Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/27/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-Eugene City Ha11-777 Pearl Street January 27, 2003 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the work session of the City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Taylor said she had been unable to get an answer to a question she was asked by several constituents about whether they would have to pay for the widening of Whitbeck Boulevard to accommodate a new housing development. They were also interested in knowing where the stormwater from the new development site would go. Ms. Taylor said she was also awaiting an answer to a question she had asked about multi-plexes in back yards. Ms. Taylor wanted councilors to be present when members of the public interviewed the candidates for the City Manager position. Mr. Poling announced a meeting of the Cai Young Neighborhood Group regarding an ongoing issue with school-age youth using a passageway from the high school to Jefferson Acres. That meeting would be held on February 5 at Sheldon High School Library at 7 p.m. School representatives, police representatives, and members of the neighborhood association would be present. Mr. Kelly provided a status report on the Region 2050 project. He said the participants had reached consensus on broad goals and objectives related to growth. He reported that focus groups would be held to gauge the reaction of citizens to the work that had been done, and then workshops composed of various service providers and government agencies would be assembled to work on different scenarios for accommodating growth into the future. Lane Council of Governments staff would then use that information to develop alternative growth scenarios for the Region 2050 Board to carry forward to the public, sometime in fall 2003. He invited councilors to contact him with questions, and noted his excitement about the effort because it brought both large and small communities together. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's remarks, Mr. Kelly pointed out the quorum issue created by bringing more than four councilors together. He suggested alternatively, the meetings be videotaped. Ms. Nathanson suggested that councilors sign up to attend the public City Manager interviews to avoid the quorum problem. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 2003 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Nathanson discussed erosion and drainage problems in her ward and the adjacent ward to the east caused by new development being done uphill from existing development. She noted the correspondence the council had received regarding the Whitbeck property. As drainage patterns were changed by uphill development, people living downhill were impacted. Underground streams and springs change location, creating serious runoff problems. She was not satisfied that the Public Works Department was responding to the problem in a proactive and preventive way. Ms. Nathanson noted a situation in a neighborhood in Ward 8 that highlighted the problem of notice to planned unit developments with private homeowners associations. She said that it raised issues of notice and who was provided with notice. She said that sometimes the associations receive the notice and sometimes it goes to a City-sanctioned neighborhood organization. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to consider ways to reduce the continuing confusion over who receives notice. Ms. Nathanson reported she recently attended a Local and State Government Advisory Committee to the Federal Communication Commission, and the committee continued to be concerned about decreasing commission oversight of consumer issues. The committee met with the Industry Right-of-Way Working Group on a number of topics related to managing the public right-of-way. Mr. Pap8 reported on a constituent contact regarding an Attorney General's opinion that changed the State law regarding citizens' ability to live-trap racoons inside the city limits. He asked if the City could adopt an ordinance allowing such trapping and moving of racoons. Mr. Carlson said the City had no ordinance related to the trapping of racoons and he did think any relevant State law existed, but he would follow up. Mr. Pap8 thanked Eric Johnson and Public Works Department staff for cleaning up illegal camping sites just outside the city limits. That effort had yielded 900 pounds of debris. Mr. Pap8 requested that staff schedule action on the ordinances associated with the changes to the charter approved by the voters in November 2002. Mr. Pap8 invited all to the opening of the Ruth Bascom Bicycle Trail at noon on January 31. Ms. Bettman asked staff to check into whether four or more councilors actually represented a quorum problem. She endorsed Mr. Kelly's suggestion to videotape the public sessions. Ms. Bettman noted feedback she received from small business owners in downtown concerned about the perception of very high rents in downtown, possibly due to the fact there were so few landowners controlling the property there. She asked if there was data available for staff to do a cost comparison of downtown rents in Springfield and other areas of Eugene with similar zoning, as well as other comparable cities in Oregon, such as Salem. City Manager pro tem Jim Carlson indicated such an analysis would take more than two hours and it would require council agreement to initiate the work. Mr. Meisner noted that citizen John Brown had much of the information requested by Ms. Bettman. Ms. Bettman asked that staff put two hours of effort into following up on her question. Mr. Carlson said staff would request Mr. Brown to provide the council with the information he had available. Once staff had to start contacting brokers, he anticipated the effort would take more than two hours. Ms. Bettman asked if the Metro Partnership had the information she requested. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Meisner echoed Mr. Papa's thanks for the clean-up of illegal camping sites. Mr. Meisner reminded the public that ballots for Measure 28 were due the following day. Mayor Torrey said he received many e-mails regarding a potential conflict of interest on his part as it related to the living wage. He continued to respond to those messages that, based on legal advice he received from the City Attorney, he had a potential but not a real conflict of interest. Referring to the proposed renaming of Centennial Boulevard to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Mayor Torrey reported that no one in Springfield had been contacted about the idea, and representatives of that city were upset. He asked if there was a reason that Springfield was not contacted. Ms. Bettman noted the direction she received from the council, which was to work with the Lane Board of County Commissioners. Subsequently, she met with members of the board and representatives of the University of Oregon and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. She had attempted to contact Mayor Sid Leiken of Springfield without success. She indicated that the process that had been initiated would include considerable public input. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Carlson to contact Springfield City Manager Mike Kelly and County Administrator Bill Van Vactor to discuss the issue. Mr. Carlson said that the issue had been discussed the previous week by the three administrators and there was agreement at that time that more research about how other communities had handled the transition would be useful. He noted there were several regulatory processes to go through. Manager Mike Kelly had asked if Eugene was committed to renaming Centennial Boulevard, or if other roads that traveled between the two communities could be renamed at less cost and impact, and specifically mentioned roads such as 1-105 and Franklin Boulevard. Mayor Torrey asked Ms. Bettman and Mr. Carlson to meet with representatives of Springfield and Lane County for further discussion. City Attorney Jerome Lidz indicated, in response to a question from Mayor Torrey, that until there was a specific proposal regarding the living wage before the council, no councilor had an actual conflict of interest, although two councilors may have a potential conflict of interest, which should be declared when discussion occurred. He indicated, in response to a question from Mayor Torrey, that he did not think his membership on the Boys and Girls Club board constituted a conflict of interest. Mr. Kelly suggested that even a decision about the nature of such an ordinance could be problematic for some councilors with the potential of a conflict. Mr. Lidz said that the basic question the council would consider was whether to direct staff to draft such an ordinance. There was no specific living wage ordinance under consideration by the council at this time. Ms. Taylor asked if a person with a potential conflict would be able to participate in the decision to draft an ordinance. Mr. Lidz said yes. Once the ordinance was drafted and came before the council, it might then have an impact on an individual councilor; until then, the vote was simply one that might have an impact on a individual councilor. He confirmed that a vote against drafting an ordinance could trigger conflict, which required disclosure. B. WORK SESSION: Fall 2002 Draft Land Use Code Amendments MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 2003 Page 3 Work Session Ordinance 4: An Ordinance Concerning Chapter 9 Parking Requirements; Amending Sections 9.2173, 9.6410, and 9.6430 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date; and Ordinance 5: An Ordinance Concerning Amendments to Entertainment and Recreation Uses, Parking Area Landscaping Standards, and Other Provisions of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date; and Ordinance 6: An Ordinance Concerning Quasi-Judicial Procedures; Repealing Sections 2.390, 2.391, 2.392, 2.393, 2.394, 2.395, 2.396, 2.397, 2.398, 2.399, and 2.400 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending Section 2.1066 of That Code Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle introduced Ordinances 4, 5, and the second set of Fall 2002 Land Use Code Amendments. He called the council's attention to a table distributed with the council packet, Highlights of Remaining Fall 2002 Land Use Code Ordinances, which outlined the key ordinance changes, the Planning Division staff recommendation, the Planning Commission staff recommendation, and the key community impacts. He said the commission held a public hearing on the ordinances and several work sessions. The recommendation from the commission was summarized in the table. He noted unanimity on the part of commissioners on the recommendations before the council, with the exception of standards in Ordinance 5 related to building expansion and parking area landscaping standards. Mr. Coyle invited questions. Mayor Torrey asked the council to consider the ordinances by exception. Mr. Kelly pulled the section related to shared parking for clarification, pulled the section on parking for high schools for a policy discussion, and noted the section entitled Clarify Standards for Park Uses in Ordinance 5 had been pulled for further work. Teresa Bishow of the Planning Division said staff proposed to defer discussion of that section so that concerns raised by Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman could be discussed with Parks Planning staff. Councilors had no objection. Mr. Kelly also raised a miscellaneous item related to Ordinance 5 regarding the requirement of "canopy" trees. Mr. Pap~ wanted to pull Ordinance 4. Ms. Bettman also wanted to pull Ordinance 4. She was concerned about Section 8 in Ordinance 5, the special standards for Table 9.27(~0; Section 9, small lot standards; and Section 24, adjustment review approval criteria; and wanted to pull Ordinance (~. The council first considered Ordinance 4. Referring to Section 9.(~430, Mr. Kelly said he initially did not understand the new language proposed by staff regarding shared parking. He now understood the intent was to create two mechanisms to allow shared parking to be a benefit, one through the existing adjustment review process and one through the new 25-percent automatic reduction. His only remaining concern MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 2003 Page 4 Work Session was that Ms. Bishow had indicated in her response to a question from him that the City required specific evidence in the application that there would be long-term shared parking available. The adjustment review mentions that, but it was not included in the new language related to the 25- percent reduction, and he suggested it be cross-referenced. Ms. Bettman said the impact of the changes for required off-street parking for the schools was not easy to determine from the code. She asked staff for a small table showing some examples of existing parking at schools, and how much it would be reduced or increased by the code language before the council, specifically for high schools. She said that high schools spent considerable money for their parking lots, which concerned her. Ms. Bettman wondered what the schools were doing in terms of bus pass programs and alternate modes. She was not ready to support an increase in the parking maximums for high schools at this time without more data about the impact that parking would have. Mr. Pap8 asked if the 25-percent number was a fixed percentage regardless of what was saved. Ms. Bishow said that was correct; instead of requiring each use to provide the full amount of off- street parking, the applicant could request up to a 25-percent reduction without a land use permit being required and it would be granted as a matter a right. She confirmed that a greater parking reduction could be requested through the adjustment review process, and in that case the applicant would have to demonstrate how the impact would be mitigated, such as through an alternate modes program. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. PapS, Ms. Bishow confirmed that the code language applied to any development, redevelopment, or green field. Mr. Kelly concurred with Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding increased parking at high schools. He was concerned about the ratios proposed for the high schools, and noted that student traffic was a significant component of the transportation problem. He did not think that higher level of use was sufficient reason to tie up more space for parking, and requested an option that left the high schools "whole" without requiring additional parking minimums. He requested such a calculation prior to the public hearing. He acknowledged the tables provided by School District 4J but said he had not calculated a ratio. Ms. Bishow noted that the school district provided two tables, which were found on pages 77 and 115 of the council packet. Mr. Kelly noted the new ratio would allow for an increase of 243 additional spaces at North Eugene High School and 258 additional spaces at South Eugene High School. He did not think that was the trend the City was trying to encourage, particularly among youth. He acknowledged the concern of the impact of parking on residential neighborhoods, but suggested that could be managed by residential permit parking programs. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's latter point. Ms. Nathanson noted the school district's response to Planning Commission questions, found on page 112 of the meeting packet, which stated that the current amount of student parking was not a radical change from the past but appeared to be a slight increase since the reduction of bus transportation serving high schools. She wanted to see improvement in the level of school district-Lane Transit District (LTD) collaboration, and that appeared to be decreasing rather than increasing. She termed the issue a peak hour traffic issue that created complaints in the neighborhoods. She was not sure how to address the problem, but was concerned because of the interrelationships between the high schools, transportation, and land use. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff prepare alternative ratios for public comment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 2003 Page 5 Work Session Responding to a concern expressed by Mr. Poling, Mayor Torrey recommended that he contact Sheldon High School about the neighborhood parking program. He said that there was plenty of evidence showing that people wanted to visit friends living on the street but were unable to do so because they had no sticker. He could see both sides of the issue. Mr. Poling asked about evidence regarding the impact of after-school activities on the total number of parking spaces on neighborhood streets. He cited Friday night football games as a good example, adding he had already heard from some people on the issue. Ms. Taylor suggested that high school students be notified of the hearing and invited to testify. Ms. Bettman said that the reason for the amendments process was to fix unforeseen problems or errors. She wanted another column in the matrix included in the staff materials that indicated where the change being proposed had originated. She said that the council was spending staff resources and council time processing amendments that addressed land use policy issues, not inconsistencies or scrivener's errors. She asked why these amendments were being processed before others of more interest to her. She wanted a process that ensured council-identified priorities were addressed and did not get postponed. Ms. Solomon asked if the parking at the adjacent community center was factored into the parking allotment for Sheldon High School. Ms. Bishow said that both entities preferred to operate their own parking, and there were bollards to prevent movement between the two parking lots. If the City was determining the allowable parking, each use would be able to provide the maximum allowed parking. She noted that School District 4J wanted to provide more parking at Sheldon High School but did not think that it could. She indicated she would prepare a matrix prior to the public hearing and convey the council's questions to the two school districts prior to the public hearing and encourage them to provide testimony. Mr. Meisner asked that staff solicit written or oral testimony from LTD staff on what LTD was doing to work with the school districts to make its alternate modes programming more effective. Ms. Taylor requested that Ms. Bishow comment on Ms. Bettman's remarks. She said that it appeared the council was doing the land use code "over and over." Ms. Bishow indicated she would follow-up with a memorandum prior to the public hearing. Ms. Bettman spoke to the elimination of quasi-judicial procedures in Chapter 2. She noted that the section included provisions above what was required by State statute, and she had requested a list of such provisions. Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office indicated she could provide that information at the hearing. She noted that quasi-judicial provisions were only used for Chapter 9 processes, with the exception of condominium conversions, so they were placed in that chapter. Staff placed the provisions not covered by State law or other procedures in Chapter 9 and neglected to delete them from Chapter 2. Ms. Jerome said that the recommendation related to the elimination of quasi-judicial procedures was essentially to clean-up the code, but it was possible that staff would recommend against that because there were many procedures the code contained that the council liked to use. Mr. Kelly recommended that if staff analysis indicated that something needed would be lost, perhaps that could be moved to Chapter 9 and deleted from Chapter 2. Ms. Jerome indicated the council would be provided with options. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 2003 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman referred to Section 9.2761, Special Standards for Table 9.2760. She suggested that Section 5(c) either be revised or a minimum listed so it did not sound as though it limited the density to nine units per net acre. Ms. Bishow found the suggestion reasonable but suggested that direction on amendments be deferred until following the hearing. Ms. Bettman wanted to make the change prior to the public hearing if there was council consensus now. Mayor Torrey asked in the future that staff identify issues raised by the council that the commission did not discuss. Mr. Kelly suggested that trivial changes that clarified the text rather than addressed policy issues could be addressed prior to the public hearing. He referred to Section 9.6210 on page 30 of the council packet and noted the current code requirement for one canopy tree every 50 feet. He was willing to adopt a change that would not require such trees on small sites. He suggested, however, that the change being proposed meant that planting of a canopy tree might never be required, and asked staff to consider alternative text. Ms. Bishow noted that the Planning Commission discussed this issue, and she would provide the council with a summary of that discussion. Ms. Bettman said that while some recommendations might be clarifications of the existing text, if it was unclear to the council what was a clarification and what was not, it would be unclear to the council's constituents. Regarding Section 9.2761(5)(b), she asked if the text needed clarification to exclude nodal development, which had a minimum density of 12 units per net acre. Ms. Bishow indicated she would follow-up on the question in time for the public hearing. Referring to Section 24 in Ordinance 5, specifically the overlay zone, Ms. Bettman said that while she understood that the City needed flexibility in the Broadway overlay zone, it kept building flexibility into the code and creating situations where it was easier for the City to offer an adjustment review. She asked about the impact from that on the staff work load. She requested an option that deleted the last sentence in Section 9.8030(14) as already suggested by staff and the retention of Section 9.8030(14)(a)(b). Mr. Kelly asked what overlay zones would be affected; if it was only Broadway, he would feel better. Ms. Bishow indicated she would follow-up. C.EXECUTIVE SESSION The council met in executive session pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 192.660(1)(h). The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro rem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 2003 Page 7 Work Session