Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/28/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 28, 2003 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Meisner had no items. Ms. Bettman requested the status of the planned update on the West Eugene Parkway. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson said that staff had expected Bob Pirrie of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to provide the update, but he was not prepared to do so at this time. Mr. Carlson added that staff had expected to bring the Land Use Board of Appeals remand of the decision back to the council for resolution, but the decision had been appealed by 1,000 Friends of Oregon to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Ms. Taylor was disappointed by the fact it continued to take five councilors to schedule a work session. She was particularly disappointed by the fact the council failed to get a discussion of siting "big box" stores on an agenda, given the impact of those businesses on downtown. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Carlson provided an update on the status of the courthouse Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which was drafted in accordance with the council-adopted Courthouse District Concept Plan, and further reported that the City had gone out for the demolition contract. As soon as the MOA was accepted by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHP©), the City would give notice to the contractor, which would begin work within 60 days. Mr. Pap~ asked if staff knew the costs of demolishing the small office building on the site at a later time. Mr. Carlson said no, as the City contemplated protecting that structure, consistent with the direction in the concept plan. He recommended that if the council wished to move the structure, it should communicate that to staff. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the structure could be moved or demolished. Mr. Carlson indicated that to demolish the building would require the City to reopen the MOA with SHPO. Mr. Pap~ said he would be surprised if it were preserved. Ms. Nathanson suggested the minutes of the meeting during which the Courthouse District Concept Plan was discussed be pulled for council review. Mr. Pap~ wanted the council to reconsider preservation of the structure. Mr. Carlson recommended that the issue be revisited after the City received the signed MOA and demolition at the site began. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap6 said the Lane County Homebuilders Association had requested that the City Council reconsider the City's regulations related to grading when it discussed the Land Use Code amendments. Ms. Nathanson had no items. Mr. Kelly had no items, but responded to Mr. Pap6's remarks. He said that the council discussed the Chiquita office building in conjunction with the concept plan in July 2002, and a majority agreed to include language related to its preservation in the courthouse plan. He agreed it was appropriate to revisit some decisions, but hoped there was some respect for the discussions that had already taken place. He did not want to act prematurely. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the building was on the City-owned portion of the site, and some developers might see an opportunity to create a theme or attraction around the building. He said that preservation of the building would keep a tie to the past, which he thought important. He also questioned the expense of moving the building before redevelopment proposals were received. In regard to the homebuilders' amendments, Mr. Kelly asked the City Manager to provide the council with information on how staff would get the resources to do the work requested, and what other work would not be done to accommodate the work needed. Mr. Poling had no items. Mr. Carlson had no items. Mr. Taylor had no items. Mayor Torrey noted that a historic district had been contemplated in the South University area, and he had received a letter from SHPO requesting that the City reinitiate the application for historic district status. He had asked staff to take the materials he had received and identify the specific process that ought to occur. Mayor Torrey said he had completed his tour of all 36 county seats as of May 2. He observed that it had been an interesting opportunity to learn what people from across the state think about education funding. B.WORK SESSION: 29th and Willamette Nodal Development Area and Planning Commission Request for Initiation of Amendments to the/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone Ms. Childs joined the council for the item. She noted the items before the council and indicated that five of the Eugene Planning Commissioners were present for the discussion if the council wished to ask them questions. She noted the commission's report to the council regarding nodal development was reprinted and included in the packet. Ms. Childs said that in terms of the items before the council, the commission expressed concern about the application of the overlay zone and requested the council initiate amendments to the zone to address some of the issues it heard in testimony. She explained that if the council initiated amendments to the overlay zone, she proposed to begin work on the solution immediately to keep faith with the State as a source of grant funds underwriting the current process. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon regarding the public process for the proposed amendments, Ms. Childs indicated there would be a public hearing before the Planning Commission as well as one before the City Council. All those who testified before the commission on the various nodes would receive notice of those hearings, as well as those on the interested parties list. All neighborhood associations would also receive notice. Ms. Solomon asked if people would have an opportunity to participate in the development of the amendments or would they only get a chance to provide input later. Ms. Childs believed that all parties had been participating in the amendments process by virtue of the testimony that had been submitted. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that the proposed amendments did not address the underlying problem, which was the lack of site-specific planning for the nodes. The process committed more resources and time to another set of amendments to change the overlay, and she believed the City would still face resistance and problems in different areas because it could not create an overlay zone appropriate for each unique node. Some of the amendments seemed appropriate in some nodes while others were not. She was concerned about breaking faith with those who had participated in the development of the nodal overlay zone. Ms. Bettman suggested the resources intended to be used for the amendments instead be devoted to a grant writing position to solicit funds for the needed site-specific plans. She suggested that the City ask Portland Community Design or a similar entity for advice and recommendations on where to seek grant funding and create a process for broad-based community buy-in for each specific site plan. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding the State requirements, Ms. Childs said that when the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted alternative performance measures for TransPlan, it requested that the plan amendments and zoning for priority areas be in place by September 2003. The grant given the City by the State was intended to help it meet that deadline. The ultimate deadline was September 2004 for adoption of protection measures, an overlay zone, and a schedule for the site-specific planning for each nodal area selected by the council. The overlay zone was interim and intended to ensure that new auto-oriented development did not occur in the time period between its application and the site-specific planning. Ms. Childs said that the State was somewhat focused on the interim protections because of the length of time it took for the City to complete the Royal Avenue Specific Plan. Mr. Pap8 was concerned about the application of the overlay to the area in question. He said that he found few property owners inside the nodal area excited about the potential of the node, and suggested that public education had been lacking. He was not willing to proceed with the application of the overlay zone at 29th Avenue and Willamette Street. Mr. Kelly agreed that public education was needed as there was considerable misinformation in the community about the impacts of nodal development. He said that LCDC was interested in ensuring that the nodes achieved the policies in TransPlan and allowed for community growth without creating sprawl. He thought some of the proposed amendments had merit, but was concerned about the proposal to lower the floor area ratio (FAR) because of the goals in TransPlan related to jobs and housing. The only way the job targets could be achieved was for residential and commercial densities to be selectively increased. While Mr. Kelly wanted to see the area in question enhanced, he did not want to see a small strip development replaced with a MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 3 Work Session large strip development. He was uneasy about the proposed menu approach. Mr. Kelly liked the approach taken to the FAR in Chase Gardens, and suggested that the Planning Commission consider other ways to increase commercial densities without an overly restrictive FAR. Mr. Meisner was willing to support initiating the amendments process. He thought the Planning Commission's report had a good deal of merit. He stressed the interim nature of the protections envisioned and said they would not be the complete set of rules applied to any particular node. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly about the need for public education about what a node is. He wanted the overlay zone to protect an area, not to serve as a rigid set of rules that let nothing happened. He advocated for a flexible approach. Ms. Nathanson continued to support nodal development but believed the rules needed to be changed, and was pleased that the commission requested the council initiate the amendments. She indicated she was willing to adopt the staff recommendation to initiate the Metro Plan amendment to demonstrate her continued support for the concept of nodal development. Ms. Nathanson did not want to discourage needed redevelopment, and suggested there were ways to write the rules that allowed for redevelopment in a way that did not prevent future densification of a site in the future on the undeveloped part of the site. She asked the commission to consider the issue of individual businesses on individual parcels versus a large developer with a site plan, such as was the case at the Willamette Plaza, and how those properties were redeveloped. Ms. Nathanson said if the buildings are to be enhanced on the 29th and Willamette site, it appeared there was a considerable amount of undeveloped or underdeveloped space on the site that could be redeveloped at higher densities in the future. Ms. Taylor did not think the area in question was appropriate one for a node and thought many good questions had been raised about it. She did not think that meant the City should change the rules altogether. Ms. Taylor agreed about the need for more public education. However, she thought that business concerns about the limitations on expansion were well-founded. She wanted to reduce the use of cars but had read some good arguments about why these businesses needed to have people arrive by car. Most of the businesses in question were not neighborhood commercial, but attracted people from all over, and the transit service in the area was not good. Mr. Poling agreed with the remarks of other councilors. He said that the area in question was a good example of why an overlay zone did not work. Other factors individual to the site must be considered. He was supportive of nodal development, but was not accepting of placing certain blanket restrictions on all the businesses in an overlay zone. Mayor Torrey agreed that community education was needed to overcome the fear of nodes evidenced by residents. He had serious reservations about the application of overlay zone to the area in question becasue of the lack of information business owners possessed. Mayor Torrey said he had asked staff if the overlay would allow an auto-oriented business in the zone from expanding. The first answer he said he heard was yes; the second answer he was given was that such a business could not be expanded. He asked if that meant the City was MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 4 Work Session taking value from the businesses if, prior to the amendments, the property owners had the ability to expand their businesses without limit. Mayor Torrey expressed frustration with the State's unfunded mandates, which it did not follow up on itself. Mayor Torrey asked Eugene was the only city that had received such a grant. Mayor Torrey said that nodal development was one means of avoiding expansion to Veneta. Another part of the solution was keeping housing prices in Eugene down. He said that the council made many decisions that increased those costs. Mayor Torrey said that the council needed to keep infill in mind. He said that there were councilors who supported nodal development while opposing infill in existing neighborhoods, and he called for an equal-time discussion of the situation. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of comments and questions. Ms. Bettman said that infill was good but should be applied to commercial and industrial development as well as residential. She noted a commission recommendation to remove the minimum density requirement, and said that in the case of the proposed node, where the density was already above average, it was probably a good idea. In other nodes with lower densities, it would not be appropriate. Speaking to Mayor Torrey's comments about the State, Ms. Bettman thought that LCDC had been very accommodating. She recalled that the State had initially required cities to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by ten percent, and had been persuaded to decrease that to five percent and later the State had accepted the performance measures, the major one of which was nodal development. If the council wanted to back away from nodal development, it needed to determine another way to reduce VMTs. Ms. Bettman thought that the area in question functioned as a node except that it lacked pedestrian and transit infrastructure. She said that the City was not trying to decrease automobile use but rather increase pedestrian and transit use. She believed that the assumption behind nodal development was that the City would work with property owners to identify infrastructure improvements and nodal design characteristics as a trade off for the intensity of use and increased density. If the City was unwilling to put the money into incentives, there was no reason to proceed. Mr. Kelly said that it was clear from the council's comments that no one was happy with the nodal overlay zone. Speaking to the proposed amendments, he said his support would depend on an analysis of how they affected the quantitative and qualitative requirements of TransPlan in terms of nodal development. He said a vote to initiate the amendments did not imply support for them. Mr. Kelly was concerned that the amendments would affect already-designated nodes and wanted the commission to keep that in mind. He said that the City needed the money to do nodes right, and indicated his intent to direct the commission to begin a discussion about the broader process. Mr. Pap8 expressed appreciation for staff's responses to the council's questions and said that it did not appear the existing auto-oriented businesses could expand at all as they were prohibited MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 5 Work Session uses in a node. Ms. Childs agreed, and said the commission would reconsider the prohibition on the expansion of a prohibited use in the amendments process. Mr. Pap8 said he was not opposed to initiating the amendments to the overlay zone, but it would be difficult for him to apply the zone to the proposed node at 29th and Willamette at this time. Mr. Meisner thought it a mistake to combine the two topics, that of the application of the overlay zone and the initiation of the amendments, into one work session as the two issues were being confused. Mr. Meisner confirmed with Ms. Childs that what was contained in the Planning Commission's report did not represent an exhaustive list of proposed amendments. Mr. Meisner said he did not know how he would vote on the application of the overlay zone to the area in question, but believed it important that the council recognize the problems with the overlay zone and allow the commission to resolve them. Ms. Solomon questioned why the council needed to act now. As the citizens and business owners were brought along, the council could have public hearings where people expressed support for the concept and wanted to see it implemented. Ms. Nathanson determined from Patricia Thomas that the owners of the Willamette Plaza were proposing a major renovation and submitted a planned-unit development application earlier that day, so that property was not affected by a delay in the application of the overlay. She was unaware of any other development plans in the area. Ms. Nathanson suggested, presumably, that gave the commission time to work on the amendments. Mayor Torrey said that Eugene was embarking on nodal development because of the mandated reduction of VMTs. He said that no one in Oregon was close to figuring out how to reduce VMTs to the degree required by the State. He asked what was driving the City's time line. Ms. Childs said that the impetus was the potential of development that occurred while the site-specific plans were developed. She thought that a valid concern, and noted that the State had supplied money to Eugene and other local governments to help them implement the alternative measures. Mayor Torrey asked if it was a given that regardless whether the node would work or not, it would be a node. Ms. Childs said no. Mayor Torrey again asked what the hurry was. Ms. Childs said that the time line was intended to meet State requirements and local adopted policies. Mayor Torrey asked what would happen if a node did not work. Ms. Childs said the council could take action to remove the plan designation. Mayor Torrey called for a third round of comments. Ms. Bettman suggested that another option before the council was to take the area in question off the list of nodes, and then the issues related to the node "would go away," and as they were not relevant to the adopted nodes, the City would not have to do the work recommended by the commission. Ms. Bettman wanted to know what work the Planning Commission would not be able to do and what items would have to be set aside to develop the amendments, and how the amendments would impact existing nodes. Speaking to the second question, Ms. Childs said that if the council MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 6 Work Session adopted amendments to the overlay zone, they would apply anywhere the zone applied, including those that already received the zone. Speaking to the first question, Ms. Childs said that the task would impact her as the commission's main staff person. The commission would have time in July to work on the amendments. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to initiate amendments to the /ND Nodal Development overlay zone as requested in the Planning Commission report dated April 8, 2003. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by asking the Planning Commission to begin a process with City residents, business owners, and developers to develop solutions for nodal development that facilitate appropriate development and redevelopment and also implement the qualitative and quantitative land use requirements in TransPlan. Mr. Meisner asked the consequences of approving the amendment. Ms. Childs believed the motion would direct the Planning Commission's work program for the next fiscal year and beyond. Mr. Meisner said that he would likely support the amendment, but it was so broadly stated and open-ended that it potentially could exceed the effort required for the Growth Management Study. Ms. Bettman supported the amendment as she thought the task needed to be done. She wanted to take the 29th and Willamette area off the list of nodes until a site-specific plan involving the property owners, business, and residents could occur. She did not support the main motion. Mr. Pap~ supported the amendment but would not support the main motion and asked to bifurcate the motions. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2, Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Poling voting no. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to bifurcate the issues in the amended motion. The vote on the motion to bifurcate was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Pap~ voting yes; Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Poling voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the motion, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. City Attorney Glenn Klein recommended that the council vote first on the original motion and then take action on Mr. Kelly's amendment. Mr. Kelly said he voted against dividing the question because the passage of his motion was crucial to his support for the original motion. Ms. Taylor indicated that she would vote against the motion because the council had been told in the past the commission and Planning staff were over committed and could not commit to some of the assignments requested of them. She did not think it appropriate to change the requirements. Ms. Nathanson thought that the amendments were necessary to ensure that the rules were not inflexible. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pap~ said that he was concerned that the City had such an overlay zone and preferred to see a site-specific approach. He suggested that the council needed first to determine whether the zone was the appropriate tool before improving it. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to add four minutes to the time for discussion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman did not think that the overlay was the problem; rather, the problem was that the area in question was already nodal, but the City lacked money for the needed site-specific planning. She said she would oppose both motions. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's earlier comments that the issues related to the 29th and Willamette node did not occur in other identified nodes, Ms. Solomon said that all the problems that applied to this area also applied to the proposed Gilbert nodal area. Mayor Torrey asked the council if there was objection to switching the order of the motions. There was none. Ms. Nathanson suggested that unless Mr. Pap~ was contemplating a repeal of the zone, failure to initiate the amendments was to leave the problem in place. She did not see the need for the first motion if the council did not pass the second motion. The vote on the motion asking the Planning Commission to begin a process with City residents, business owners, and developers to develop solutions for nodal development that facilitate appropriate development and redevelopment and also implement the qualitative and quantitative land use requirements in TransPlan failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Pap~ voting yes. Mr. Meisner determined from Ms. Childs that the Planning Commission's vote to recommend to the council that it initiate the amendments was unanimous. The vote to initiate amendments to the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone as requested in the Planning Commission report dated April 8, 2003, was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Pap~, and Ms. Solomon voting yes; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Poling voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. C.WORK SESSION: Review of Social Service Siting Task Force Report Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle joined the council for the item. Richie Weinman of the Planning and Development Department was also present for the item. Mr. Coyle provided background on the study, initiated by the council in 2001, and noted members of the social service providers were present as well as task force members Jon Belcher, Paul Conte, Sarah Charlesworth, Ron Chase, Jeanne Benson, Carolyn Frengle, Emily Schue, Mark Schlossberg, and Carmen Urbina. Mr. Coyle called attention to the task force's final report, included in the meeting packet. He invited questions to himself or task force members. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 8 Work Session Mayor Torrey called for council comments. Mr. Meisner said he would not characterize the process as a happy one for all concerned. He was glad to see the City paying some attention to the issue, noting that several councilors had raised the topic over time for several years. He said that given what had occurred downtown, the City needed to consider such issues more comprehensively. Council Coordinator Lynda Rose distributed a copy of a motion to be proposed by Mr. Meisner, directing the City Manager to develop and promote a process that encourages social services providers to work voluntarily with nearby neighbors and businesses to develop a "good neighbor policy" prior to starting a social service agency and that the manager report back to the council when the process has been put into place, and to endorse the principle adopted by the Social Service Siting Task Force, that organizations that provide social services should locate and operate social services in a manner that maintains neighbors' safety and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their neighborhood. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation to the task force for its work. She believed that the concentration of social services in a small geographic area could create problems, while acknowledging the need to locate those services where they were needed. She did not perceive the recommendations as "don't site social services in our neighborhood," but rather as the task force expressing a willingness to work with the providers and the City. Ms. Bettman suggested a voluntary program that incorporated some of the aspects of Portland's program would be appropriate, but was prepared to listen to the debate about the motion. Mr. Kelly emphasized the vital contributions made by the community's social service agencies and characterized the budget shortfalls facing those services as a human tragedy. Mr. Kelly was unsure that siting or dispersal was the issue as much as an agency's relationship to its neighborhoods, the impact of the agency, and how it was mitigated. Mr. Kelly asked for input about what was meant by the recommendation for a "values based community process." Mr. Weinman responded that the idea was that a consultant could bring all the parties together over a longer period of time to identify common values, gather more data, and collaboratively develop a set of solutions. The task force process had no budget and lacked the staff support desired by task force members. Mr. Kelly referred to the Portland Community Residential Siting program web page and said he had been impressed with how it was laid out. Mr. Kelly said that some of the task force's recommendations would cost money, and he suggested that staff be directed to provide feedback on funding sources. He suggested the potential use of one-time money. Ms. Solomon indicated that she received an e-mail from Vicki Bell, the owner of the Reflections Salon, who had testified before the council about the Food for Lane County (Govinda's) situation. Ms. Bell informed her that things were going well and the situation had been resolved. Ms. Solomon suggested that the problems experienced could have been avoided if what Mr. Meisner outlined in his memorandum was in place, and therefore endorsed his approach. Mayor Torrey asked how task force members felt about the recommended motion. Members of the task force spoke. Some said it was not clear what problem needed to be addressed. Task MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 9 Work Session force members indicated general support for the motion, although there was concern expressed about the lack of data. Some had questions about the process that would be required as a result. Members emphasized the importance of the up-front communication called for in Mr. Meisner's suggested motion as a way to minimize problems. Members of the task force who were also providers expressed concern about the fact the process could slow a site acquisition process, emphasized the communication that was already typically occurring, and suggested that the Govinda's situation was an isolated incident. Ms. Taylor acknowledged the providers' concern about the need to move quickly in an acquisition situation but did not think that, given the voluntary nature of the motion, it would create problems. Mr. Meisner concurred. Mr. Meisner indicated that the Food for Lane County incident was not the first or an isolated incident. He observed that in the past the council had been provided by staff with information showing the location of every provider and expressed surprise that information had not been given to the task force. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to direct the City Manager to develop and promote a process that encourages social services providers to work voluntarily with nearby neighbors and businesses to develop a "good neighbor policy" prior to starting a social service agency and that the manager report back to the council when the process has been put into place; in addition, to endorse the principle adopted by the Social Service Siting Task Force, that organizations that provide social services should locate and operate social services in a manner that maintains neighbors' safety and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their neighborhood. Ms. Nathanson recalled the lists of social service agencies and community service agencies kept by the City staff in the past and said she had considered it duplicative of a Lane County effort. She doubted whether anyone's list was correct or comprehensive. Ms. Nathanson said the City Council was made aware of other types of nuisances that might be addressed in a similar manner, such as youth gathering at a market or video center and the associated problems that sometimes came up in conjunction with that. Bars and taverns also attracted problems, and she questioned what the City did about those issues that was different than how the motion proposed to treat social services. Mr. Pap8 concurred with the remarks of Mr. Meisner that the Food for Lane County situation was not unique, and noted the council also received calls about methadone clinics proposed to be sited in neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman wanted to preserve existing residential housing in neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown and suggested that a policy related to that would do much to address the livability issues raised by residents. She hoped the council addressed that issue soon. Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He asked what would happen if the motion passed. Mr. Coyle said that staff could facilitate a community discussion and develop rules that accommodated all people. He spoke to the Govinda's issue and said that Carolyn Frengle of Food for Lane County had been very responsive in resolving the problems. He said that the City had sat down with MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Frengle and the neighbors and worked through the issues. He believed the motion allowed the City to address issues situationally as they arose. Mr. Meisner reported that Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Department had indicated to him that the motion would give the staff an opportunity to focus on the problem. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 11 Work Session