos' letter ignored the first point and omitted the key term solely in'the second point, thus negating the logic of the law. She said the zoning process would be destroyed if self-created hardship or difficulties and the desire for profits could be construed by themselves as sufficient to justify variances. She said LUBA pointed out that the theater applied for and accepted its original conditional use permit to operate in an historic building with full recognition of the City's off-street parking requirements for theaters and that the theater had no inalienable right to expand when testimony in the record showed that its present operation was incompatible with the neighborhood. She said Mr. Kloos wanted to exclude all the legally accepted applications and concepts of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardships from off-street parking and loading variances because the courts stated there were two unac- ceptable concepts which affected his clients. She said LUBA stated that some commission findings on other code criteria were IImarginal at best.1I She said LUBA cited a lack of facts and evidence to support findings involving Code Section 9.752 (2) (a),(b), and (c)--the only code sections desired for retention by Mr. Kloos for consideration of parking variances. She said it appeared the request by Mr. Kloos' client could not even meet these criteria. Ms. Pi erron said she felt the City should have a code with the greatest benefit to the entire community. She said the issues of compatibility, exceptional circumstances, and practical difficulty would also arise in applications for off-street parking and loading variances as in other variances. She asked why the applicants for these variances and the community should be denied the protection offered by these exceptions and why the decision-makers should be deprived of the guidance e provided by the criteria. She referred to her written testimony distributed to the council which addressed the four rationales used by Mr. Kloos in his proposal. Commenting on Mr. Saul's testimony, she said his hypothetical nursing home situation would be allowed to have reduced off-street parking if it clearly showed its reduced need for such parking, with or without the practical difficulty or exceptional circumstances. She said the decision findings would have to withstand appeal, something which would be easier with the inclusion of the Section 9.752 (1) (b) clause as supported by case law. Ms. Pierron urged the council to adopt the variance section as submitted by staff. Speaking in opposition to the ordinance: Bill Kloos, 915 Oak Street #200, Eugene, representing the Bijou Theater, said the Planning Commission had approved on appeal from the Hearings Official the expansion of the theater to modify the conditional use permit and alSO-foot variance to the off-street parking criteria of no more than 400 feet from the si te. He said LUBA affirmed the decision with the exception of the parking variance, stating that the findings were inadequate in meeting the practical difficulty standard. He stated that variance law was local law and that there was no applicable state or common law. He questioned why the criteria for parking variances were more stringent than for other variances, but not as significant. Referring to his letter, Mr. Kloos said he had not meant to imply that the Planning Commission had reversed its original position. He said the June 1983 draft of the proposed revisions stated that only the last three criteria were to be applicable to off-street parking and loading variances. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 3 He said the considerations looked at in granting parking variances were not e logically related to the notion of practical difficulty and that only the physical characteristics of the site were actually considered. He said the impact on the neighborhood should be emphasized in deciding on the variance. He said it was these types of facts on which the Planning Commission based its decision. He said the variance would be consistent with the behavior of the theater patrons who already walked approximately 400 feet to the theater. He questioned the justification for the maximum 400-foot figure, stating it had been suggested that it might have been based on the standard length of a city block. He referred to an excerpt from the City of Salem code which allowed parking 600 feet from the site. He said that standards or criteria should be applied which were worthy of the magnitude of the impact of the issue. Mr. Kloos said that policies already existed in the Metropolitan Plan and the refinement plan, as listed in his letter, which should control the situation, adding that not granting the variance would only frustrate these policies. He said an alternative to using existing parking would be to tear down residential buildings to create parking lots. He said the issue was a case study for the City and that rigid criteria would create future problems for businesses that wished to expand. Mr. Kloos urged the council to adopt the staff's original recommendation. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Chenkin stated that Eleanor Mulder of the Planning Commission was present to answer any questions. He stated that staff was studying the ratios for parking for all uses. He said that he expected the commission to consider some recom- mendation on parking in either December or January. Responding to Mr. Kloos' e testimony, he stated that the commission could also be considering maximum allowable distances for parking in conjunction with use. He felt the Bijou Theater issue did not speak directly to the agenda item of revised proce- dures, although there might be some connection. He said the council could decide to remedy the situation on behalf of the theater by requiring only the last three criteria for parking variances or by determining the reasonable- ness of the 400-foot maximum distance and extending it. In response to a question, Mr. Chenkin said the commission was recommending the deletion of subsections (1)(c) and (1)(d) of Section 9.752 but stressed that the real issue was whether the remaining three criteria, the first three, should apply to parking variances. In response to a question, Mr. Chenkin explained that the Planning Commission had decided to split the zone changes into two procedures. He said that zone changes with an annexation request would be decided by the commission, but only submitted to the council on appeal; zone changes with no annexation request would be decided by the Hearings Official, and go to the Planning Commission on appeal. He said the commision had decided that it was best not to have a second appeal, but added that the option for the council to hear the appeal was left in the process based on the council's request in January 1983 for some type of review. Mr. Holmer said he was not suggesting abandoning the one hearing-one appeal process but suggested an optional appeal by the council. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said that the revision proposed one appeal, either to the Planning Commission or to the City Council, so a commission appeal would not go on to the council. Mr. Holmer restated his desire to have an optional appeal exercisable e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 4 only by the council. Mr. Chenkin said the commission was concerned with e keeping the various processes consistent and that Mr. Holmer's suggestion would require that the council decide who was to hear each appeal. He said that the commission wanted to be involved at the first step if the council wanted to be involved in the appeal. Speaking to Mr. Holmer, Councilor Obie stated that he had not understood Mr. Saul to state he suported an appeal to the council. Councilor Wooten said she appreciated the time spent by staff. She said the Community Involvement Committee had also spent time with the revisions and that the committee felt comfortable with the proposed revisions. She said she was prepared to vote and approve all but the zoning variance revisions. She said the council might want to retain some flexibility and she was not prepared to make a decision on that issue. She asked how that issue might be separated from the balance of the revisions. Mr. Sercombe stated that staff felt that the council should not take action on the ordinance but only hear testimony and provide input to staff on the revisions. He said that staff would then prepare revisions for review by the council in November. Mr. Gleason understood the council.s concern and sensed the council was in agreement except for some ambiguity with regard to zone changes. Speaking to Mr. Holmer's suggestion, he asked if two appeals were necessary. He said it would be more constructive for the council and the commission to discuss major issues in the abstract and then have the Hearings Official or the Planning e Commission carry out the policy directives. He said the council could then call back the commission if the policy directives were not properly followed. In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe said that appeals would be on the basis of the record and that the process was adequate for an applicant to carry on a subsequent appeal. He said an appeal could be carried on to the LUBA and then to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Councilor Wooten said she was concerned that the council provide assistance to businesses. She said that circumstances existed where it would be appropriate for the council to hear a request for variances and that she wanted the council to retain that flexibility without undermining the intent of the planning process in the use of the Hearings Official or the commission. She said the council should look at such opportunities before taking any final vote. Mr. Gleason said that two hearings would be necessary if the council wished to substantively review any request. He said the distinction must be made between zone changes and variances and that any disagreement between the council and the commission would require the joint meeting between the two groups. He again suggested that the council meet with the commission to decide the broader issues. Mr. Sercombe reviewed the process for variances as proposed in the revisions. He said that variances were usually not controversial and usually did not reach the council. He said that rezonings were usually decided on the basis of the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 5 Metropolitan Plan and that the council had input into the process by its adoption e of that plan. Councilor Schue asked Ms. Wooten if it was her concern that the council might lose its prerogative in rezonings. Ms. Wooten responded that she wanted to see an additional step for compromise to allow the council some prerogative with regard to variances, not zone changes. Mr. Chenkin said that the questions raised were whether the council should be involved in variances. He said that variances were usually routine and were nearly as administerial as any processes. He said that no testimony existed on individuals wanting access to the council in that regard. He said that there were few appeals on original variance findings when compared to other requests. With regard to the zone change process, he agreed with Mr. Gleason that the council's desire to be involved would create a double appeal situation. In response to a question, Mr. Chenkin said the commission by-laws were the same as the council in that it required only a majority vote for a decision. CB 2692--An ordinance concerning land use application processes; amending provisions of Chapters 2, 7, 8, and 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and providing an effective date. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that action on this item be held over until November 16, 1983. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. e B. Federal Jobs Bill Funds Reprogramming (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. Greg Byrne of the Eugene Development Department presented the staff report. He said the reprogram- ming of the $100,000 resulted from previously approved Jobs Bill projects coming in under estimate. He reviewed the process of meetings and public hearings which were held to discuss the recommendation prior to its submission to the council. He also reviewed the October 18 memorandum of the COC and the Eugene Private Industry Council which outlined the criteria used to select the project for recommendation. He said the proposal for the Park Facilities Improvement Project would provide $68,000 in direct wages to individuals, with the balance going for materials and indirect labor costs. In response to a question, Mr. Byrne explained that the COC had not solicited any proposals for the funds. He said the committee reviewed the proposals submitted and directed staff to work with those individuals who had previously expressed interest in the Jobs Bill and who wished to make a proposal. He said four such proposals were reviewed by the COC at a public hearing. The public hearing was opened. G.V. Stathakis, 830 Hilyard Street, Eugene, said people were apathetic about the proposal because they fel t the council woul d simply "rubber stamp" the staff recommendation. He said he and others felt the staff recommendation was illegal. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 6 He stressed that the Jobs Bill monies were for emergency help during the depres- e sed financial times and for jobs for low- and moderate-income people, not for capital improvement, Parks, or EPIC. He asked the council to consider how the $715,000 was being spent. He also questioned the rationale of the council, stating that it appeared that the council was unaware of the true situation of the area residents. He said that EOO knew in April 1983 that the money would be allocated, but it did not advertise for proposals until 10 days prior to the June public hearing. He stated that the money had already been earmarked for the Roosevelt Boulevard Project. He said the $100,000 was now going to Parks and the EPIC, ignoring the low- and moderate-income people. He said the proposal was a disgrace and that it was promoting apathy rather than promoting the individuals who need the funds. Mr. Stathakis said that staff needed to get out and work in the community and he encouraged the councilors to do the same. He said that this was an opportunity for the council to reduce the amount of cynicism and to show some real class by supporting the disadvantaged. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Councilor Schue, speaking for Councilor Lindberg, said the COC had unanimously approved the staff report. Councilor Wooten said she still had questions on the allocation of the recaptured funds. She said that EPIC had not expressed its interest in the initial proposal hearings. She questioned what other proposals were reviewed by the COCo Mr. Byrne responded that staff had asked the EPIC to assist in order to perfect the process, explaining that the EPIC was staffed by the Job Training Center and e that it was their specialty to work with low-income, unemployed people. He said the EPIC was successful in increasing the ratio between labor and materials. He then reviewed the proposals of the Buckley House, the YMCA, the Lane Unemploy- ment Project, and the Crossroads Area Refinement Planning Study as reviewed by the COCo Councilor Ball said he shared Ms. Wooten's concerns with the process. He said a better, but not sufficient, job had been done with the reprogramming. He added that some individuals with proposals had been referred to the Joint Social Services process to be considered during the next block grant funding cycle. He said he had followed the process and that the staff decision not to solicit proposals due to time constraints was a mistake. He said he was more pleased with the process, but he hoped that improvement could be made. Mr. Gleason said the council had made a decision two years ago to stop the individually funded project system for CDC money and to utilize the existing structures of the General Plan, the Capital Improvement Plan, and the Joint Social Services as processes which already have internal public participation models. He said the council unanimously adopted that recommendation. He said if council wanted to reinstate the individually funded projects, then council should have a subcommittee study the situation and develop a recommendation for staff. He said he felt he was presently working under a council directive and that the proposal was correct. He said the allocation systems contained a model and that council should use those resources. Mayor Keller, speaking for Councilor Lindberg, said the COC had voted unanimously - in favor of the staff recommendation and that the committee wished to continue MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 7 working with other segments of the community in developing other opportunities in the future. He said the CDC recommended that council give strong considera- e tion to the program. Councilor Wooten said she would support the staff recommendation. She clarified that the funding was special and staff knew it was coming but council was told to wait because HUD was not sure of its regulations, thereby shortening the time in which to work and forcing the council into an unfortuate situation. Councilor Ball concurred with Ms. Wooten's comments, stating that it was a mistake to camouflage this process as a normal part of the CDC process. He said he was comfortable with the present process utilized in reviewing CDC proposals, but he said that to contend that the Jobs Bill money was normal was to miss the point of the legislative history and the responsibility of the local jurisdic- tions in addressing the problem of short-term unemployment. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to amend the Jobs Bill grant to include the use of remaining Jobs Bill funds for the Park Facilities Improvement Project. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. C. Rezoning Request for Property Located at the Northwest Corner of 4th Avenue and Jefferson Street from 1-2 Light-Medium Industrial District to R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District (John and Bess Brandt) (Z 83-8) (map and background information distributed) City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. Gary Chenkin of the e Planning Department presented the staff report, stating that the item had been postponed from an earlier council public hearing at the request of the applicant. He said the request was in accordance with the applicable plans and policies. There were no statements of ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest declared. The staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. CB 2678--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from 1-2 Light-Medium Industrial District to R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District for property located at the northwest corner of 4th Avenue and Jefferson Street. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 19, 1983, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 2678 was read the second time by council bill number only. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 8 Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved e and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19193). The meeting was adjourned at 9 p.m. to October 26, 1983. Respectfully submitted, z~- ..", - Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) TS:vr/CM8a1 e e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 9