Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/1991 Meeting (2) - M 1 NUT E S Eugene City Council Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall February 11, 1991 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Shawn Boles, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Bobby Green, Randy MacDonald, Paul Nicholson, Kaye Robinette. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Roger Rutan. The regular meeting of February 11, 1991, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. In light of the large number of items on the council's agenda, Mayor Miller asked those testifying at the public hearings to limit their comments to three minutes to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to speak. I. PUBLIC FORUM ~ There were no requests to speak at the public forum. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of November 1, 1990 Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to approve the items on the City Council consent calendar. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:0:1; with Councilor MacDonald abstaining. III. PUBLIC HEARING: HOUSING PARKING CODE AMENDMENTS CA 90-5 (PDjCHENKIN) City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Robin Johnson, Planning and Development Department, gave the staff report. This item is coming to the council from the Eugene Planning Commission as a part of its ongoing efforts to address obstacles and incentives to affordabl~ housing in Eugene. At the commission's direction, staff has reviewed and made recommendations for modi- fications in the parking requirements for specialized multiple-family hous- ing. The code amendments before the council reduce the number of off-street automobile and bicycle parking spaces required for several types of special- ized housing, including multi-family housing constructed for and occupied by persons with disabilities, the elderly, student families, or low-income fami- lies; and emergency and transitional housing. The basis for these reductions e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 1991 Page 1 e e e comes from a parking study conducted by staff of existing projects for each separate type of housing. Ms. Johnson noted that a table with specific rec- ommendations is included in the council's agenda packet. Ms. Johnson said that Gary Chenkin, Planning and Development Department, and John Van Landingham, Eugene Planning Commission, were available to answer questions. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. Jim McCoy, 1190 West 5th Avenue, said that he has been involved with housing development similar to that being considered this evening and spoke in favor of the suggested parking requirement reductions for specialized housing and emergency shelter. He noted that parking needs within student family housing developments (which are primarily owned by educational organizations) vary widely and suggested that a user group comprised of representatives from the University Housing Administration, housing tenants, and surrounding neighbor- hood residents be allowed to determine the requirements for each project. Alan Reeder, 1645 Fairmount Boulevard, testified that parking needs for the elderly and disabled are different from students' needs; parking requirements for these populations should be differentiated. He voiced concern that a reduction in parking requirements for University housing would effectively shift the burden onto the neighbors by increasing on-street parking conges- tion. He urged the council to encourage university students to use alterna- tive modes of transportation. There being no additional requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, Ms. Johnson said that the suggested parking requirements are minimums not maximums. Parking requirements could exceed the required ratio if the property developer chose to do so. Mr. Boles asked whether consideration was given during the creation of this ordinance to implement strategies for encouraging the use of alternate modes of transportation, such as mandating a transit stop close to the proposed housing and/or providing covered bicycle parking and showers. Gary Chenkin, Planning and Development Department, said that this ordinance only addresses parking ratios. However, if the council was interested in incorporating incentives for alternate modes into the ordinance, it could do so after fur- ther review. Mr. Nicholson said residents in the east campus area have vocalized concerns that the proposed reduction in parking ratios would exacerbate parking con- gestion in the area. He asked for an opinion from staff about whether this would likely occur and whether the recommendations that were established were based on specific data that parking needs for students are different from other populations within the community. In response, Ms. Johnson said that the proposed requirements were generated from a survey of Westmoreland and Amazon student housing residents. The survey data demonstrated that these MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 1991 Page 2 e e e types of housing development show a 1.15 car ownership ratio. She clarified that the proposed reduction in parking requirements would apply to the Uni- versity's student family housing developments only. Mr. Nicholson asked whether the parking requirements would be adjusted if the tenant mix was altered from family to single students. Mr. Chenkin responded that if the University wished to change the nature of its development, it would be required to go through a re-occupancy process. It would have to satisfy all regulations pertaining to the new use as a part of this process. Responding to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Ms. Johnson said that according to the University's study at Amazon student family housing, 68 percent of the residents own 1 car, 20 percent own 2 cars, and 12 percent do not own cars. Ms. Bascom said that this proposal was reviewed and supported by both the Social Goals Committee and the Housing Policy Board. She said that it is interesting to note that a survey taken at the Amazon student family housing facility has revealed that 98 percent of the tenants either walk, bicycle, or ride the bus to the campus. While it is possible that the reduction in park- ing requirements may indeed increase congestion on the street, it is also possible that it may reduce car ownership in that area. Mr. Boles said that he will support this ordinance but expressed disappoint- ment that the ordinance encourages alternative modes of transportation by way of decreasing parking requirements, but does not provide incentives to alter- native modes usage. He asked that the council be willing to examine the ordinance further in the future to establish such positive incentives. Mr. MacDonald supported Mr. Boles suggestion and strongly recommended that a policy for restricted parking be adopted to protect surrounding neighbors from parking congestion. Mr. Nicholson agreed with Mr. MacDonald on the need to implement a restricted parking program in those areas and asked whether there is a way to incorpo- rate that within this ordinance. Mr. Gleason said that this issue needs more study; if the council is interested in doing this, it should direct staff to conduct a further review. Ms. Ehrman expressed her support for the proposed changes, commenting that it it furthers the council's housing and transportation goals. CB 4280--An ordinance amending sections 9.015, 9.586, and 9.587 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, 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, 7:0. Council Bill 4280 was read the second time by number only. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 1991 Page 3 - Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ehrman, to amend sections 9.015, 9.586, and 9.587 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Roll call vote; with all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance 19748). The council instructed staff to review various support mechanisms for alter- native modes usage associated with the reduction in parking requirement, including possible ways to expedite neighborhood control over restricted parking and support mechanisms for both bicycle and mass transit usage. Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting of the City Council and convened the meet- ing of the Urban Renewal Agency. III. PUBLIC HEARING: 8TH AND WILLAMETTE PROPOSAL City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Scott Luell, Planning and Development Department, reported that the purpose of this hearing is to re- ceive comments concerning the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency entering into an exclusive negotiating agreement with Lorig Associates for the development of the 8th and Willamette Street site. e Mr. Luell provided a brief history of the proposal, noting that this proposal supports the State land use planning goal of promoting dense urban develop- ment. The site is located within the boundaries of both the Downtown Plan and the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Luell reviewed the time line for development proposal. The plan is di- vided into three phases: review, negotiation, and final implementation. Both the Downtown Commission and the 8th and Willamette Development Proposal re- view group have reviewed and recommended that the Urban Renewal Agency pro- ceed into negotiation. Several concerns have been raised regarding the land swap, density, equity, and the process for dealing with the remaining portion of the site; these concerns can best be addressed during the negotiation period. Staff has also reviewed and offered its support of the proposal. It recommends that the negotiating period be limited to nine months. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. John Brown, 398 High Street, testified in favor of the Lorig proposal, indi- cating that the economic recovery of downtown is contingent, in part, on the development at 8th and Willamette. He asked the council to be aware of the importance of convenient parking for this area, and urged the council to be flexible in establishing development requirements for the property. Russ Brink, 2278 Corinthian Court, testified in favor of development on 8th and Willamette. He hoped that development in this location would enhance the reputation of downtown as the primary area for business and financial devel- opment within the community. He asked that the City consider providing additional parking to replace the parking that would be lost due to lot de- e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 1991 Page 4 e velopment and hoped that the bUilding could be oriented toward Willamette Street. Mike Schwartz, 2390 Lariat Drive, spoke in favor of the 8th and Willamette proposal. Quoting from the Urban Renewal Plan and the Downtown Plan, he pointed out that development of this site is consistent with and would en- hance the implementation of these plans. He pointed out that the proposed project is entirely supported by private funds and encouraged the council to offer its unanimous approval of this project. Gerry Gaydos, 2820 Emerald Street, identified himself as a member of the RFP review group and testified in favor of the proposal. He reminded the council that this project is consistent with land use planning goals of compact urban growth and encouraged council support, noting that enhanced quality office space would help the City attract and retain quality businesses in the down- town core. William Mason, 1803 West 34th Avenue, circulated copies of his testimony and spoke against the proposal. Indicating his participation on the RFP review committee, he voiced objections to the proposal on the grounds that it does not provide sufficient information to make a reasonable judgment. He stated that the proposal does not meet many of the criteria laid out in the RFP and expressed concern that taxpayers would be asked to absorb some of the costs of this development. He requested that the site committee continue its pro- posed duty and meet again when the Lorig proposal comes closer to the crite- ria outlined in the RFP. He cautioned the council against moving forward e with this proposal. Arthur Shapiro, 2742 Bowmont Drive, said that it is impossible for a citizen to determine whether the Lorig proposal should be accepted because it does not contain enough information about the extent of the City's participation in this project. He implored the council, acting on behalf of local taxpay- ers, to seek additional information about the City's participation in this proposal. There being no additional requests to speak, the public hearing was closed. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Boles, Lew Bowers, Plan- ning and Development Department, said that the floor area ratios (FAR) crite- ria in the proposal were intended as gUidelines only. He remarked that the RFP review committee recognized that if the developer built at the lower end of the criterion range, the building would fall under the FAR guidelines. The City discussed this with the developer who indicated that the final determi- nation of building square footage would depend upon the market acceptance of the project. e Mr. Boles noted that in his understanding, the questions surrounding parking and property exchange raised by Mr. Mason during testimony, would be ad- dressed in conjunction with negotiation. Mr. Bowers said that this was true. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 1991 Page 5 / .e Mr. MacDonald asked for staff response to concerns about the equity of the land swap. Mr. Bowers said that many of the issues surrounding the equity of the land swap are important and would have to be discussed during the negoti- ation process. The City's goal with respect to this proposal has been to receive fair market value for the property. The results of detailed land swap negotiations will be presented in the memorandum of understanding. Mr. Bowers said that staff has conducted a preliminary review of the developer's pro forma estimates and believe that they are reasonable. Responding to another question by Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Bowers noted that one member of the RFP review committee raised concern that a developer's equity of less than 25 percent would not be acceptable in this lending market. He noted, however, that the City has discussed this issue with several lending institutions who have worked with Lorig in the past. All have indicated that Lorig has not had problems meeting its equity requirements and have expressed an interest in discussing project financing with Lorig. Responding to a request by Mayor Miller, Mr. Bowers said that it is the City's hope that by having an open public process at the early part of this development agreement the City will be made aware early on of potential con- cerns. As the City moves toward a memorandum of understanding, it will be seeking further guidance from the council on proposal acceptance. e Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to direct the City Manager to execute an exclusive negotiating agreement with Lorig Associates for negotiation of a development agreement for the 8th and Willamette Street site. Ms. Bascom offered her support of this proposal, noting that Lorig Associates has an established reputation in the community due to its work on lincoln School. Mr. Green also supported this proposal. He pointed out that Lorig was the only developer who issued a proposal and said that it has a reputation for high-quality development projects. He encouraged the council to refrain from any discussions that would detract from the progress of this project. Mr. MacDonald indicated his support for the motion. He expressed concern with the potential public concern for the loss of surface parking and asked that the public be made aware that this lot has been targeted for development since its initial purchase. He said that US Bank's potential involvement in the project is encouraging and echoed comments about Lorig's reputation. Mr. MacDonald noted that it is rumored that many employees are parking in that spot in violation of the City's parking ordinance and requested statistics on the percentage of total parking being used by downtown employees. He also pointed out that the Parcade is underutilized and could be used to fill the parking loss. Mr. Nicholson offered his opposition to the RFP process and said that he cannot support the motion. He stated that public involvement in the project e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 1991 Page 6 e e e should be entirely open and felt that the RFP has had inadequate ~ublic participation. Ms. Ehrman offered support for the project, noting that the concerns raised this evening can be more fully explored throughout the rest of the process. It is important to bring the public along with this proposal and pointed out that parking is not the most effective use of this vital piece of public property. Mr. Boles offered his support for the motion indicating that the City should have no trouble bringing the public along in this project if the final agree- ment has accurate, timely, relevant information that is understandable by the populace. ~ Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:1; with councilors Boles, Bascom, Ehrman, Green, MacDonald, and Robinette voting in favor, and Councilor Nicholson voting against. Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the City Council. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Micheal Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Traci Northman) mncc 021191-730 MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 1991 Page 7