Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/13/03 Mtg MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall October 13, 2003 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Gary Papd. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson, George Poling. Mayor James Torrey called the meeting to order. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS Mayor Torrey called City Manager Dennis Taylor to speak on an award the City of Eugene had received. Mr. Taylor reported that the City of Eugene had been an early participant in the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Performance Measurement Project. He said it had been a great honor to attend a recent ICMA meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, and to receive a Certificate of Distinction Award from the ICMA Center for Performance Measurement. He related that the City of Eugene was recognized as one often communities to receive this certificate for its work on performance information and the use of the information in the management of the City. He noted that among the other cities recognized were Phoenix, Arizona, Bellevue, Washington, Austin, Texas, San Jos6, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada. He stated that more than 120 cities and counties participated in the Center for Performance Measurement. He explained that the City of Eugene uses performance management in service profiles, in which the City measures not only the 15 dimensions of service recommended by the ICMA, but 20 dimensions of service. He felt this work contributed to informed management practices, led to higher performance, and encouraged the City"s commitment to continuous improvement. Mr. Taylor presented the award to Terri Monroe, service improvement manager, who accepted it on behalf of City staff. Ms. Monroe thanked Mr. Taylor and said the award reflected the efforts and commitment of staff across the organization who use performance measurement to aid in the most effective provision of services. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 1 Regular Meeting Mary Blackburn, 3914 Shasta View, expressed disappointment that the council had not restored funding for the cattery in the Lane County Animal Regulation Authority shelter. She stressed that there were not enough homes for all of the cats in the community, noting that when the cattery was functioning approxi- mately 3,000 cats were humanely euthanized per year. She asked the council to consider how many cats there will be in the next breeding season. She alleged that people were already using inhumane methods to dispose of unwanted cats. She wanted to know what to tell people who had found strays, stating that most veterinary clinics would not euthanize healthy cats that were not owned. She said that even if this were possible, it would cost nearly $70 per cat. Ms. Blackburn asked if it would take a minority group to "get ugly, threaten, and boycott" to move the City to action. She reiterated that steps needed to be taken to prevent the health and safety issues that cat over- population presented the City. Gene Humphreys, 2035 Alder Street, spoke as a representative of the Executive Committee of the South University Neighborhood Association. He conveyed the neighborhood's opposition to the cell tower that was planned for Hayward Field. He related the concerns of the neighborhood, as follows: · The proposed 120-foot structure would be taller than the modestly sized buildings of the neighborhood creating a visual impact. · The 1,000 square foot footprint represented a significant loss of space in the area, especially given the plan to build the new basketball arena on Howe Field. · There was a risk to the migratory population of swifts which descend on the area, as per- ceived by the Audobon Society. Mr. Humphreys said the City had agreed to revisit the telecommunications ordinance and, so far as he had heard, this had yet to happen. He requested careful consideration of the project, a chance for the neighborhood to be informed before decisions were made and an opportunity to respond to such decisions. Mona Liustromberg, 87140 Territorial Road, Veneta, encouraged the City Council to proceed with its effort to reconsider the telecommunications ordinance. She acknowledged the many issues waiting in the wings, but stressed the issue should not languish. She conveyed her belief, having reviewed approximately a dozen applications for cell tower permits, that something could be done in the interim should the City implement an existing provision of the current ordinance. She asserted that Eugene Code 9.5750(11) allowed for independent peer review of the technical applications at the expense of the applicant. She related that she had e-mailed the comments of Steve Nystrom, principal planner, regarding his position and her response to him, to the council. She noted that she disagreed with him, in that she felt the applications in question should be reviewed and he did not. She reiterated that peer reviews of cell tower applications should be used as a short-term solution and, in the long term, the City Council should review and update its telecommunications ordinance. Martha Johnson, 110 East Hilliard Road, stated that she and her neighbors had spent two years and several thousand dollars fighting the application for the Autorama cell phone tower, planned to be installed 120 feet from her home in the suburban River Road area. She related that she and her neighbors pleaded with the City in the fall of 2000 to institute E C 9.5750(11) and subject cell towers to independent technical review. She opined that Planning staff did not have expertise in telecommunications and currently relied on MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 2 Regular Meeting an applicant's word when it came to the technical aspects of an application. She stated that the applicant recently submitted an application to modify its plans and neighbors suspected the modification to include air conditioners that would be in violation of the noise ordinance. She related that the applicant denied the neighbors' allegation, but the neighboring citizens hired an acoustics engineer, who found evidence of air conditioners in the site plan. She said Associate Planner Gabe Flock told her the applicant had changed his plans in response to public testimony about noise. She related that Mr. Flock stated the applicant would most likely be granted a modification that would provide him an additional 18 months before the site review approval expired. She asked Mr. Flock if it was allowable to change plans after plans had been submitted and Mr. Flock replied that there were a number of cases in which plan changes had been made mid-process. She alleged that the applicant lied about proposed changes that would not have met criteria had they been openly stated in the application. She said the neighborhood hired, at its own expense, an expert to "expose the lie." Instead of denying the applicant's request for modification, the Planning Department was now working with the applicant to remove the portions of the application that would not have met the criteria. The applicant was still granted the requested extension. She questioned the legality of this. She asserted that, had this fallen under Lane County Code, the entire application would have been revoked as a result of the applicant's action. She urged the Mayor and City Council to revise the ordinance, stating the citizens of Eugene deserve an ordinance that required a rigorous independent technical review of cell tower applications and provided for adequate setbacks from residences. She noted that the County ordinance provided for a 1,200 foot setback. Bruce Miller, P.O. Box 50968, circulated copies of information he wished to share with the City Council and City Manager. He expressed a great deal of concern that the University of Oregon student newspaper was not adequately reporting the cuts in funding to the University of Oregon at the state level. He criticized the student newspaper. Mr. Miller urged Mayor Torrey to consider being Dean of the Business School. Darlene Schanfald, 1624 East 23rd Avenue, spoke regarding the cell tower ordinance, noting she had assisted in the development of a cell tower code in Washington, her former place of residence. She related that she had worked with a University of Washington expert who, through more recent research, had come to believe that cell towers were a danger to the health of people. She expressed concern, as a neighborhood resident who also worked in the vicinity of the University of Oregon, that the placement of a cell tower on Hayward Field posed a health threat to both people and the migratory birds. She recommended the code be updated to require that experts look over applications prior to approval. Additionally, she felt the proximity of the University Child Care Center posed a health hazard to children housed there during the day. Janetta Overholser, 30300 Cottage Grove Lorane Road, Cottage Grove, related the plight of more than a dozen stray cats. She related that she received a call from a nursing home that, due to an abundance of stray cats, had developed a problem with fleas. She said she had all of the cats she could take care of in her house and did not know what to do. She commented that the City Council had taken the choice away from all of Lane County by the City's refusal to contribute funding to the cattery. She stressed that the Greenhill Humane Society accepted only owned cats and strays from the City of Veneta, by contract. She reiterated that stray cats had no where to go, though money had been spent to build a new cattery. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 3 Regular Meeting Ms. Overholser cited several examples of inhumane treatment and disposal of cats. She suggested that another solution would be to offer a free spay and neuter clinic, noting that a New Hampshire study had determined that every dollar invested in spaying and neutering equaled a $19 savings in animal sheltering and control over a ten-year period. Until this could be instituted, she urged that funding for the cattery be restored. John Kline, 693 West l0th Avenue, spoke about the Trude Kaufman Annex, located adjacent to his residence. He conveyed the serious concerns of himself and his neighbors, stating the house had fallen into serious decline. Although he supported the organization that had oversight of the house, he felt they were not providing adequate care for it. He noted there were piles of magazines and newspapers and leftovers from rummage sales in the backyard and on the porch. He encouraged the City to either enforce the oversight or to sell the house to someone who would provide better care for it. He noted that he had spoken to Councilor Meisner regarding the house one year earlier. Mayor Torrey closed the Public Forum and invited comments from councilors. Councilor Meisner asked, on behalf of Mr. Klein, that staff provide a brief summary to him and to the public on the action the council had taken two months earlier with regard to the Trude Kaufman House. He noted that selling the property had been contemplated. Councilor Meisner commented that it was not surprising the County ordinance governing cell towers would be different from that of the City, given the respective densities of population. He requested information from staff regarding the degree to which opportunities were given for plan revisions after misstatements. Regarding the cattery, Councilor Meisner related that one-time funding would be requested in the supplemental budget process to try to restore the service. He noted that the council was paying close attention to the work of the task force. He thanked Ms. Overholser for her attention to the matter. Councilor Bettman echoed Councilor Meisner's response to Mr. Klein. She said she had toured the house in the previous year and at that time, senior citizens managing the center were eager to work on the necessary maintenance of the house, but the house was ;~tied up because of City politics." She related that the house was now to be sold. Councilor Bettman hoped that a work session could be held on the cell tower ordinance. She commented that staff had encouraged the council not to reopen the ordinance because the City ostensibly had the tools to do better management in terms of the independent technical review. She felt that building a cell tower next to a property with a residence on it created a very serious situation because the building of a cell tower immediately reduced the value of the adjacent property, and that constituted a taking. She noted that the people who were concerned about the cell towers were not opposed, but only wanted the City to do a better job of regulating them. She asked, regarding the cell tower to be placed on Hayward Field, how it would be interconnected with the City's authority or responsibility for the field, given that the City had a contract with the University of Oregon to upgrade the field and spent $60,000 on it annually. Councilor Pap6 expressed appreciation for the persistence of the proponents of the cattery. He remarked that many City services had been cut in the spring budget process. He conveyed his hope that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 4 Regular Meeting proponents were spending as much time lobbying the County as they were the City. Councilor Kelly thanked all of the participants in the Public Forum. He commented that the telecommuni- cations ordinance should be revisited, but that the majority of the council had voted to lower it on the priority list for the Planning and Development Department, given that the department had endured many staff cuts and was overburdened. He opined that cell towers should be higher on the list of priorities. Regarding the specific allegation by Ms. Lindstromberg that applications were being approved without adequate technical review, he asked if there was any reason staff should not, under the auspices of the existing code, mandate a technical review on all applications. He related that the federal government had forbidden the local jurisdiction to consider possible health effects due to cell towers. Regarding the cell tower on Hayward Field, he clarified that the City Council had no jurisdiction over the tower. He said these sorts of applications were approved by staff, with appeals brought before the Hearings Official. He recommended concerned citizens contact the lead planner on the issue, Kent Kullby. Councilor Taylor conveyed her admiration for the people who are keeping the cattery issue in the forefront and the people who keep working on the cell tower issue. She said a work session was scheduled for the cell tower ordinance, but that recent changes in the decision process for placement of an item on a work session agenda required five councilors to agree on an item before placement. She commented that, like the ordinance the County had crafted, it was important that a plan for the demolition of a cell tower that placed this responsibility on the owner be included in the ordinance. She asserted that the ordinance was ahead of its time when originally passed and needed to be revisited. Regarding the cattery, Councilor Taylor reiterated that the provision of a place for stray cats was a matter of public health and safety as well as humanity. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - September 8, 2003, Work Session - September 8, 2003, City Council Meeting - September 10, 2003, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Councilor Pap6, seconded by Councilor Meisner, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly stated that he submitted corrections to the minutes via e-mail. Mayor Torrey, noting no objections to the minutes corrections, deemed them approved. Councilor Bettman said she had submitted corrections to the minutes via e-mail as well. Mayor Torrey stated that, without objections, the corrections were approved. Role call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed by unanimous MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 5 Regular Meeting vote, 6:0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram and the Willakenzie Area Plan Diagram and Text; Amending the Eugene Zoning Map and the Eugene Overlay Zone map; Amending Sections 9.2741, 9.4280 and 9.9700 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effec- tive Date (City Files: MA 03-1, RA 03-2, CA 03-2, and Z 03-3) Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing and asked councilors to disclose any conflicts of interest, ex parte contacts and biases, abstentions or challenges to impartiality pursuant to Eugene Code 9.7056. Mayor Torrey pointed out that he had engaged in "passing conversations" regarding the issues before the council. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that this did not create an issue. City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the new Planning Director, Susan Muir. He welcomed her to the City. Mr. Taylor asked Teresa Bishow, senior planner, to present the topic before the council. Ms. Bishow explained that before the council was a draft ordinance designed to provide the policy and regulatory framework for a proposed Mixed-Use development known as Crescent Village. She felt this to be an important step toward achieving the council goal of creating urban villages throughout Eugene that will foster sustainable community growth and change. She related the Eugene Planning Commission had recommended unanimous approval of the amendment to the Metro Plan, Willakenzie Area Plan, the zoning and overlay zone maps, and the land use code. The commission's recommendation was based on the broad goal of providing the policy framework for the proposed mixed-use project. Ms. Bishow briefly summarized the approval criteria, noting that an evaluation of the criteria was contained in the Planning Division staff report on page 124 of the council agenda packet. She stressed that all testimony, in order to be considered, must be directed towards the approval criteria, and failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to allow the council or parties to respond would preclude appeal on that issue. Regarding the Planning Commission recommendation, Ms. Bishow said the commission had supported an increase in the mix of uses allowed in the Crescent Avenue node. She explained that currently 27 percent of the land within the node was zoned for high density residential development (HDR), while only three percent was zoned for office or community commercial uses. She stated that the ordinance, if approved, would increase the amount of land available for commercial activity, but would still contain sufficient area for high density housing. The proposed Crescent Village conatins approximately 630 new dwellings. She further stated that the Planning Commission had supported changes in the Willakenzie Area Plan that would allow a mixed-use project including high density housing, but at a level that mitigated traffic. She referenced the table listed on page 89 of the council agenda packet. Ms. Bishow pointed out the letter of support from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on page 315 of the council agenda packet. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 6 Regular Meeting Ms. Bishow noted the commission supported allowing drive-through facilities, but in a limited manner. Continuing, Ms. Bishow highlighted the commission's recommendation to change the zoning concurrent with the plan amendments. Ms. Bishow submitted into the record a letter of support written by Stacy Mount. Ms. Bishow explained that following the public hearing, staff hoped the council would provide direction on whether the ordinance could be presented for final action on October 22 or whether the council preferred to use that time as a work session and take action on November 10. In closing, Ms. Bishow introduced Gary McNeel, transportation analyst for the Public Works Department, and commended him for extending himself during the negotiations and for helping the City, ODOT, and the developer reach agreement. Mayor Torrey outlined the procedure for the hearing. He called for the applicant's testimony, followed by testimony in support of the ordinance. Justin Wright, 722 Country Club Road, associate planner with Arlie and Company, stated that the 39-acre site had been purchased from PeaceHealth in January 2002. He said the company wanted to develop a ~world-class, pedestrian-friendly nodal village." He noted that Crescent Village development had been in the design phase for 19 months and, initially, City staff had difficulty providing Arlie and Company with direction needed for the land use process, nearly leading to the termination of the project. He credited Teresa Bishow for her help in moving the project forward. He reminded those present that the Coburg/Crescent area was master-planned by Jim Saul and, though the area had not developed exactly as Mr. Saul had prescribed, the design of Crescent Village was similar to his overall vision. He discussed the constraints that had shaped the design, including the City's designation of the 39-acre as HDR. He said that, as a result, the company had worked closely with neighbors to find an acceptable level of density and an appropriate range of uses. He felt that Arlie and Company had done its very best to negotiate through the City's land use process, design a village that was compatible with surrounding uses, while meeting smart growth principles. He stated that the adoption of the ordinance before the council would provide the policy framework to allow the Crescent Village planned unit development (PUD) to proceed. He added that he would be followed by Jim Hanks, from JRH Engineering, who for this project acted as pedestrian and vehicle engineer. Jim Hanks, 3672 River Pointe Drive, stated that the Crescent Village nodal site would put essential services within walking distance of residential areas. He projected that this would allow families residing east of Gilham Road to shop, visit restaurants, and work, without having to travel through the Beltline Road interchanges. He felt this would reduce the total number of and length of automobile trips from this area. He noted that initially there had been concern that the development would adversely affect the transportation system surrounding it. He stated that, through close work with ODOT and City staff, a solution had been reached that entailed having a land use limitation on the property that assured the traffic impacts coming from the project would not exceed that of the existing zoning. He commented that it may be necessary in the future to widen the intersection of Coburg Road and Crescent Avenue and that Arlie and Company had pledged to contribute its fair share for the project when the time came. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 7 Regular Meeting Mr. Hanks stated that the full details of his work were contained in the traffic impact study, excerpted in the council agenda packet. He asserted that it showed, with the land use limitations in place, the proposed project would meet all adopted traffic standards for both the State of Oregon and the City of Eugene. He conveyed the company's belief that the study overstated the traffic impacts the development would generate. He felt that, based on the traffic analysis, the council should vote to approve the ordinance. Larry E. Reed, 722 Country Club Road, director of planning and development for Arlie and Company, discussed the commercial core of the mixed-use development, located northwest of Shadow View Street and Crescent Avenue. He stated that this would be the core of the nodal development and was planned to be a pedestrian-friendly shopping street. He predicted that residents would walk to work and some may only have to walk down a set of stairs, when residing in a building that was a mix of commercial and residential uses. He projected that residents would utilize the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to attend events in the downtown area. Mr. Reed said approximately 26 acres of the site would remain under the current zoning, R-4/C-1 neighborhood commercial, and out of the 30 acres, approximately 9 acres would be mixed use/commercial. This was made up of 4 acres of neighborhood commercial, the current zoning, which allowed for circa 60,000 square feet of ground floor retail, plus an additional 5 acres of community commercial (the portion to be rezoned) for the purpose of building a grocery store with a footprint of up to 50,000 square feet. He explained that the above the street level retail would be a mix of offices, estimated to be approximately 12,000 feet, as well as approximately 150 residential apartment lofts. Richard Barbis, 722 Country Club Road, architect for the high-density residential area, indicated the location of the R-4 zone to the north of the commercial area on the map. He explained that one goal of the design was to balance the appropriate housing density so the nodal development would be sensitive to and compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods to the east and to the west as well as creating adequate density to support the retail/commercial center. He said the dwelling unit mix was designed to create purposeful density and promote a neighborhood of a broad range of people. He added that the mix would include both zero lot line townhomes and luxury rowhouses, standard apartments and upscale condominiums with retail below overlooking the park/promenade. He shared drawings of the various facades with those present. He asserted that the residential buildings had been specifically designed to respond to the streets and the pedestrian life and the public rights-of-way to create a sense of place. He discussed the design criteria, including clear and identifiable main entrances from the street, outdoor balconies that overhang streets, exterior facade articulation overhanging building footprints, varied facade and roof designs to create interest and scale, and a sensitivity to building heights and massing in order to transition to the adjacent neighborhoods. Kate McGee, 1466 Washington Street, landscape architect for the design team, stated that the open space was provided in a manner much like one would find in a small town. She commented that the lawn was to appear to be surrounded by the buildings, in order to create a commons. She felt the key feature of this to be a linear court that connected the shopping core up to a city park projected to be developed to the north of the site. She said the private open space was diverse, noting that the amount of private open space declined as the amount of public open space increased. She described the landscape buffers that would separate the development from neighbors to the east and to the west. She noted the buffers, as well as landscaping around parking lots, served a dual purpose, as the permeable soils would allow for the drainage of parking MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 8 Regular Meeting lots and roof water into the vegetated swales, which then percolate the stormwater into the ground water and recharge the aquifer. She said the branches of the large canopy trees would eventually meet over the streets. In closing, Ms. McGee urged approval of the ordinance. Mayor Torrey called for neutral testimony. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, said that he had been surprised to hear that neighbors of the proposed development were getting along with the developer. He related that the only concern that had been voiced was in regard to the transportation impact. He praised Arlie and Company for working with the City and ODOT to cap the trips coming out of the development. Mr. Biggs, noting that design was not the topic at hand, expressed hope that the council would consider how the design would impact the entire node. He was concerned as to how the development addressed Crescent Avenue and also that the parking areas may be excessive. However, overall, he praised the development. Tom Boyatt, 644 GA' Street, Springfield, spoke on behalf of ODOT, Region 2, Area 5. He related that when he had spoken with the Planning Commission he had talked about the elusive nature of nodes. He reiterated the State's support for mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development. He said that whenever densities were increased in a certain area with the goal of reducing automobile dependency system-wide, there was an inherent risk that it could intensify trip-making. He referred to this as balancing geographi- cally specific congestion against the larger approach of reducing auto dependency across the region. He noted that the TransPlan was taking that approach and it was being incorporated into the Metro Plan. He commented that the reason these policy choices needed to be thought about and weighed was because the transportation planning rule required that when considering changes to existing comprehensive plans that were essentially linked to an idea for a transportation improvement in order to meet the needs of that land use plan, analysis was required to see if the proposed changes could be balanced with the transportation system. He stated that the plan for transportation improvements does not relieve the area of congestion system-wide. He commented that it had been a good experience to work with the staffs of both the City and Arlie and Company to limit the impacts to the already degraded interchange at Beltline Road and Coburg Road. Mr. Boyatt stated that he had signed up as a neutral party because it was his personal policy, as a State employee, not to take a stand on an item. Matt Stopher, 2866 Grand Cayman Drive, spoke as a representative for the Homeowners' Association of the neighborhood to the east of the development. He related that the neighborhood favored the develop- ment, noting that he had incorrectly been listed as a neutral party. He explained that the neighborhood had been involved since the outset of the development at the behest of Arlie and Company and that Arlie and Company had repeatedly incorporated ideas that had come from the homeowners' association. He said the association was aware of the push-through for Chad Drive to Game Farm Road and that, currently, it could potentially be delayed. He urged the City not to delay the project. He reiterated the emphatic support of the neighborhood for the proposed Crescent Village. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 9 Regular Meeting Mayor Torrey called for testimony in opposition. Lauri Segal, 120 West Broadway Street, spoke on behalf of 1,000 Friends of Oregon. She commented that she was not really opposed to the development. She was, however, concerned that ODOT was using trip caps to find ways to approve development projects. She related that currently there were three projects with approval based partly on trip caps. She asserted there was no evidence that trip caps actually worked. She felt it would be useful to see an effective application of trip caps prior to habitually attaching trip cap methodology to development proposals. Ms. Segal remarked that another issue was the coordination of land use and planning. She said there was a ;;huge" list of transportation projects that could not be funded in the biennium schedule and, as such, funding for the Chad Drive project was not assured. Ms. Segal also expressed concern about how much parking was being accommodated for. She said the changes to the Willakenzie Plan allow for higher impact uses. Mayor Torrey called for staff response to the testimony. Ms. Bishow reiterated staff's recommendation for approval of the ordinance. Mayor Torrey called for the applicant's response to testimony. Mr. Reed thanked Mr. Biggs for his support. He also thanked 1,000 Friends of Oregon and Lauri Segal. He agreed with Mr. Stouffer that the Chad Drive project should remain a high priority transportation project. Regarding a concern voiced by Ms. Segal on trip caps, Mr. Reed stated that the current zoning, R-4, could easily allow up to 1,200 units to be built on the property, but Arlie and Company had planned to build approximately 630 dwelling units. He said it was the first time the land use cap was being used, something that was provided for in the transportation planning rule at the State level. He related that this cap was the tool that provided for the agreement reached by the developer and ODOT. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, City Attorney Klein recommended, because no request to keep the record open, that the record and hearing be closed at this time. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. He stated that the record would be closed as well. Councilor Bettman objected. She asserted that her questions and comments would not be included in the record. Mr. Klein explained that the questions from councilors and answers would be in the record that would become a part of testimony should an appeal be filed before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). He clarified that the closing of the record referred to specific evidence that could support findings of fact. He stated that, in land use matters, there were often questions from the council and responses from staff, based on evidence provided during the public hearing. Councilor Bettman alleged that questions from councilors had, in recent times, actually resulted in changes MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 10 Regular Meeting to findings, due to an oversight on the part of staff or a lack of internal consistency. Mr. Klein responded that whether the record remained open or was closed was based on whether to provide the public the opportunity to continue to submit testimony. He specified that the closing of the record would only preclude the submission of additional evidentiary testimony. He provided a hypothetical example as a point of further clarification, stating that, should a councilor decide to carry out his or her own traffic count at the comer of one of the streets affected by the development, this sort of evidence would not be allowable after the closing of the record. Councilor Kelly thanked those who provided testimony. He applauded Arlie and Company and the ;;whole team" for a positive vision and a mixed-use development that will be a positive addition to the community. He complimented the design team and City staff on their work. Councilor Kelly felt that the exceptions, such as the one governing drive-through facilities, were crafted very narrowly. He supported this and conveyed his appreciation for the attention to detail. Councilor Kelly expressed concern that the commercial development would be built first and the residential development would be delayed ;;for years." He requested that staff address this. Regarding the floor area ratio (FAR), Councilor Kelly asserted that the lower FAR was too broad. He commented that the vision for the development submitted by Arlie and Company and included in the agenda packet called for more intensity than a 0.4 FAR would imply. He asked if the development could be developed as the Chase Node had been, in which, rather than utilitizing a blanket FAR, a portion of the development was required to be at least two functional floors. Councilor Taylor asked if it was too late to reopen the record. Mr. Klein replied that it could be reopened, but that reopening the record only meant that further testimony could be submitted by the public. Councilor Taylor moved, seconded by Councilor Bettman, to reopen the record and leave it open for seven days. Councilor Bettman called the development a %leeper," regarding public awareness of it. She felt that nothing could be hurt by keeping the record open. Councilor Papd asked staff to respond to concerns that the hearing was not adequately noticed. Ms. Bishow responded that, as per Eugene Code, all land-owners and residents within 300 feet of the development site received a mailed notice, all public agencies and the affected neighborhood group were provided notice, and numerous articles on the development had been published in the newspaper as well as the legal advertisement of the hearing. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 4:2; (Councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in favor). Councilor Papd concurred with Councilor Kelly that all parties involved in the planning and design of Crescent Village deserved kudos. Ms. Bishow clarified, in response to a concern expressed by Councilor Papd, that the trip caps were determined using a real set of numbers based on a real analysis of the proposed Crescent Village project. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 11 Regular Meeting Councilor Papd underscored the uniqueness of the level of citizen involvement that Arlie and Company had employed in the design process. He said he had not seen this level in any land use decision he had participated in as a councilor. He hoped that it could move forward without impediment and in an expeditious fashion. Councilor Meisner complimented the level of citizen involvement in the process. He underscored that the council was not approving the node at this time, but rather was considering an ordinance that would allow a PUD within the node. He felt the expectation that this development should contain everything the council wanted in a node was unfair. Councilor Meisner noted that the City desired innovation. He called the proposed PUD an example of innovation, adding that the outcome would not be known until it had been developed. He said he would likely support the ordinance and suggested that action be scheduled for November 10. Mayor Torrey asked staff to address the potential for a negative impact to development to the south. Ms. Bishow felt that this was due to concern regarding the amount of parking proposed adjacent to Crescent Avenue. She thought concerns about compatibility would be addressed in the final PUD. Mayor Torrey expressed his preference for taking action on October 22, as the agenda time for the balance of the year was quickly filling up. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of questions and comments. Councilor Bettman commented that she loved the vision. She felt the difficulty lay in that the City was not legislating the vision, but was rather instituting a zoning change from residential to commercial and office. She alleged that this would result in a financial benefit to the applicant that was 10 to 20 times the value of the property and that nothing would guarantee, should the council approve the ordinance, the delivery of the vision to the City. Councilor Bettman stated that the Eugene Commercial Land Study from 1992 had called for adding land for neighborhood commercial and office uses and not C-2. She asserted that this type of zoning was regional in its draw. Additionally, she said the Willakenzie Area Plan called for neighborhood commercial. She pointed out that there was an abundance of grocery and commercial development to the south of the proposed development. Councilor Kelly recommended action be taken on November 10 as there were a number of questions and this could likely change some of the language of the ordinance. Councilor Kelly noted that the PUD ordinance applied to all of the contiguous property under the same ownership. He asked staff to consider what would happen should the ordinance pass and a portion of the property, having been rezoned, was then sold by Arlie and Company prior to processing the PUD. He suggested that the commercial space would be considered in isolation and the mixed use component would be lost. He asked what could be done about this. Councilor Kelly commented that the/ND overlay had a 50,000 square foot limitation on retail uses, but not on other uses, and asked if 100,000 square foot clinic could be built in the area. He wondered if the MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 12 Regular Meeting ordinance language should be ~tightened up" to reflect this. Mayor Torrey called for a third round of questions and comments. Councilor Bettman suggested that rezoning the area in question for community commercial was inconsis- tent with the Metro Plan. She called the definition of auxiliary uses permissive, noting it allowed for 30 percent of any residentially zoned area to be developed commercially. She stated that she did not want to set this precedent. Councilor Bettman asked if the trip cap applied only to state facilities or if it would impact arterials and collectors. Noting that staff had said 27 percent of the node was zoned high density residential which included a mixed use component, she asked what sort of percentage the ordinance would lead to. Regarding Table 1, Councilor Bettman asked if the 115,000 square foot shopping center cap on intensity of use applied to only one building or if it would be required in different buildings. Councilor Bettman wondered if the/ND overlay, because of the timing of the Crescent Village PUD application, applied to this site. Councilor Kelly commented, regarding page 83 of the agenda packet, that in the revised Willakenzie Area Plan Policy 8 there was a philosophical statement that troubled him. He felt the statement, which spoke on serving northeast Eugene, seemed broad and questioned whether the policy needed to be included at all. He suggested Policy 8 be stricken. Councilor Kelly, noting the amendment to the Willakenzie Land Use Diagram that changed an area to commercial/mixed use, expressed concern that the term was not adequately defined in the plan. He questioned the point of making the diagram designate a commercial/mixed use area without the definition. Councilor Pap~ asked staff to respond to the question from Councilor Bettman regarding to whether the /ND Overlay applied. Ms. Bishow replied ~yes" and stated that the City Council applied to the property the/ND overlay in February, 2003. The ordinance retained the overlay although a few provisions of the overlay were being changed. Mayor Torrey called for a fourth round of questions and comments. Councilor Bettman opined that the amount of open space in the development, .78 acres out of 40, seemed inadequate. She asked if there was a standard by which this was judged. Regarding the applicant's assurances that there would be no appreciable impact on transportation facilities, Councilor Bettman felt that, due to the movement from a neighborhood-oriented service area to a regional- oriented service area, the mitigation of the traffic impacts of the Crescent Village development was based in part on an assumption that road projects in the area would be prioritized based on the intensity of the development. She commented that this assumed an elevated priority, for projects associated with the impact of this development, above and beyond the City's existing priorities. She noted the homeowners' association support for the Chad Drive improvement was based on a projected need to serve the new development. She asserted the Chad Drive project would use funds that were needed for preservation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 13 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly complimented the residential design elements and asked staff how these design elements could be assured to be a part of the final design. He felt the ordinance was not specific and, once approved, anything could be built in the area zoned R-4. Councilor Kelly asked staff to clarify how trip caps would be enforced over time. Councilor Taylor wondered if there was a guarantee that this development would not become another shopping center. She also commented that a drive-through facility had no place in a pedestrian area and that the proposed grocery store was too large. Councilor Taylor said there was no assurance that the Chad Drive extension would be completed and, as such, it would not be wise to depend on the project. Mayor Torrey called for a fifth round of questions and comments. Councilor Bettman asked who would be responsible for building the connected grid system and if they would be public streets. Regarding the commercial development in the region, Councilor Bettman asked if the City had a saturation point. Councilor Bettman questioned the wisdom of justifying the zoning change based on the fact that the area was a node, given that it was yet unknown how the remainder of the site would develop. She wondered why this application was being processed differently than the Royal Node or the Chase Gardens Node. Regarding the square footage for the intensity of use for a shopping center, Councilor Bettman asked if it would make it possible for a big box retail chain to build a store there. Councilor Bettman asserted, given that the footnotes in the table said maximum intensities of use could be varied without a plan amendment, that therefore they were not really maximum intensities of use. Mayor Torrey, seeing no other councilors wishing to speak, gave Councilor Bettman another round. Councilor Bettman said she would provide Ms. Bishow her questions and comments in writing. Councilor Kelly requested that copies be sent to the mayor and councilors. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 14 Regular Meeting (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) Ad: 12003 ICentral Services DepartmentlCity Councillcc0 31013m2. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 15 Regular Meeting