Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/1985 Meeting /' - M I NUT E S -. Eugene City Council/Planning Commission Dinner/Work Session Bloch Room--Eugene Conference Center July 8, 1985 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Debra Ehrman, Ruth Bascom (5:55-7:12), Jeff Miller. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Roger Rutan, Richard Hansen. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dorothy Anderson, Randy Thwing, Eleanor Mulder, Rob Bennett, Jim Ellison, Gerry Gaydos, Hugh Prichard. Mayor Brian B. Obie called the work session to order about 5:50 p.m. I. RIVERFRONT PARK STUDY - Mayor Obie said several councilors had just returned from a tour of the River- front Park site. Mayor Obie thanked the Planning Commissioners for their work on the Riverfront Park Study. He introduced Pat Decker of the Planning Department, who gave the staff report. She said the council will be asked to approve the Riverfront Park conceptually on July 17. She said the Planning Commission recommended that the council adopt the Riverfront Park Study with the modifications sug- gested by the commission, initiate a Metro Area General Plan amendment to redesignate University land in the Riverfront Park area and refer the study and the amendment to Springfield and Lane County for review, and consider the commission's position on other issues. Ms. Decker said it is important that the council take action on July 17 in order to establish a tax increment district for the Riverfront Park before the election on a State sales tax in September. If the sales tax is approved, tax increment districts established afterwards will produce about one-third less for the local jurisdiction. Ms. Decker reviewed the modifications recommended by the Planning Commission. They were forwarded to the Mayor and council in a memo dated July 8, 1985, from the Pl anning Department ti tl ed "Pl anning Commi ssi on Recommendati ons on Draft Riverfront Study. II The first modification concerned alternate sites for the research park. The commission recommended that alternate sites not be considered at this time. . The second modification was titled "Land Use--Mechanisms to Ensure University- / MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1985 Page 1 Related Activities." Ms. Decker made a correction in subsection b) of policy . A5 on pages 5 and 6 of the study (page 3 of the memo). Underlined material was added to subsection b). It shoul d be: b) Recognize that proximity to alternate transportation facilities may provide opportunities to reduce parking requirements for certain--- industrial uses. Ms. Anderson said the commission discussed the issue for a long time. The commission did not want the Riverfront Park to have an adverse effect on the downtown by taking office development away. The commission wanted the activi- ties in the Riverfront Park to be University-related. She said the commis- sioners thought their concerns were addressed by the modifications recommended by the commission and reports from the Campus Planning Committee about con- ditions that may be in the ground lease. The third modification concerned the addition of three criteria to the two Willamette Greenway criteria used in the conditional use permit process and a change in the criteria for the Special Development District. Ms. Anderson said the modification responded to testimony requesting opportunities for pub- lic comment on a broader range of issues. The fourth modification concerned potential Public Utility Commissioner (PUC) action closing the Hilyard Street railroad crossing. Ms. Decker said the staff will talk with Southern Pacific Railroad representatives next week about the Hilyard Street crossing. e The fifth modification concerned assuring adequate access to the Riverfront Park. Ms. Anderson said the commission struggled with the alternate modal split. The commission wanted to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation and hoped they can be encouraged as the Riverfront Park is developed. She said the recommended modification is the best the commission could work out. The last modification concerned the width and use of buffer and riparian strips. Ms. Anderson said the size of the setback was a major issue for the Planning Commission. Commissioners realized the recommended 30 feet was not much of a setback, but they wanted to leave the developer some options. The commissioners were concerned about the design of the buildings and their placement, but it is not possible to legislate good design. She emphasized that the 3D-foot setback is an absolute minimum. She emphasized that the appropriate setback will depend on the development proposal. Mayor Dbie asked for questions from councilors. Ms. Ehrman wondered if the statement about alternate sites is appropriate. She said the statement seems to encourage discussion of alternate sites. Ms. Anderson said the commission discussion and the position taken was in response to public testimony. The commissioners emphasized that the River- front Park is the best site for University-related research now, but they thought the University administration might consider other University-owned land later if more land is needed for research activities. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1985 Page 2 Ms. Wooten said the square footage of the entire development will not be known - when a development proposal is evaluated. She wondered how "a substantial number of trips" will be evaluated. Ms. Anderson said the development stan- dards for the SO, Special Development District, indicate that proximity to alternate transportation facilities and the impact of the development must be considered. Mr. Thwing said the 25 to 30 percent modal split in the River- front Study was based on the Genasci model, which is not part of the study. No criteria for the 25 to 30 percent was presented to the commission. Ms. Wooten said the transportation model used by the Riverfront Park Study Committee accommodated as much development as possible without a dramatic, incredible impact on Franklin Blvd. The buildout was 1.4 million square feet. Mr. Holmer wondered if the commission or the council will review development proposals. Ms. Brody said the joint venture agreement could provide for a City Council review of the master developer's plan before it is submitted to the City Hearings Official. The council review probably will not include a public hearing. Mr. Bennett hoped the master development plan would indicate timing and phas- ing. He thought a development proposal might be denied because a specific modal split percentage had not been met by a phase. He wanted the modal split percentage addressed when the development proposal is reviewed and the City knows what public improvements it will make. He said the phrase "a substan- tial number of tri ps" creates certainty for a developer. e Mr. Gaydos said a developer will have to indicate the modal split anticipated because of the conditional use permit criteria recommended by the commission which states: "Based on technical analysis (particularly with respect to transportation facilities), planned public facilities can be shown to accommo- date the requirements of the proposed development." Answering a question from Mayor Obie, Ms. Ehrman said the Hearings Official will consult the minutes of commission and council meetings to decide what "substantial" means. Ms. Decker added that the developer should consult with City staff, Lane Transit District (LTD) staff, and other affected agencies to decide how a proposed development will affect transportation systems. Ms. Brody said the Planning staff prepares a recommendation for the Hearings Official and small developments will not need as large a modal split as a large development. Ms. Mulder said the enforcement of the modal split should be more strict as the developments get larger. Mr. Miller suggested a statement could be inserted in the study that indicates that a specific modal split percentage should be reached eventually by the entire development Ms. Bascom said dropping the 25 to 30 percent modal split seemed to indicate that the split was not realistic and should not be a goal. She said the Uni- versity area has lots of bike trips. She said the modal split percentage could be widened, but it is realistic because of existing patterns in that - special area of the city. If a specific modal s~lit is requiredi such things as showers and inside bike parking might be provlded by the deve opere MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Thwing discussed possible development designs and said the standards e should be flexible enough to accomplish what the study committee intended. Ms. Wooten said she will accept the commission recommendation on the modal split, but she would like a clarification to indicate that a 25 to 30 percent modal is a goal and the City expects that the pre-development stage for a project will describe alternate transportation modes. Mr. Holmer hoped the clarification will refer to the modal split in the cur- rent transportation plans. Ms. Bascom was not comfortable with a specific 30-foot setback. Ms. Anderson suggested a statement could be included in the study to indicate that the design of a development should incorporate a varied setback. Mr. Prichard said the commissioners were satisfied that the Hearings Official will consider height and bulk which seem like design criteria and will indicate the esthetic value of the development. A solid wall would not be approved. Referring to the conditional use criteria concerning height and bulk, Mayor Obie wondered if it created uncertainty about what the Hearings Official will approve in areas outside the Willamette Greenway. Mr. Thwing responded that the Hearings Official deals with many of the same criteria now for conditional use permits. Mayor Obie wondered why the Hearings Official must approve a development after the council has reviewed the master development plan. Mr. Thwing said a con- e ditional use permit must be received for property within the Willamette Green- way. The commission recommended a conditional use permit be required to address a broad range of issues in the area and provide for public comment on a proposal. The council will have to decide whether it wants to provide that opportuni ty. Ms. Wooten wondered if the conditional use process is the best one to provide the public accountability needed to protect the public interest. Mr. Prichard discussed the variety of setback proposals the commission consi- dered. Ms. Anderson added that the University Planning Committee is recommen- ding detailed setback requirements in the ground lease. Mr. Thwing said pub- lic concerns are best protected in the conditional use permit process because the City cannot rely on conditions in a lease and the joint venture agreement was not available to the commission. Responding to a request from Mayor Obie, City Manager Mike Gleason discussed the Riverfront project. He said the council will be involved in the formation of a tax increment district, a land acquisition agreement, and the expenditure of tax increment funds. The actions may extend for 15 years and involve seve- ral specific developments. The City staff will work with the developer1s staff during preparation of a proposal and University representatives will be involved. Ms. Wooten said she shares the concerns of other councilors. She said the joint venture agreement and the staff relationship with the non-profit corpo- e ration will help, but some things are not known. She feels sure the City MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1985 Page 4 will be an equal partner in the endeavor, but the City must work to be sure it - has an equal role. Responding to a question from Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gleason said design review pro- cedures do not work well. He discussed the details of the proposal which the council, as the Urban Renewal Authority, will approve. Ms. Decker discussed the criteria for the site review suffix. Mr. Thwing said the Planned Unit Development process is the closest of the City procedures to a design review, but it is only used for residential developments. Mr. Holmer shared Mr. Bennett's concern about the design of projects. He said a design review which did not include such things as shingles and paint might be appropriate for this special site. Ms. Mulder asked if the site review criteria could be written to address concerns about the Riverfront Park. Ms. Decker pointed out that the site review procedures are administrative and do not allow for public comment. Ms. Brody added that development in the Riverfront Park within the Willamette Greenway must receive a conditional use permit. It does not seem appropriate to require two processes. Ms. Ehrman suggested the procedures could be discussed with the master deve- loper on July 15. Elaine Stewart, acting Eugene Development Director, said the master developer has not indicated any problems with the recommendations in the study. City officials have told the master developer that they will be concerned with the value and design of buildings because tax increment dis- e trict revenues depend on the value of improvements. Mr. Gleason said an appeal of the Hearings Official.s decision is heard by the Planning Commission. Mayor Obie wondered about the definition of "University-related" activities and programs in subsection e) of the Planning Commission modification of Policy AS. Ms. Mulder responded that the commission wanted most of the busi- nesses to be University-related. The commission was not concerned about the internal percentage of University-related activities. For example, Spectra- Physics would have met the criteria even though the largest percentage of its business is not University-related. Ms. Decker noted that the use section of the SO, Special Development District, in Appendix 8 defines University-related activities. The Building Official and the Planning Director will make a deci- sion when an interpretation is needed. Their decision could be appealed to the Hearings Official. Mr. Bennett said there was a strong consensus among commissioners that general office development should not be permitted in the Riverfront Park because of the City's investment in the downtown. He asked if councilors agreed. Responding to him, Mayor Obie and Ms. Wooten agreed with the commission con- sensus, but Ms. Wooten did not want the interpretation of related office acti- vities to be too narrow. Mr. Holmer said the phrase "Development standards within the SD, Special Development District, applied to the Riverfront Park, shall be designed to:" indicates that the development as a whole will be University-related. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1985 Page 5 Responding to a request from Mayor Obie, Ms. Brody said it will be necessary - for the council to approve the Riverfront Study conceptually and initiate a Metro Plan amendment on July 17 in order to have the amendment adopted and the tax increment district for the Riverfront Park established before the Septem- ber 17 vote on the State sales tax. Mr. Gleason said revenues from the tax increment district will be one-third less if it is not established before a sales tax ;s approved. Mayor Obie suggested councilors ask the staff to draft changes to the study and the Planning Commission recommendations before July 17. II. PLANNING COMMISSION Responding to a question from Mayor Obie, Ms. Anderson said the Planning Com- mission is considering solar access regulations. Ms. Decker said the Glenwood Refinement Plan is being prepared. Annexations in the Glenwood area could be considered in early 1986. Ms. Wooten suggested that a public meeting to obtain comments on the Eugene Agenda should be held in the Glenwood area and the River Road/Santa Clara area because of possible annexations. III. WENNER-GREN CENTER - Ms. Bascom distributed copies of a photograph of the Wenner-Gren Center in Stockholm, Sweden. She said the Center is 20 years old and is similar to what the Riverfront Research Park will be. Mayor Obie adjourned the work session at 7:12 p.m. R~~ Micheal Gleason Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) BLR:vr/1797C - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1985 Page 6