Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/10/1984 Meeting M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council Dinner Session Treehouse Restaurant, Franklin Boulevard December 10, 1984 5 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor "Gus" .Keller, Freeman Holmer, Brian Obie, Dick Hansen, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Roger Rutan, Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten, members; Micheal D. Gleason, Dave Whitlow, Tim Sercombe, Mick Nolte, Jim Croteau, Tom Hayes, Terri Vanderpool, Darcy Marentette, Ci ty staff. Mayor Keller called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. Io PREPARATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Croteau told councilors that at tonight's City Council meeting they would have two public hearings on the Amelia Coven annexation. There were four items of which they needed to be aware: 1) Mr. Croteau said he would explain the issue of annexation under the new processes adopted a year ago, 2) he wished to tell members why the hearing was before them (it was an appeal - hearing), 3) he wanted to layout the three options or decisions that the e councilors could make, and 4) he wanted to layout the rules the councilors were subject to. Mr. Croteau explained the new annexation process. The new rules now have the annexation and zone changes considered initially by the Planning Commission. These are two different types of land use applications but can he considered at the same time. The Planning Commission decision on zoning is final. It does not go to the City Council unless appealed. The annexation, on the other hand, is a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council. In the case to be heard this evening, the Planning Commission voted 5:1 to approve the annexation subject to there being a recorded access filed. The City Council holds a first hearing to decide if they will hold a public hearing (a call for a public hearing). The City Council could decide to hold or not hold a public hearing, accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and adopt the resolution to be forwarded to the Boundary Commission. Mr. Croteau explained that the citizens opposed to the annexation had appealed the decision of the Planning Commission, and the City Council would have to hold a public hearing. Tonight would be an appeal hearing. To uphold the Planning Commission recommendation) the City Council would adopt a resolution approving the annexation and forwarding it on to the Boundary Commission. Mr. Obie asked if the City Council could deny the appeal. Mr. Sercombe suggested that he state the reasons for denial. This would be written as a finding and would be approved at the Wednesday meeting. e Mr. Croteau distributed a list of annexation and zone change criteria to be used as the basis of a decision. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session Decemher 10, 1984 Page 1 e In response to Ms. Bascom's Question, Mr. Sercombe explained that to support the appeal would be to deny the annexation and reasons/findings should be stated. Mr. Hansen asked if the County zoning was the same as the City zoning and he was told it was. Mr. Croteau explained that in the past all annexation zone changes went to the City Council. Under the new rules, the City Council is an appellant body. Mr. Croteau said that there were three options open to the councilors: 1) a "tentative" decision with reasons; 2) deny the appeal and approve the request (annexation/zone change) and forward it to the Boundary Commission; they could allow the appeal and deny the application with reasons; 3) they could send it to the Planning Commission stating that there was not sufficient i nformati on. Mr. Sercombe stated that the appellant had raised procedural Questions about the appropriate findings and criteria. If the City Council concludes that the Planning Commission did not consider all aspects, they could remand it back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Ehrman was told that the City Council could deny the appeal and have its own findings. The City Council has 15 days from the public hearing to act on the appeal, Mr. Sercombe said. e Mr. Croteau stated that there had been controversy about the proposed future use of the property by Looking Glass. The use is allowed in an RA zone through a conditional use permit process (review by a Hearings Official and appeal to the Planning Commission). Issues relating to Looking Glass and the conditional use permit process are not germane to the issues before the council tonight (annexation and zone change). Group care houses are allowed in all residential areas of the city. Mr. Croteau told members that they must make their decision on the body of information before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sercombe said it was the job of the City Council to review the information presented to the Planning Commission and decide if they made an error. They can accept no new evidence and the City Council cannot look at new issues as an appellant body. Ms. Brody reminded members to state any ex parte contacts. II. RIVER ROAD/SANTA CLARA ANNEXATION SLIDE SHOW UDPATE--TOM HAYES Mr. Hayes reviewed what members had discussed at the September work session. He said there had been a public hearing in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Over 100 people attended. The citizens advisory team met two times to resolve some issues that were brought up in testimony. They passed a recommendation on to the policy committee, modified it slightly, and sent it - to the jurisdictions. A joint Planning Commission public hearing was held November 27 at Harris Hall. Ten to 12 people testified. The Eugene Planning Commission recommended 7:0 to send the plan on to the City Council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session December 10, 1984 Page 2 Land use policy direction is needed for the River Road/Santa Clara area. e Mr. Hayes told the City Council that the entire Urban Facilities Plan will be adopted in the fall of 1986. Mr. Hayes reviewed the policies which include low-density, prohibiting strip commercial, eliminating commercial floating nodes, allowing no neighborhood commercial on River Road, allowing mobile homes in parks and subdivisions, allowing commercial agriculture as an interim use, and medium-density residential development in areas close to shopping and transportation. ~r. Hayes reviewed the 12 subareas and the land use recommendation for each.. Mr. Hayes discussed the issues related to the light-medium industrial site. Mr. Hayes said one suggestion at the RUbliC hearing may be that planned unit development procedures be added when t e industrially designated site is zoned for industrial development. Staff had reviewed this suggestion and had no problems with it. Members were told that they would take no action tonight but would take action January 9, 1985. III. DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE STATUS REPORT--TERRI VANDERPOOL Ms. Vanderpool explained that the goal of the Development Assistance Center was to make it easier to do business in Eugene. She explained the phases that had been accomplished by bringing together public information, planning, business licensing, and parking permit functions. She said they were also working on streamlining regulations. Ms. Vanderpool explained what had been done and what was currently happening. A special Chamber of Commerce Committee and City staff are working on the building permit process, and Susan Smernoff is working on the business license process. e Ms. Vanderpool explained the services currently offered by the Development Assistance Center. She said the spring will bring in the building permit and related development functions. Ms. Marentette explained that with building permits added to the DAC, the average customer contact will go from 250 per day to 550 per day. The fourth phase will mean relocating the center. Staffing will ~e done by using existing professional and technical staff transferring into' the center on loan. Mr. Nolte spoke to members about how work was being done to streamline the building permit regulations. He reviewed the broad guidelines which have set direction for the review. Staff was working with the Chamber of Commerce building codes committee. They had met three times and will meet twice monthly. They are working with the County. Most regulations are State mandated. Mr. Obie and the councilors agreed that they had had many complaints. Ms. Vanderpool said that among other things the Chamber of Commerce Committee has discussed holding hearings in order to get a first-hand understanding of problem areas. Mr. Nolte explained the inspection process. He said that the turnaround time on plan checks was one-half of what it used to be. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session December 10, 1984 Page 3 e Ms. Smernoff gave a brief overview of the current business license process. She explained the existing system regulates 70 specific business types. About 50 percent of the licenses are for business activities and about 50 percent are fire safety permits. Twenty-three hundred applications are received each year, and they bring in a revenue of about $88,000 per year. This revenue does not cover the administrative cost. Ms. Smernoff distributed a memo dated December 10, 1984, entitled "Existing Busi ness Licenses and Permi t Regu1 ati ons. II Ms. Smernoff said that at another meeting she would present a proposal for revising and streamlining the present system. Members noted that this was the last meeting for Mayor "Gus" Keller who retires as of January 1, 1985. Th:.;.~:~;~~~~w;.,,~~~~ / ,"';'" -;..,. .,:~:,:/.':~;:,fr..;.{~.:,,~~,,-- ',' (Beth Conant, Minutes Recorder) BC:je/1582C e e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session December 10, 1984 Page 4