Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/1984 Meeting M I NUT E S - Eugene City Council/Eugene Planning Commission McNutt Room--City Hall June 13, 1984 12:05 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie (until 1:20), John Ball, Dick Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Betty Smith (until 1:20). COUNCILORS ABSENT: Cynthia Wooten, Emily Schue. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Roger Rutan, Brian Bauske, Dorothy Anderson, Robert Bennett, Eleanor Mulder, Randy Thwing. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Robert Barkman. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. Mayor Keller called the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commis- sion to order. He then turned the chair over to Mr. Rutan, President of the Eugene Planning Commission. I. INFORMATION ITEM: RIVERFRONT PARK STUDY e Planning Department Director Susan Brody stated that staff had already briefed the City Council on the beginnings of the Riverfront Park Study. She said staff will later be presenting a tentative work program and planning team structure to the Planning Commission on June 20 and to the City Council on June 25. Mr. Rutan returned control of the meeting to Mayor Keller. II. PUBLIC HEARING: WEST 11TH AVENUE STRIP COMMERCIAL POLICY (memo, map, (resolution distributed) Jim Croteau of the Planning Department introduced the agenda item. Referring to the June 13, 1984, Planning Department memorandum to the council and the commission, he stated that staff had been directed to develop a proposed land use policy which would layout the area appropriate for C-2 Strio Commercial uses along West 11th. He stated that the memorandum outlined the history of the six zone changes that have occurred in the area. Mr. Croteau briefly reviewed the zone changes, adding that some discussion on limiting the western boundary of the strip commercial area had occurred with the Fred Meyer and Cowboy Country zone changes. He explained that the Metro Plan contained strong language calling for the City to limit rezonings to C-2 to existing strip commerical a re as. Mr. Croteau stated that the City Council will soon be considering the code amendment for the new C-4 Commercial/Industrial District which may be appropriate for other areas of West 11th Avenue. He added that some of e MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 1984 Page 1 the present discussion may reflect on that action. He stated that corres- e pondence was received from Richard Miller as an informal response from the Eugene Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Croteau added that some of the present 1-2 properties in the West 11th Avenue area may be appropriate for C-2 zoning in the future. The public hearing was opened. Referring to page 3 of the memorandum, Mr. Thwing asked why the depth limitation of one tax lot for the northern side of West 11th Avenue was not used on the south side. Mr. Croteau explained that staff had felt that a limitation of one tax lot was appropriate for the northern side; however, he said the Amazon Channel on the south side of the avenue was a more effective boundary. Mr. Rutan said he understood that only the C-2 zoned areas were involved in the present discussion and that C-4 properties would be discussed in the future. Mr. Croteau said it was unfortunate that the council was being asked to consider the present policy before the commission and council had discussed the C-4 District. He said staff was recommending that the commission and council adopt the present policy and that staff will then study the area to the west of the present strip commercial area and report back to both bodies on the effect of the C-4 District and the appropriate areas for that zoning. He said staff had agreed that a study be performed ahead of any zone changes in the area. Mayor Keller asked what boundaries had been discussed for limiting the strip commercial area. Mr. Croteau stated that the decision of the council at the time of the Fred Meyer zone change was that the Fred Meyer property should be the western boundary of the strip commercial area. He stated that the two e properties west of the Fred Meyer area were vacant and zoned 1-2 and I-I, both being designated as appropriate for industrial use by the Metro Plan and the West Eugene Industrial Study. In response to a question by Mr. Hansen on the area south of West 11th Avenue, Mr. Croteau said the western boundary of the Fred Meyer property would still generally be considered the limit of the commercial zoning. He stated that Pietro's Restaurant, located west of the Cowboy Country property, could be rezoned commercial based on the Metro Plan language. In response to a question by Mr. Hansen regarding the Boatman estate, Mr. Croteau said the City Council and Planning Commission had denied a zone change from 1-2 to C-2 for that property. He said the property was currently developed with 1-2 uses. He explained that the council had decided that the property was too far to the west to be considered part of the existing strip commercial area. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Anderson stated that the issue had been discussed several times with regard to several rezonings and that the council and commission had discussed the issue in a joint meeting on the Moyer Theater zone change request. She felt that the resolution reflected that discussion and was consistent with the commission's previous decisions. Ms. Anderson moved that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution as a refinement to the Metropolitan Area General Plan. Mr. Thwing seconded the motion. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 1984 Page 2 Mr. Bauske said he had been an opponent of incremental additions to strip e commercial and that the policy was what he had actually wanted in the beginning. He said that he will support the policy and hoped that the application of the C-2 zoning will not erode the present process and development. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Res. No. 3862--A resolution adopting the West 11th commercial land use policy and refining the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution based on the recommenation of the Eugene Planning Commission. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. III. WORK SESSION: PROPOSED RIVER ROAD/SANTA CLARA ANNEXATION (memo distributed) Jim Farah of the Planning Department introduced the agenda item. He stated that staff had already reviewed the issue with the City Council at its June 11 meeti ng . He stated that two memoranda, dated May 17 and June 14, were distri- buted to the council as background for the issue. Mr. Farah stated that members of the NEAR Group that had been working with staff were present to address the commission and council. Jim Edmundson stated that he became involved in the annexation issue after he e found a child who had been struck by a car. He said he realized that the key issues were that of public health and public safety. He said he became involved in the incorporation measure at that time and formed, along with several others, a research group to study the alternatives. He said he subsequently endorsed the annexation proposal as a common sense approach to the problems of the area. Renee Haake said she was a long-term resident of the Santa Clara area. She said she felt the incorporation measure would mean a duplication of services already in place in Eugene. She stated that she met Jim Hale in January and was invited to attend a meeting exploring the measures other than incorporation. She said she understood many of the involved issues through her husband who was a volunteer fire fighter in the Santa Clara area. She said she became involved in an attempt to .study the issues and determine what was right for the area. She stated that she supported annexation, stating that an incorporated city so close to Eugene would be inappropriate. Gary Wright said he was present to update the commission and council on the work of the City staff with the residents of the River Road and Santa Clara areas. He stated that the various options had been explored to determine what was best for the River Road/Santa Clara area and for the City of Eugene. He said the options needed to be explored due to the changes in the area mandated by the Department of Environmental Quality, the General Plan, and in an intergovern- mental agreement between Lane County and the DEQ. He stated that that agreement e MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 1984 Page 3 will require changes in the governments of the River Road and Santa Clara areas. e He said the issues were who will facilitate the changes, deliver services to the area, and administer the area. Next must be considered what will be the most cost-effective method of implementing the transition. In addition, he said that other issues not answered were backyard burning, animals, sewers, and street repairs. He said the major concern of the River Road/Santa Clara residents was how they will be received by the City. Mr. Wright stated that he was very pleased with the process and with the work of the City staff in that process. Jim Hale stated that the River Road/Santa Clara area had several service needs that required attention. While some difficulties existed on both sides in the discussion, he said that some changes were taking place to facilitate discus- sion. He said he appreciated the response of the City Manager and staff. Mr. Hale stated that he supported the incorporation measure. Having heard testimony from the representative of the Bond Council discussing the assessed value of the River Road/Santa Clara property, he said he agreed with the evaluation that Santa Clara was unprepared to pay for the needed services. He stated that two options were possible for the River Road/Santa Clara area, but he stressed that the area was all part of the same community and that the actions of the River Road/Santa Clara residents would also affect the North Eugene area. He said he felt it was best for all concerned that the area be annexed by the City of Eugene. Ron Eachus stressed that the option of the status quo had been taken away trom the River Road/Santa Clara area, stating that the area must either be incorporated or annexed. He realized that the incorporation measure was not feasible when it was presented to the Boundary Commission. While he recognized - that many people viewed the annexation measure as uncertain and evil, he com- mented that this fear was due to many being unsure of the actual terms and impact of the measure. He said the creative process was started to determine that impact and definition of the terms so they could be presented to the area residents. He stated that the process was not complete but that it was time to update the City Council. He felt that the residents of River Road and Santa Clara were working with City staff to define what annexation will mean. He explained that he became involved because of the worst scenario of forced annexation which he felt would create problems and animosity. He felt that the process will facilitate the development of a resolution which will be beneficial to both sides. Gordon Elliott, speaking as a member of the general public, stated that he has followed the process and felt that the City Council has heard only one side of the issue. While he understood that the meeting was not scheduled as a publiC hearing, he said that others wished to address the issue before the council. Mayor Keller said the council and staff appreciated the work of the NEAR Group. He felt that the various processes have led everyone to the same conclusion. He believed that Eugene residents viewed the River Road/Santa Clara area as part of the city while some students from that area did not realize they were not represented as part of the city. He stated that he will continue to assist the residents in the process. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 1984 Page 4 -------- Mr. Hansen stated that the City must work with the citizen group to address the e problems such as backyard burning, possibly through a phasing program. He hoped that the City will be supportive of those special issues. Ms. Smith said that that message should be conveyed as soon as possible and that some efforts be made prior to the election because some of the issues could be viewed as nega- tive even though they are resolvable. She encouraged the five individuals to continue their work with staff in this area and thanked them for their efforts. Mr. Ball said that communities always hoped that positive leadership such as shown by the NEAR Group will emerge at critical times. Mr. Holmer said he shared in the delight expressed with regard to the process being made. He asked if any consideration had been given to the annexation of the Southern Pacific island. He noted that the Community Goals document included a proposed amendment to call on Southern Pacific to perform certain actions with respect to its property. Mr. Hale said the area had been purposely drawn out of the boundary, possibly to avoid the controvery, but primarily to avoid making a decision that would affect the entire community. Responding to Mr. Elliot, Ms. Ehrman said the current process will only encourage more public participation by putting the question to the people in an election. She asked for some clarification on what would be done to provide representation to the River Road/Santa Clara area if the annexation were successful. Ci ty Manager Micheal Gleason stated that the City Charter controlled the number of counci 1 seats. He explained that every major annexation required the City Council, L-COG and EWEB to redefine their districts. He added that most cities were limited to eight seats regardless of the city size. He said the council should not attempt to merge the two issues. Mr. Hale stressed that the - council should be clear on the representation issue because the impact of reapportioning the districts would be substantial on the council, the city and the River Road/Santa Clara residents. Mayor Keller said the ward lines have become quite articulate, explaining that the process included the stipulation that no councilor be forced to move or give up his or her seat. He bel ieved that any problems could be resolved. Mr. Edmundson said it was too early to address the representation issue. He stressed that the River Road/Santa Clara had a strong identity and he would be sorry if that identity were lost. Mr. Gleason said the issue of representation was a key point, adding that representation existed at various levels other than the City Council. Mr. Eachus said his group had not addressed the existing representative bodies such as the fire and parks districts. He said they were trying to facilitate the contact between those groups and the City of Eugene but the groups were working with City staff to address their own concerns. Mr. Hansen temporarily left the meeting at this time. In response to a request by Mr. Hale to clarify the work of City staff, Mr. Gleason stated that staff had met with the Santa Clara Fire District to discuss the future of that district after annexation by the City. He said staff was not able to provide clear answers, stating that numerous alternatives existed. He suggested that a group consisting of representatives of both organizations be formed to develop proposals. He said he felt comfortable that some resolutions could be made. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 1984 Page 5 e Mr. Hansen rejoined the meeting at this time. Mr. Bauske suggested that staff contact L-RAPA staff to request technical information which may assist in developing a performance-oriented approach to the backyard burning issue. He asked for clarification on the annexation procedure with respect to public hearings. Mr. Farah stated that the Boundary Commission would refer the petition to the City of Eugene for public hearings prior the election. He felt that many avenues would exist for citizen input. City Attorney Tim Sercombe explained there would be no legal requirement for a meeting format; it would be up to the Planning Commission and the City Council to determine it. In response to a question, he said the councilors and commissioners would be free to have ex parte contacts on the issue but specific conflict of interest questions would have to be addressed. Ms. Mulder said she would support the proposal, stating that the issue was long in coming. She stated that she had previously lived in the River Road area and was concerned enough about public safety to relocate to the city. ~1s. Anderson stated that she was pleased with the revised language, stating that it better reflected the commission's discussion and its desire to cooperate with the residents of the River Road/Santa Clara area. Mr. Thwing moved that the Planning Commission recommend the following to the City Council: 1. Concur that the proposal is consistent with the Metropolitan General Plan and reflects direction established through the e Acknowledgement Process in 1982; 2. Concur that the concept of "tax differential" annexation is appropriate for application in an annexation proposal such as the one proposed by the NEAR Group and achieves the objective of equity for the citizens of River Road/Santa and the City of Eugene; 3. Concur that the annexation proposal should receive widespread public review and comment which can best be achieved by a series of citizen involvement mechanisms, including public hearings before the Planning Commission, City Council and Boundary Commission as well as a vote of the citizens of River Road and Santa Clara; and 4. Express a sincere "Thanks" to the residents of River Road and Santa Clara who have worked so diligently to improve communication and to propose a feasible solution to the problem of pUblic service delivery in the area--an issue which ahs been important to the Metropolitan Area for over thirty years. Ms. Anderson seconded the motion. Mr. Bauske said he would support the motion but that it should not be construed as any endorsement. He said he was concerned that any support may be viewed as e MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 1984 Page 6 prejudicial prior to the public hearings. He said he wished to give the group e of residents the best opportunity to present the issue to the River Road and Santa Clara residents free of any appearance of coercion. Mr. Bennett asked for some response to the ways in which the Planning Commission or City Council could respond to the petition effort. Mr. Wright stated that a political action committee should be formed to obtain funding for distributing information to the public and presenting the petition to the Boundary Commission. Mr. Hale said the Planning Commission and City Council would only make its recommendation to the Boundary Commission who would make the final decision. He said the group was asking the two groups for their support of the ballot proposal. He said the group must be sure that the commission and council were comfortable with the proposed tax rates. Mr. Bennett said that he supported the annexation proposal. Mr. Thwing commented that the motion was not as specific as the request made by Mr. Hale. He said it supported the concept of tax differential annexation but did not address the tax rates. He said he supported the concept but added that it may require some fine tuning in the future. Mayor Keller asked if the group had previously reviewed the proposed motion. Mr. Hale said the group was comfortable with the motion as long as the commission and council realized that they could not change their minds. Ms. Smith said the council was walking a fine line; however, she said she had not heard any major concerns with the proposal. Mr. Rutan said he felt the memo was well-worded. He said that many issues existed for discussion; he felt that the commission could concur with the concept. Mr. Thwing said he agreed with that interpretation. Ms. Mulder also concurred with that interpretation but questioned staff and e the NEAR Group if the commission and council would have any additional oppor- tunities to discuss the issue prior to the ballot election. Mr. Hale stated that the group will not make any changes unknown to the commission or council. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Holmer questioned if the Boundary Commission had any option to modify the petition as submitted. Steve Gordon of the Boundary Commission staff stated that the commission could approve, deny or modify and approve, such modifications dealing only with the boundaries of the annexation proposal. He said the commission could continue to deny the petition until it felt the substance was adequate. Councilor Hansen asked staff to outline what services would not be provided to the annexed area in the increment stages. He said he was not ready to agree on the rate percentages until he had that information. Mr. Gleason said staff could provide that information to both the commission and the council. He said the Planning Commission and the City Council must agree on the concept so that the NEAR Group could proceed. He said the key issue was that the process must be equitable to everyone concerned. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission as outlined in the June 13, 1984, Planning Department memorandum on the possible action concerning the River Road/Santa Clara annexation proposal. The motion carried unanimously, 7:0. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 1984 Page 7 Ms. Smith and Mr. Obie left the meeting at this time. - IV. T-2000 EVALUATION REPORT (memo, background information distrbuted) Kirk McKinley of the Planning Department presented a slide presenation addressing the transportation needs of the Eugene/Springfield area and several related issues. The presentation briefly reviewed the history of the T-2000 Plan since its adoption in 1978 and its major goals and issues. It also outlined the purposes of the Evaluation Report in studying highway improvements, new street construction, transit and bicycle issues, evaluating the T-2000 Plan on travel behavior and obtaining input from the community on population, transportation and highway and street improvement issues. The presentation also stated that MAPAC will conduct a public forum on June 30 at the Eugene Conference Center to provide information on the planning issues involved in the report. In addition, the planning commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County will hold a joint public hearing on July 25 in Springfield to take testimony on the Evaluation Report and related transportation issues. The respective City Councils and Planning Commissions will consider the issues in August and September to provide direction to staff for preparation of an updated T-2000 Plan. The meeting was adjourned 1:36 p.m. to June 20, 1984. e (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) TS:ts/CM32b10 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 1984 Page 8