Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/12/03 Mtg MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall May 12, 2003 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary PapS, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Kay Holbo, 2090 Broadview, represented the Eugene Masonic Cemetery. She provided a brief history of the restoration of the Masonic Cemetery and Hope Abbey, and noted the City's financial assistance in that effort. She thanked the City for its help over the past ten years, and noted the leverage that was created by the City funds. The City contributed about eight percent of the total of nearly $1 million in dollars and in-kind services. Ms. Holbo said that when her nonprofit organization was formed and took over management, the cemetery had many problems. Since 1994, the cemetery has been transformed into an urban amenity. It attracts 25,000 to 35,000 visitors annually. Ms. Holbo termed the cemetery a success story, and said it was the largest cemetery restoration project in the northwest. Ms. Holbo thanked former City Manager Jim Johnson, former Building Official Denny Hellesvig, and current City employees Ken Guzowski, Beth Bridges, and Kurt Corey, for their assistance to the Eugene Masonic Cemetery Association. Ms. Holbo invited the council to visit the cemetery over the Memorial Day weekend. Ms. Holbo provided the council with copies of the Eugene Masonic Cemetery Association's newsletter, Monumental News. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Lane County Homebuilders Association, addressed assertions made earlier by Councilor Bettman at the 5:30 p.m. work session that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) systems development charge (SDC) was not adequate to pay for growth. She referred the council to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Services and Facilities Plan, adopted in December MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 1 Regular Meeting 2001, which indicated the plant had sufficient design capacity to accommodate population increases and serve all new development at build-out. However, peak weather conditions limit the treatment plant from achieving its design capacity. Wet weather-related improvements to the plant and regional collection system were needed to extend the plant's wet weather capacity beyond 2007. Ms. Cuellar said the association did not object to paying the SDC described by the current methodology but it did object to picking up the bill for the improvements related to groundwater and wet weather because it did not contribute to that at the time development was connected. Brand new pipes were involved. Ms. Cuellar said that during dry weather, the capacity of the plant only reached 49,000,000 of a 175,000,000 gallon capacity plant; in wet weather, the capacity reached 126,000,000 gallons. All the development in the region required only 49,000,000 gallons daily, but groundwater and wet weather required 75,000,000 million gallons. That was the problem, and it could not be charged to the SDC; the ratepayers must pay. Mayor Torrey closed the public forum and called for council comments. Councilor Bettman thanked Ms. Holbo and the volunteers who worked on the cemetery. Speaking to Ms. Cuellar's comments, she said that while the association was paying the fee being charged, that fee was not sufficient to recover the cost of building the capacity needed for new growth. She said that regardless of what the rate increase was attributed to, there were capacity increasing projects in the budget for new growth that she maintained were being subsidized through the rates. She said that the question she asked was whether there were capacity- increasing projects intended to accommodate new growth that were being subsidized by ratepayers, and she maintained the answer was yes. Councilor Kelly thanked Ms. Holbo and the many volunteers who had transformed the Masonic Cemetery. He termed the cemetery a historic gem, and said he had purchased several family plots there. Councilor Taylor indicated she had also purchased a plot at the Masonic Cemetery and as a long- time user of the cemetery, thanked Ms. Holbo and the volunteers for all they had done. Councilor Pap~ also thanked Ms. Holbo for her work and commended the appearance of the cemetery. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON WALNUT STREET NODAL DEVELOPMENT AREA Ordinance A.' An Ordinance Concerning the Walnut Street Station Nodal Development Area; Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram and the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study Land Use Diagram; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Ordinance B.' An Ordinance Concerning the Walnut Street Station Nodal Development Area, Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 2 Regular Meeting City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Kent Kullby of the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Kullby reviewed the actions before the council, saying the council would hear testimony on two actions proposed for the Walnut Street Station area. The first action was an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Diagram and a concurrent amendment to the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study (SAS) Land Use Diagram to add the \ND Nodal Development symbol to the Walnut Street Station area. The plan amendments would not change the existing base land use designations in the Metro Plan or the SAS. The second action was a concurrent zone change to add the \ND nodal development overlay zoning to properties within the area. The zone change would not change the existing base zoning for the properties. Mr. Kullby noted that the relevant criteria for evaluating a proposed Metro Plan amendment were found in Section 9.7730(3) of the Eugene Code, including in the agenda item summary. The criteria for evaluating the zone change were found in Section 9.8865, also contained in the summary. Mr. Kullby noted the submission of written testimony since the packet was printed from Steven Mandrell, David Wade and Nancy Pobance, and Jeff Morton, and said copies of the testimony were provided to the council and placed in the public record. Mr. Kullby noted the public process that had already occurred in regard to the proposals before the council. All the testimony submitted in those processes was included in the packet and indexed. Oversized exhibits from those processes were placed before the council in the meeting room. Mr. Kullby responded to residents' request to exclude all or most of the R-1 area of the node north of 17th Avenue to 15th Avenue. He said that staff had prepared maps and an analysis of the residential densities that would result from the adoption of three boundary alternatives offered by the residents, included on pages 319 and 323 of the council packet. Mr. Kullby said that the Planning Commission recommended that the council retain the proposed boundaries with the recommendation that a detailed comprehensive plan be developed with the residential and commercial stakeholders in the area in the future. However, the Planning Commission did not recommend applying the \ND overlay zone until certain provisions of the overlay zone had been amended. In addition, Mr. Kullby reported the Planning Commission found the zone change inconsistent with Policy 3 of the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study, which stated that zone changes to increase residential densities or commercial intensity were not supported by the plan. The policy was included in the packet on page 293. Excerpts from the study were submitted in the record and could be found on page 390. Mr. Kullby reported that the ordinances before the council address Policy 3 of the SAS with findings of consistency with Policy 3 because the \ND overlay zoning narrowed and refined the range of uses already allowed in the base zoning, and MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 3 Regular Meeting because the overlay did not propose to increase the maximum densities or allow more land uses within the base zoning districts. Mr. Kullby noted that final council action on the ordinances was scheduled for May 27 at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Steve Gab, 1818 Villard Street, co-owner of R-4 zoned property at 15th Avenue and Walnut Street, said he refused to support the proposal because the Planning Commission refused to redraw the boundaries. He questioned why the properties owned by Williams Bakery and University of Oregon were not included in the proposed node's boundaries. He believed that the low-density residential area should not be included in the node. Mr. Gab said that most of the people in opposition to the node would favor the node if their wishes had been listened to during the Planning Commission process. As the owner of the R-4 zoned property, he thought the nodal overlay would benefit his property and the overlay zoning would mitigate its impact on the adjoining properties. He noted his submittal of an alternative boundary proposal, Alternative 3. He said that many citizens opposed to the current node supported his alternative boundary suggestion. George Rodie, 1917 Franklin Boulevard, EuroAsian Automotive, said his location had been an auto repair business since the 1930s. He had invested his savings into the property, and was now present because he heard about the council's hearing on the nodal area proposals from someone else. He questioned why he had not been contacted about the proposal given its severe impact on his business. He did not support nodal development because it eliminated land uses having anything to do with automobile services. He suggested that to lower traffic congestion, auto services need to be close to where people live and work. Mr. Rodie said that as written, the zoning overlay requirements regarding floor-to-area ratio for new development would not allow him to improve or expand his businesses. Any investment would require the construction of a two-story building on a very small lot at a high cost. He asked the council to reject the concept. He said the proposals negatively affect his personal life and his life savings. Jeff Morton, 93109 Powerline Road, representing the Quality Inn and Days Inn on Franklin Boulevard, said that his company owned the largest parcel in the node. He said that his company had originally been in favor of the concept, but when he had examined the proposal more closely he had become concerned about the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement. If passed, the ordinance would require his firm to build a 250,000 square building on 250,000 square feet of ground. He said that the company was doing a feasibility study regarding redevelopment of its site as a new four-story hotel of about 45,0000 square feet. If the proposal was adopted, the company would not redevelop the site, which could add jobs and visitor dollars to the community. Mr. Morton asked the council to review his written submittal. It appeared that the cost of MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 4 Regular Meeting redeveloping the company's property could rise from $4 million to $40 million under the proposed development requirements of the ND overlay zone. David Wade, 1673 Villard Street, said he invested considerably in his house without increasing the footprint or impervious surface. He traveled by bus and bicycle to and from his house. He rarely used his automobile. He was in favor of nodal development, but he believed the boundaries needed to be changed. The neighborhood was fully developed and the subject of a special area study. Planning had been done for the area, and it was being implemented. Nodal development would be inconsistent with the plan. He said that under the zoning overlay proposal, no one could expand more than 35 percent, and if a house burned it would be required to build closer to the sidewalk than the other homes on the block. He did not think he would invest in his property further if that would occur next door. He said that adopting the nodal overlay without comprehensive planning created uncertainty. Property owners would be defeated in their efforts to upgrade the neighborhood if that uncertainty existed. He stated that the area between 17th and 15th avenues is unique and historic, and it should not be included within the node boundaries. Susie Smith, 1659 Orchard Street, supported nodal development goals for the purpose of realizing transportation and land use goals. However, she believed its application in this area was opposed to other equally important plan and SAS policies. She resubmitted the testimony she had submitted to the Planning Commission. She also asked that the record include Chapter 660-12 of Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Ms. Smith believed that the City could not enact land use regulations of this nature without conducting a comprehensive traffic impact study to demonstrate the changes contemplated would not adversely affect the transportation network. She said that in the absence of that analysis, there was no evidence of the impact of the contemplated changes. Ms. Smith did not believe that the Planning Commission or staff had addressed all the policy conflicts identified by residents. To say there would be no change because the underlying zoning would remain the same undermined the intent of the overlay zone, which was to increase residential densities. She asked that the council not attempt to increase residential densities in the R-1 zoned area that was 100 percent developed, and where residents had made considerable investment in their homes. Jeremy DeGuc, 2115 Franklin Boulevard, Dutch Brothers Coffee drive-up kiosk, expressed concern about the restriction on drive-through facilities. He acknowledged his facility was grandfathered under the proposal but said he planned sometime in the future to expand and improve the appearance of his property. He thought that nodal development could be a very good thing. He had lived in the area and it was a wonderful place to live. He shared the concerns expressed by residents and said their voices should be heard because he could see the impact. Evelyn McConneahy, 1653 Fairmount Boulevard, supported the City's attempts to make Eugene more livable, sustainable, and walkable. However, she had many questions about the viability of the nodal development proposal, including the existence of the highway through the middle of it. She questioned why the area south of Franklin Boulevard was included in the node. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 5 Regular Meeting She hoped that there would be opportunities for public involvement so the City could realize its goals for nodal development. Alan Zelenka, 1659 Orchard Street, supported the concept of nodal development and the goals of promoting a livable, compact, pedestrian-friendly area. However, he thought it inappropriate for the area in question, which was already a developed, well-kept residential neighborhood. He planned further investments in his house but questioned whether that would be allowed given the restrictions in nodal development. He said that further education was a good thing, but his neighborhood understood the concept and opposed it in the area being proposed because it understood it. The neighborhood association voted overwhelmingly against the proposal and supported Boundary Alternative 1. He noted that a petition opposing the node had been circulated and signed by nearly all neighborhood residents. He asked those opposed to the node stand to show their support for the boundary reductions. Mr. Zelenka provided the council with some lemons, and suggested that it make lemonade by changing the boundaries of the neighborhood. He noted that he and other neighbors had hired an attorney and they were willing to continue to fight it. Douglas Daniel, 2130 East 17th Avenue, said that if the council increased the density in the node it would result in transient student housing, leading to neighborhood degradation as has happened in the West University neighborhood. When he raised that concern, he had been told both that the University of Oregon was not a concern and that what he envisioned would not necessarily happen. He said that he had also invested in his house using most of his disposable income. He favored keeping the nodal boundaries at 15th Avenue to preserve the historic character of the neighborhood. Fred Austin, 1588 Fairmount Boulevard, noted the neighborhood association's opposition to the application of the nodal overlay district at the February 11, 2003, Fairmount Neighbors General Meeting. He said that subsequently, more than 125 residents expressed opposition to the application of the overlay in the form of a petition, which was entered into the record. Mr. Austin said that at an informational meeting held between staff and the neighbors, staff acknowledged that the Walnut node did not appear to meet the basic criteria for nodal development. The Planning Commission subsequently voted to recommend that the council not apply the overlay district. He said that it had been suggested by members of the council that the opponents' minds would be changed with more education. Mr. Austin said that after considerable study, no member of a neighborhood committee formed to study the issue supported the application of the overlay. He said the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study (SAS) was like a nodal area comprehensive plan, and that the area already functions as a node. He said the City will not be able to afford a new comprehensive plan for the area. Mr. Austin encouraged the council to view photographs of the houses in the residential area and to allow smooth infill to occur under the current R-1 zoning restrictions. He said that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 6 Regular Meeting neighborhood already served as a node and should be left alone. He submitted a packet of photographs for the record. Michael Keenan, 2041 East 17th Avenue, termed the nodal development area proposal as an attack on the neighborhood and a planning nightmare. He referred the council to a drawing of the node and questioned the rationale behind the location of the Walnut Street BRT station. He said that he had invested considerably in his house and cleaned up after the students who lived next door. He said that such an arbitrary, capricious, "pencil" zoning put the residents at risk, to the point where he was contemplating selling his house. Now that Romania was moving out, he questioned whether that would result in an new basketball arena there, or on the Williams Bakery site, two ideas he considered equally stupid. He said that the councilors should tour the area so they could see how the area changes south of 15th Avenue. Camilla Bayliss, 1621 Orchard Street, said her home would be impacted by the nodal overlay. She invited the council to walk through the neighborhood and view the houses there. She said that most of the houses bore a sign voicing opposition to the nodal overlay in the R-1 portion of the area. She believed policy decisions should be based on solid evidence, and the neighborhood association looked for evidence in support of the application of the overlay, and found none. She said the council should reexamine the data and change the node boundaries. Jeff Nelson, 2144 East 15th Avenue, said he submitted a video tape into the record. He had taped the April 28, 2003, council work session, and April 7, 2003, Planning Commission meeting regarding the subject. He had sought clarity on the topic but found none. He said that it appeared there were many different ideas about what nodes were. Referring to the SAS, Mr. Nelson said that the Planning Commission had asked if a subdivision could be built in the R-1 area; the answer was yes. The commission asked if the overlay would increase the density of a subdivision; the answer was yes.. He invited the council to watch the commission meeting. Mr. Nelson noted that there was three-car pileup on Franklin Boulevard earlier in the evening and questioned how pedestrian-friendly that road could ever be. He said that he heard concerns expressed by the council about the State deadlines related to nodal development, and suggested that concern was clouding the council's objectivity about the issue of nodes. He did not want a nodal overlay designation in the R-1 area, including two lots north of 15th Avenue adjacent to Maude Kerns. Art Farley, 1667 Fairmount Boulevard, suggested the council consider the difference between neighborhoods with existing residential those with existing commercial. He questioned what goals would be met by declaring the area a node as it was unlikely to be redeveloped at higher densities. The neighborhood was not in need of reinvestment or redevelopment. It was functioning well as a neighborhood. He wanted historic resources in the neighborhood to be protected. Mr. Farley said that nodal development was not likely to occur, nor would it improve MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 7 Regular Meeting the neighborhood in question. He suggested it was a judgment call as to the location of the boundaries rather than a matter of applying criteria. Mr. Farley said that in terms of commercial property north of 15th Avenue, the neighborhood would like to see more intense mixed-use redevelopment. He preferred the council be more aggressive in the commercial area. He noted that the intent of the overlay was to prevent bad development. If the overlay was not applied to those areas, the City would lose all leverage. Elise Weldon, 1559 Walnut Street, said she made a conscious decision to live close in and use alternate modes. She anticipated that there would be student housing constructed in the area that would create additional density in the area. She said that would put additional pressure on the neighborhood. She thought the BRT station, which appeared to be driving the issue, was badly placed and should be located where it could serve commercial uses. Sheila Moore, 2624 Summit Drive, Lake Oswego, Oregon, representing CCJS Holdings, referred to the property her organization owned, the Joe Romania property. She said that the car and truck dealership had been in place for 40 years and had worked with the neighborhood to avoid disturbing it. The properties would be changing drastically over the next three to five years, and the node would preclude the company from locating another dealership there. She said that the area in question was operating well, and restricting the company's ability to develop its property would change the area, affect property values, and impact jobs. She thought the issues that had been raised in testimony needed to be examined more closely by the council, as she believed property owners' rights were being violated by the proposal. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. He invited council questions and comments. Councilor Nathanson said that some of the concerns she had expressed regarding the proposed 29th Avenue and Willamette Street node were being raised by the proposal before the council. She was concerned about infill and redevelopment opportunities, and thought the council needed a way to distinguish between new development on greenfield sites and redevelopment in already developed areas. Councilor Nathanson said the council also needed to distinguish between single parcels with individual ownerships or tenants versus large parcels suitable for master site planning. Councilor Nathanson said that she did not agree with those suggesting that higher densities meant student rental housing. Such housing, if done the correct way, could be 100-percent owner- occupied. She agreed that the redevelopment potential of the R-1 neighborhood was small. She thought the residents raised important concerns. Councilor Nathanson acknowledged that the concerns of the residents and the businesses differed. She said that it was probable that some part of the area in question was suitable for a node, but she believed that what part and under what rules were the issue. Councilor Nathanson, seconded by Councilor Papd, moved to initiate amendments to the \ND Nodal Development overlay zone to address issues MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 8 Regular Meeting raised in the Planning Commission report dated April 8, 2003, and public testimony to allow infill and redevelopment to occur in a transitional manner consistent with neighborhood considerations, and with area-specific development history and market conditions within each node. Councilor Kelly said it was clear that there were unintended consequences in the \ND overlay that must be corrected. He asked that Councilor Nathanson and her second accept a friendly amendment that added the following sentence to the motion: "The Planning Commission should analyze the amendments for consistency with TransPlan's nodal development policies and performance measures." Councilor Nathanson and Councilor Pap~ accepted the friendly amendment. The motion then read: Councilor Nathanson, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved to initiate amendments to the \ND Nodal Development overlay zone to address issues raised in the Planning Commission report dated April 8, 2003, and public testimony to allow infill and redevelopment to occur in a transitional manner consistent with neighborhood considerations, and with area-specific development history and market conditions within each node. The Planning Commission should analyze the amendments for consistency with TransPlan's nodal development policies and performance measures. Mayor Torrey called for comments on the motion. Councilor Kelly asked how the City could address area-specific market attributes in an \ND overlay. Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle responded that first, one did not codify them. He suggested an appropriate approach was to look for specific, stylized approaches to each node rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. He suggested that the City determine the higher level intent for each nodal area, and emphasized the need for flexibility in the context of each node. Councilor Kelly indicated support for the motion because of the inclusion of his amendment. He said that if the City was committed to the concept, it needed to do the necessary site-specific planning. Councilor Meisner indicated tentative support for the motion. He said he wished it was not being raised in the context of the application of the overlay to a specific neighborhood as the issues were separate and he believed the action created confusion among the council and community. He asked Planning Director Jan Childs if the motion gave staff flexibility. Ms. Childs said yes. Councilor Bettman also regretted the timing of the motion. She said that it sounded as though the amendments the commission was contemplating did not have to be consistent with TransPlan but rather merely had to have the analysis done. Mr. Coyle said that he would have to do further research to respond to that. He recalled that when the Planning Commission considered the FAR MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 9 Regular Meeting requirement, it recommended a .65 FAR, which the council changed to 1.0. He assumed that the actions and dialogues associated with those changes were consistent with TransPlan which does not specify a set floor-to-area ratio be applied, and said that staff would apply the same standards. He thought there was some room for interpretation of TransPlan as a policy document. Councilor Bettman said she was referring to the performance measures, such as the employment standards and vehicle miles traveled reduction. Mr. Coyle indicated staff would analyze those measures but reiterated that there was room for interpretation. He said that there were many assumptions associated with the modeling behind TransPlan, and he did not want to suggest that there was anything like an exact science associated with the task. Councilor Bettman said that the motion appeared to direct the commission to do an analysis of each specific node, somewhat like an abbreviated site-specific plan. Mr. Coyle said that was not necessarily the case. In situations where there was an applicant engaged in development, discussion of the market conditions that had been a natural output of the dialogue with the applicant. However, that did not mean that would happen for each node as they were reviewed. Some of the base line information as it related to the percentage of the assessed valuation in structures to land was the type of analysis staff could do. Councilor Bettman indicated reluctant support for the motion to see what would result. She did not think the City could address all the nodes with a single, one-size-fits-all overlay zone and wanted to move immediately to site-specific planning. She said that the City needed to do more to make the concept successful and engage stakeholders in the process. In response to Councilor Bettman's question, City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that in terms of TransPlan, the council could not adopt an ordinance that was not consistent with TransPlan, as an amendment of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Councilor Solomon said that she would not vote to support the overlay as she considered it a huge disincentive to property owners. She said that the restrictions placed by nodal development on the properties in the Gilbert node made those properties unmarketable. She thought property owners should be able to make improvements to their properties when market conditions allowed and when they could afford them. Councilor Solomon said she was not moved by the State deadlines for nodal development. Eugene was unique, and she wanted to take the time to do nodal development for the community the right way. Councilor Taylor supported the motion reluctantly, but she did not know why the council was doing it now. She thought that each node was different and in some cases an area might not be suitable as a node. She did not see a reason to change the rules. She had previously been prepared to support the node with the proposed boundary changes, but she was unsure of her position now. Councilor Taylor asked if passage of the motion meant that all work on nodes would stop. Mr. Klein said that legally, no. He deferred the question to Ms. Childs, who indicated that she would MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 10 Regular Meeting not interpret it that way. There were two components of nodal development implementation, one related to the designation and one to the overlay zone. The motion addressed only the overlay zone. Mayor Torrey said the neighborhood represented before the council was nearly a perfect example of the kind of neighborhood that the City wants to support,, and if the nodal overlay changed that, he did not think it was a good approach. He said that it did not appear the node was workable. He agreed that a one-size-fits-all approach did not work to further nodal development. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments on the motion. Councilor Meisner hoped that the audience understood that the motion the council was voting on did not relate to the Walnut Street node. It is regarding whether the council would direct the Planning Commission to modify the overlay zone to make it more flexible. Councilor Meisner was concerned about the applause he had heard in response to Councilor Solomon's comments because it did not appear to support residents' earlier comments about how much they supported the concept of nodal development. Councilor Pap~ supported the motion. He shared Councilor Meisner's concern about confusing the public. He asked Mr. Klein what would happen if the City was unable to meet the State deadline for nodal development. Mr. Klein said there were different implications, some legal, and some financial. He said he preferred to answer the question after he had the opportunity to review the issues involved. Councilor Pap~ indicated that was acceptable. He added he preferred to battle the State over the deadline rather than battle the residents of Eugene. Councilor Nathanson said that she was not sure she preferred to battle the State given its authority. She said that she offered the motion at this point because there were many people in attendance and she wanted them to know the council was listening and agreed with them that something needed to be done. She believed there was value in the examination called for, because if the underlying rules associated with nodal development were too restrictive, redevelopment that would have enhanced a neighborhood would not occur. Speaking to Councilor Papa's comments, Councilor Nathanson said that she believed the City was obligated to adopt some form of nodal development because of the State-mandated requirement for a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, and to recognize the vision in the Recycle Eugene scenario envisioned through the Growth Management Study. Councilor Bettman did not believe that the City should apply the overlay zone at all until the council had the opportunity to review the amendments proposed by the Planning Commission. Councilor Solomon asked about the impact of the motion on nodal development planning. Ms. Childs said that the Planning Commission had completed its public hearings and recommendations MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 11 Regular Meeting on all eight of the proposed nodal development areas. The council was now considering the recommendations. The council could vote against the plan designation and zoning. It could direct the manager not to schedule additional public hearings. She noted that there were three more hearings on proposed nodes scheduled before the council. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey called for council comments on the testimony received regarding the Walnut Street Station Nodal Development Area plan amendments and overlay zoning proposals. Councilor Poling thanked and commended the residents on the work they had done and the educated testimony they offered. He said the neighborhood in question was lovely. He was happy to see the improvements being initiated by residents to their properties. He said that the nodal development overlay zone did not work in this area because it was already developed. To attempt to apply the one-size-fits-all, restrictive zone to this area would be a mistake. He favored nodal development but said that it must be done carefully, he hoped that the changes would lead to more progress. Councilor Poling said he had not heard Councilor Solomon say she was opposed to nodal development, but that the City should slow the process. He agreed with that. Councilor Poling asked if the council could direct the staff to change the boundary for the proposed node at this point. Ms. Childs suggested that the council review the boundary alternatives when it took final action on the proposal on May 26. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Pap6 concurred with the remarks of Councilor Poling regarding the nature of the testimony. Councilor Pap6 agreed with Councilor Bettman about the one-size-fits-all nature of the overlay zoning, and advocated for site-specific planning in the drafting of the overlays. He urged the council to find money to fund a planner for the purpose of site-specific planning in nodes and to complete the needed code amendments. Councilor Pap6 noted his support for the recommendation of the Planning Commission and noted his support for changing the boundaries of the node as advocated by the former chair of the Planning Commission who had testified. Councilor Bettman agreed with much of the testimony offered regarding the proposed node. She said she has been working on developing TransPlan policies for the last 10 years and one of her objectives in nodal development was neighborhood protection. If the City created a plan that created uncertainty for residents, people would not reinvest in their neighborhoods and would move away. She said the City needed liveable residential neighborhoods in the core. The City needed to offer residents a variety of housing opportunities, and the only way to accomplish that was to look at specific opportunities to achieve density without negatively impacting existing neighborhoods. She called for good design standards that facilitated density at specific sites, and said that had to occur in collaboration with the neighborhood residents and businesses. Councilor Bettman also called for incentives for nodal development and the infrastructure needed for nodal development. She advocated for working with businesses and residents to do site-specific planning for each node. Councilor Kelly invited ideas from City Manager Taylor regarding sources of funding to do site- specific planning for nodes. Councilor Kelly said that nodal development must work in established neighborhoods as well as on greenfield sites or else the community would be unable to accommodate projected growth. He believed the problem was how the City was going about doing nodal development. Speaking specifically to the proposal before the council, Councilor Kelly found value in applying the \ND overlay zone to the area. He hoped the recommendations offered by the Planning Commission resulted in a more workable overlay zone that was still consistent with TransPlan. The overlay would provide interim protections for large parcels that could be redeveloped in a way that enhanced the neighborhood, and prioritized funding for the site-specific work. He recommended that the council consider the Garden Avenue area for nodal development opportunities. Councilor Kelly said that the testimony offered to the council appeared to be less opposed to the node than to the application of the overlay zone to the R-1 area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 13 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare ordinances showing Boundary Alternative 3. Councilor Nathanson asked that staff provide the council with information what redevelopment or infill was possible in the area proposed to be being excluded under the current zoning rules. She asked for a summary of arguments regarding the inclusion of extra parcels in alternatives 2 versus 3. Councilor Pap~ expressed support for the motion but said that should not be interpreted as support for the application of the overlay zone. Councilor Bettman concurred with Councilor Pap~, saying she could not support application of the overlay zone until she saw the Planning Commission's recommendations. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting no. Councilor Taylor expressed appreciation for the testimony, saying the neighborhood was the way the City would like it to be if it was to plan for it. She feared that the neighborhood was already threatened by the development plans of the University of Oregon. She agreed with Councilor Poling that the testimony was excellent and said there were many well-informed, intelligent people who come before the council. She agreed that with other councilors who argued that money was needed for site-specific planning. She suggested the large parcels such as that owned by ODOT might be ripe for redevelopment but believed each parcel should be considered separately. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to discontinue plans for nodal development until the issues related to the overlay zoning provisions were resolved. Councilor Kelly could not support the motion because it was overly broad and because there may be nodes that he was willing to apply the designation to at this time. Councilor Solomon did not believe the motion was overly broad. She thought the overlay zone should be applied when the issues identified by the Planning Commission had been resolved and the overlay zone could be applied correctly. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Solomon voting yes. Councilor Bettman referred to the findings for the Walnut Station nodal proposal, which discussed protecting designated nodes from incompatible development. She asked if the City had defined "incompatible development," or if the Department of Land Conservation and Development defined what type of development uses would be considered incompatible to achieving the goals of nodal development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 14 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman noted the mayor's expressed interest in adding ramps to the new 1-5 bridge at Franklin Boulevard and asked if that possibility needed to be integrated into the transportation analysis for the Walnut Street Station Nodal Development Area. She also asked for more information about the rationale for excluding the Williams Bakery and University of Oregon from the Walnut Street Station Nodal Development Area boundaries. Mayor Torrey called for a ten-minute recess. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Gilbert Nodal Development Area Ordinance A: An Ordinance Concerning the Gilbert Nodal Development Area; Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram and the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan Land Use Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Ordinance B: An Ordinance Concerning the Gilbert Nodal Development Area, Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Shawna Adams-Jacobs of the Planning and Development Department introduced the item. She said the council would hear testimony on two ordinances implementing nodal development in the Gilbert Nodal Area. The first action the council was being asked to take was to amend to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Diagram and a concurrent amendment to the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan Land Use Map to add the \ND Nodal Development symbol to the Gilbert Nodal Development Area. The second action was to apply the \ND overlay zone to the Gilbert Nodal Area. The proposed plan designation and zoning amendments would not change the existing base zoning or plan designations for the properties. Ms. Adams noted that the relevant criteria for evaluating a proposed Metro Plan amendment were found in Section 9.7330(3) of the Eugene Code, which was included in the agenda item summary. The criteria for evaluating the zone change were found in Section 9.8855, also contained in the summary. Ms. Adams reported that the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous recommendation to adopt the amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram and refinement plan, but declined to forward a positive recommendation on the application of the overlay to the proposed nodal area because of concerns about specific features of the overlay zone. Ms. Adams submitted a letter into the public record from Rick Alexander. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 15 Regular Meeting Steve Gilbert, 834 Elizabeth Street, said his family developed much of the land under consideration. He co-managed those properties as well as several area businesses. He asked how a concept could get this far with so little community support. He said that the council should drive up Highway 99 and try to find another property that compared to his family's. Mr. Gilbert noted the development patterns in the area and said that all those uses, including the auto-oriented businesses, would still be allowed to operate even if the nodal development overlay was applied. Mr. Gilbert said he liked the nodal concept and believed that in the past the center operated much as the council envisioned a node would operate. Over time, retail uses in the center were lost as other large retailers located within a five-mile area of the center. The Gilbert Center was no longer a shopping center. Mr. Gilbert suggested it was a little late to promote or protect the area for nodal development. The council could vote for the overlay, but redevelopment would not happen because the concept did not account for the intense competition in the area. He noted that the commissioners had "thrown up their hands" and voted for the nodal designation but not the overlay. Jim Spickerman, 975 Oak Street, Suite 800, representing Gilbert Enterprises, asked that the record be left open for the submission of written comments. Mr. Spickerman said that a unique aspect of the area in question was the fact it was developed in a nodal fashion and functioned that way for a while. However, it no longer functioned in such a way. He said that the area was selected for nodal development because of Lane Transit District's decision to route Bus Rapid Transit up Highway 99, but the highway was a strip commercial area dominated by automobile-oriented businesses. He thought that would continue to be the case. Mr. Spickerman said that the Planning Commission had discussed the fact that the highway would not be a main street for the node. He did not believe any business would build within 15 feet of the highway. He noted that the commission had discussed Fairfield as the main street, which made some sense, and also discussed including additional residential property to the north, but because of uncertainty about what the council would do, had taken the safe approach of recommending the designation and against the application of the overlay. Mr. Spickerman did not think that the commission's recommendation represented an answer for the Gilbert Family. It left the family with no way to plan predictably for the future. He believed that the nodal development designation would have a negative impact on the Gilberts, and indicated he would address that impact in more detail in his written testimony. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to hold the record open until May 17, 2003, at 5 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 16 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly said that if the City were to intensify development and reduce auto-related trips, nodes must be distributed throughout the city. He asked why this area was chosen rather than another site along Highway 99. He also asked for more information on the commission's discussion of the node's orientation. Councilor Kelly asked staff to provide the council with a redevelopment scenario that would recreate the neighborhood center that was no longer in place at the Gilbert Center. Councilor B ettman said that if the City could realize the objectives of nodal development, it would create a profitable and marketable business environment inside the node. She believed that Mr. Gilbert had made some good points in his written testimony about the impact of City decisions and policies on what the family had attempted to create at the center. She said that the members of the Land Use Measures Task Force had discussed how to focus desirable new development and redevelopment into nodes and discourage undesirable development outside nodes. If someone could locate a business half-mile outside the node and capitalize on the density and livability in the node, the City would not be able to succeed at nodal development. Councilor Bettman called for a discussion of how the City would succeed with nodal development if it had no way to equalize the costs of developing inside and outside a node. Councilor Solomon noted her opposition to the proposed nodal development for the same reasons she opposed earlier nodal proposals. She said that in this case, the proposed nodal area lacked the high-density residential land base needed to support nodal development at the Gilbert Center. Mayor Torrey said that he also could not support the proposal before the council, and looked forward to Mr. Spickerman's written testimony. Councilor Kelly noted the negative impact of big-box developments on the businesses formerly located at the Gilbert Center. He said that the community needed to support locally owned businesses. He noted that many communities had banned big-box developments but the council refused to discuss it, which he thought unfortunate. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning The Lower River Road Nodal Development Area; Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram, the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagram, the Whiteaker Plan Land Use Diagram, and the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Alissa Hansen, Planning and Development Department, was present for the item. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4826, an ordinance concerning the Lower River Road Nodal Development area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 17 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman noted that the council had heard little testimony from the businesses and asked about their level of participation. Ms. Hansen indicated she had spoken with several representatives of the businesses, who appeared to understand the implications of the overlay. None of them indicated intent to redevelop in the near future. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to revise the boundary to include the incorporated portion of the River Road right-of-way. Responding to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Childs said that the right-of-way was neither zoned nor designated, so passage of the motion did not require that the ordinance be revised. Councilor Bettman said she had asked staff for a way to include the right-of-way in the node's boundaries at this time. She wanted it to be clear that the portion of River Road was integral to the success of the node as it was the only north-south corridor in the area, and there was no connectivity in the node. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Meisner said he would support the main motion but doubted that the residents understood its implications. They believed it would protect the neighborhood as it was. Councilor Meisner said that any proposals for more intensive redevelopment would be met with opposition. Councilor Bettman requested information about the existing residential densities in the node. Ms. Hansen did not have that information. Councilor Bettman indicated support for the proposal because of the neighborhood support for it. She supported retaining the designations for the nodes that were already adopted, including this one. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Solomon voting no. 5. ACTION: Ordinances Concerning the 29th and Willamette Nodal Development Area Ordinance A: An Ordinance Concerning the 29th and Willamette Nodal Development Area; Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram and the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date OR Ordinance B: An Ordinance Concerning the 29th And Willamette Nodal Development Area; Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved that the council adopt Council Bill 4832, an ordinance concerning the 29th and Willamette Nodal Development Area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 18 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman said she would oppose the motion because the area acted as a node already and exceeded the minimum net residential density called for in nodes. It contained regional and neighborhood commercial uses. In addition, the City lacked the money to create the needed infrastructure to serve the node. She said that the City needed incentives to densify the commercial development in nodes, and she did not think it made sense to impose nodes on people unless the City could afford to do the proper planning. She was reluctant to apply the designation because she was concerned about the ultimate recommendations of the Planning Commission, which the council had not yet seen. Councilor Nathanson said she would vote for the motion because the designation did not impose the nodal development rules at this time, but it put everyone on notice that the area as identified as a prime area to be preserved for nodal development. Councilor Poling said he could not support the motion at this time. He noted the commission's denial of the overlay zone. He said that the residents and business community had not expressed support for the proposed node. He feared that nodal development could lead to unworkable and unreasonable regulations, which he considered the FAR to be. He said that the area's customer base was from across Eugene and access would be severely restricted to those residents if the area was developed as a node. Councilor Poling suggested that it was easier to do nodal development from "scratch" than it was to redesign a vibrant and successful neighborhood such as the one in question. Councilor Kelly noted the commission recommended denial of the overlay zone but recommended acceptance of the Metro Plan designation, which he supported. He agreed with Councilor Nathanson's comments and suggested that adoption of the motion would also serve to prioritize staff resources and funding allocations. Speaking to Councilor Bettman's concerns, Councilor Kelly suggested that if the council did not like what the commission developed, it could vote against its recommendations. Councilor Taylor opposed the application of the overlay zone. The area was already developed and served as a regional shopping center already. There was almost universal opposition to the proposal. Councilor Meisner indicated support for the motion, pointing out that it did not apply the overlay zone. In response to Councilor Kelly's comments, Councilor Bettman said she believed that if the commission's recommendations were not found acceptable by the council, it would be too late. Councilor Solomon indicated her opposition to the motion because of the uncertainty and anxiety created by the designation. She said that it was unfair to impose that uncertainty on the citizens. Mayor Torrey said he would vote against the motion if called on to break a tie. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Bettman, Poling, and Solomon voting no; councilors Nathanson, Meisner, Kelly and Pap~ voting yes. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 19 Regular Meeting The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 20 Regular Meeting