Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/1990 Meeting (2) e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall October 8, 1990 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Robert Bennett, Shawn Boles, Debra Ehrman, Freeman Holmer, Roger Rutan. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Emily Schue, Ruth Bascom, Bobby Green. The regular meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. I. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Miller explained that the public forum was to allow citizens the opportunity to express opinions and to provide information to the council, and he asked that testimony presented during this segment be limited to three e minutes and be on City-related items not on present or pending council agendas. There were no requests to speak. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of July 18, 1990, lunch/Work Session Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to approve the item on the City Council consent calendar. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5:0. III. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED TREE PRESERVATION CODE AMENDMENTS (CA 90-2) City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Allen lowe, Planning and Development Department, reported that the tree preservation code amendments under discussion represent a collaboration between the City of Eugene and lane County. Based on comments received at the Eugene and lane County planning commissions' September 18, 1990, joint public hearing, the code issues affecting the area within the city limits have been separated from those issues affecting the area between the city limits and the urban growth e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 1 e boundary (UGB). A separate process will be developed to address changes to the area inside the city limits. Mr. Lowe explained that the draft ordinance included in the council's packet contained several errors which have been corrected in a revised version provided this evening. Mr. Lowe said that the draft ordinance contains separate appeals process provisions for two different appeals processes: Option A outlines a process involving the Eugene Hearings Official, and Option B indicates that the Lane County Board of Commissioners would hear appeals to tree issues. The Eugene Planning Commission recommends adoption of Option A. Mr. Lowe added that both planning commissions recommend that any ordinance adopting changes to the current tree preservation code be formally reviewed within two years. The Eugene Planning Commission recommends that the draft ordinance, as amended by the Lane County Planning Commission, be forwarded to the Lane County Board of Commissioners for adoption. The Lane County Planning Commission also forwarded the ordinance to the board but did not include a recommendation for approval or rejection. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman regarding a memorandum from the Home Builders Association of Lane County, Mr. Lowe clarified that a specific permit fee structure has been included in the revised ordinance before the council. Answering questions from councilors, Mr. Lowe said that the Eugene Planning Commission unanimously recommended Option A. The Lane County Planning Commission was unable to reach consensus, so did not take a formal vote but - forwarded the ordinance to the board with no recommendation. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. Mary Bentsen, 950 West 16th Avenue, considered the purpose of the ordinance to be the protection of something of value that is unique to Eugene. She commended staff for involving affected citizens in developing what she considered a fair proposal. She encouraged the council to recommend that the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopt the ordinance, and she supported Option A. Richard Wright, 1043 Mill Street, supported the proposed ordinance, which he considered a workable compromise that addresses a public health issue. Barry Davis, 1775 East 43rd Avenue, said that property owners receive benefits in exchange for the burdens imposed by land regulation and that owners of land in the UGB benefit when that land is annexed to the city. He urged the council to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance and stressed the importance of hiring an urban forester who recognizes that the value of the vegetation and wildlife on UGB land exceeds the value of timber harvest on that land. Brian McCarthy, 1848 Madison, identified himself as a landscape architect who supported the proposed ordinance. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 2 e Ron Cameron, 2052 Potter Street, said he was Mr. McCarthy's business partner. He supported the proposed ordinance as a tool to help utilize sites in a responsible manner that will protect the quality of life in Eugene. Dennis Lueck, 360 Owosso Drive, spoke as an urban forester. He particularly supported the inclusion of criteria in the ordinance that address subtle damage to trees. Mr. Lueck pointed out that during the construction process, it is important to protect trees that are to be saved with barriers and fencing. Gregory Ahlijian, 42083 Deerhorn Road, Springfield, identified himself as chairperson of the Tree Commission which recommended passage of a new tree ordinance. Voicing his personal opinions, Mr. Ahlijian expressed disappointment that the Lane County Planning Commission had not considered the revisions submitted by the Tree Commission and said that the County should address the issue in the Santa Clara area. As a practicing arborist, Mr. Ahlijian said that any tree ordinance would impose regulations on his business, yet he supported the community benefit provided by the proposed ordinance. Michael Sobol, 3962 Spring Boulevard, spoke about the disposal of logging debris after trees have been cut. He urged strict prohibition of slash burning within the UGB and requested that time limits be set for prompt, proper disposal of such debris. Mr. Sobol objected to Section 9.188 (a)(4) of the proposed ordinance and said that regulation of slash disposal should not be left to the State Department of Forestry. - Talbot Bielefeldt, 1732 East 43rd Avenue, considered the proposed ordinance a well-crafted compromise that will help ensure Eugene's continuing livability, and he supported it. Jenny Sirnio, 95 Bradford Court, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Planning Commission. She supported the separation of urban from urbanizing areas to facilitate adoption of the ordinance by the December 1 deadline. She suggested that a process similar to that used in the modification of the solar access ordinance be employed in drafting an urban tree ordinance, in order to encourage participation by all interested groups. The draft ordinance before the council contains revisions agreed upon by the planning commissions, but Ms. Sirnio emphasized that the Eugene Planning Commission continues to endorse the language proposed by the Tree Commission. Ms. Sirnio pointed out that all items listed under IIgeneral guidelines" were listed under Section 9.188 prior to the joint planning commission workshop. Both commissions supported a mandatory review of the ordinance in two years. Allan Sorenson, 3174 Ivy Glen Drive, requested that two letters he recently submitted to the Planning Commission be considered part of the record of the public hearing. He said that letters, dated August 22 and September 19, cited several cases of tree removal that would not have been allowed if the proposed ordinance had been in effect. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 3 e Mel Oberst, 2060 Emerald, commended staff for its work on the proposed ordinance. He commented that urban forestry issues are difficult ones for the County Planning Commission to deal with. Mr. Oberst encouraged the council to help protect urbanizable forest land because it has scenic, wildlife, property, and future development value, and also because it plays an important role in water quality for the area. Heather McKinnon, 609 East 14th Avenue, presented testimony on behalf of Bruce Anderson and the Oregon State Homebuilders Association. She suggested that some concerns addressed by the proposed ordinance would more appropriately be dealt with by the LCDC. Ms. McKinnon expressed specific concerns with the proposed ordinance regarding the definition of trees, the distance between buildings and trees, and the enforcement authority resting with the City Manager. In addition, Ms. McKinnon suggested that development would be better served if the tree plan were included in the normal permit review process. She cautioned that passage of the ordinance might add to the cost of homes and recommended that the council work with the Homebuilders Association to develop a better ordinance. Bob Schafer, 86092 Lorane Highway, said he is a builder and developer who objected to adoption of the proposed ordinance. He asked for more information about the fee structure. He said the proposed ordinance lacks clarity. Tim McCloskey, 790 Goodpasture Island Road, identified himself as president of the Home Builders Association of Lane County. He concurred with the two e previous speakers and said that the proposed ordinance was too vague and would place unreasonable restrictions on land already marked for development. Referring to a statement made by a representative of the City of Cottage Grove, Mr. McCloskey said the cost of enforcement would have to be offset by fees. He said that a more workable plan could be developed. Dennis Casady, PO Box 5028, opposed the proposed ordinance because he felt it was written without sufficient time and effort. Mr. Casady said that designating parcels 10 acres or larger as wood lots would allow only seven percent of the property owners within the UGB to manage their property for timber harvest. There being no additional requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. Mr. Lowe commented that criteria for development are now contained in Section 9.186(b). Referring to Mr. Casady's testimony, Mr. Lowe said that the amount of land was the controlling factor in determining the definition of woodland areas, and 65 percent of the area outside the city limits and within the UGB is in acreage over ten acres. Ms. Ehrman asked about burning of slash and Mr. Lowe responded that while previous drafts of the ordinance prohibited burning outright, further discussions with the planning commissions, property owners, and foresters, determined that such a prohibition was not appropriate and created too many - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 4 e limitations for property owners. As a compromise, the controlling fire protection authority was designated as the appropriate regulating agency for determining what disposal method should be used. Answering a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Lowe said that Option A was unanimously recommended by the Eugene Planning Commission. City staff supported that recommendation. The Lane County Planning Commission forwarded the ordinance to the Board of Commissioners with no recommendation on Options A and B. Mr. Holmer asked about the property owners' right to judicial review if the Hearings Official denies a permit. City Attorney Bill Gary clarified that while the Hearings Official's decision is final as far as the City is concerned, there is always the opportunity for judicial review. In this case, it would be either through the writ of review process or by a direct appeal to the Circuit Court. Answering Ms. Ehrman's further questions, Mr. Gary explained that it is not unusual for an ordinance to prescribe the scope of review and specify that the decision is the final one by the particular governing body. Further review of that decision would be limited to review for an error of law and there would be no review of factual decisions or the exercise of discretion. Mayor Miller asked about the process for the ordinance being approved by the County. Mr. Gleason clarified that if the Lane County Board of Commissioners drafts an ordinance the council determines to be unenforceable, the council could direct the manager not to sign the accompanying intergovernmental e agreement. If the County adopts or modifies the ordinance in concurrence with the council, the City would sign an intergovernmental agreement for enforcement. Ms. Ehrman said that the December 1 deadline had required quick work on this issue, and she supported recommending adoption of the ordinance with Option A. She expressed optimism that the concerns of developers and builders could be addressed later in a process similar to that used with the solar access ordinance. Mr. Holmer supported including Option A as part of the council's recommenda- tion for adoption of the ordinance. Mayor Miller directed questions to Lane County Commissioner Jack Roberts who was in the audience. Mr. Roberts said he hoped to see the City and County work together to craft an ordinance that reflects public input. He expressed concern about creating obstacles to development. Because the needs within the UGB differ from those within the city, he said that the December 1 deadline may not be realistic for resolving this complex issue. While he said he could not speak for the other commissioners, Mr. Roberts supported adoption of some type of ordinance to regulate tree-cutting in the UGB. Mr. Bennett indicated that with more time, it might be possible to develop a broader base of support for an ordinance. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 5 e Mr. Lowe said that unless the commissioners extend the December 1 deadline, there is no additional time for developing an ordinance for County consideration. Mr. Boles argued that the proposed ordinance reflects public input and he urged the council to recommend County adoption or extension of the December 1 deadline to allow something more workable to be drafted. Mr. Roberts suggested that if the council considers the proposed ordinance workable, it should be forwarded to the County board. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to recommend that the Lane County Board of Commissioners approve the proposed tree conservation ordinance for the area located outside the Eugene city limits and within the Eugene portion of the urban growth boundary. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to amend the motion to include a recommendation for Option A. Roll call vote; the motion to amend carried unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Rutan said that after hearing testimony on both sides of the issue, he supported recommending approval of the proposed ordinance to the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Bennett suggested that comments be included in the recommendation to make e the commissioners aware that while a quick process had been required, the City hopes to continue working on the issue. Ms. Ehrman said it was important for a member of the council to represent the City when the commission considers the ordinance. Mayor Miller said it was important to make clear that the intent is not to stop development and that the council supports having dialogue with the Homebuilders Association. Mr. Boles agreed with Mr. Rutan and said that the intent is clearly not to stifle development, and that the proposed ordinance is reasonably well-crafted and should be forwarded to the commissioners with the comment that if there is a problem, the City wants to work with the County to resolve it without leaving the urbanizable forest unprotected. Mr. Gleason commented that having no ordinance would be worse than having one that could not be implemented. He suggested that the County needs to be aware that part of the council's consideration of any revisions to the proposed ordinance will be determination of whether the City could administer a revised ordinance. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5:0. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 6 ~ IV. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY e LOCATED IN THE RIVER ROAD AREA, EAST OF lABONA STREET BETWEEN SKIPPER AVENUE AND BUSHNELL LANE EAST {COLE/JAMES, AZ 90-3} City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Cathy Czerniak, Planning and Development Department, summarized the criteria the council would use to reach its decision. Annexation criteria, found in Section 9.158 of the Eugene Code, require that the property being annexed is inside the urban growth boundary, that the annexation is consistent with adopted plans and policies, and that public services and facilities can be provided. Zone change criteria, found in Section 9.678(2), require that the uses and densities allowed by the proposed change must be able to be prOVided with services, that the change is consistent with principles of compact and sequential growth, and that the proposed change is consistent with the refinement plan. The request before the council was initiated by the property owners who wish to proceed with development of the property. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, the public hearing was closed. Res. No. 4210--A resolution furthering annexation to the city of Eugene and the lane County Metropolitan Service District for property located in the River Road area, in the vicinity of Bushnell lane East and labona Street. Withdrawal from River Road Park and Recreation District and e River Road Water District will be processed separately if the annexation is approved. Final Order AZ 90-3--A final order rezoning Tax lots 2101, 2200, and 2270 from County RA/Ul and Rl/UL to City R-l. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to adopt the resolution and final order. Roll all vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5:0. V. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING AN ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, the public hearing was closed. CB 4249--An ordinance concerning an administrative civil penalty and the Administrative Code; adding Sections 2.018. 6.995, and 9.995 to the Eugene Code, 1971; amending Sections 3.045, 3.995, 8.001, 8.005, 8.040, 8.060, 8.070, and 8.075 of that code; repealing e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 7 tit Section 8.004 of that code; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5:0. Council Bill 4249 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance 19719). VI. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL AND PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE City Manager Mike Gleason introduced items VI and VII. les lyle, Public Works Department, was available to answer questions. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to approve the Hearings Official's findings and recommendations of September 25, 1990 (Contract 89-35). Roll call vote; the motion carried e unanimously, 5:0. CB 4250--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewers on West 11th Avenue from Willow Creek Road to Danebo Avenue. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5:0. Council Bill 4250 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Bennett moved seconded by Mr. Boles, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance 19720). VII. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL AND PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to approve the Hearings Official's findings and recommendations of September e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 8 e 25) 1990 (Contract 89-39). Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5:0. CB 4251--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewers north and east of Centennial Boulevard between the Q Street Channel and Kinsrow Road. Mr. Bennett moved) seconded by Mr. Boles, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5:0. Council Bill 4251 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance 19721). The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. to October 10, 1990. Respectfully submitted, m...L. IJ..) . f l' ~ . ;.' ;.,' e ."/4:,. '.').1t,f:~,f..~.yr.'1 Micheal Gleason, City Manager (Recorded by Mary Feldman) mncc 100890-730 - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 9