Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/22/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-City Hall October 22, 2003 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A.WORK SESSION: 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 Effective date (City Files: MA 03-1, RA 03-2, CA 03-2, and Z 03-3) Mayor Torrey called on Senior Planner Teresa Bishow, to present the ordinance. Ms. Bishow said staff had responded to questions raised by the council at the public hearing on October 13 in a memorandum dated October 20. She noted there were additional questions from Ms. Bettman and staff responded to them in a memorandum dated October 21. She related that, based on careful review by the City Attorney's office, staff had provided a revised ordinance on October 20 that was primarily intended to clarify the original intent of the ordinance. She affirmed that the revised ordinance had been deemed acceptable by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Public Works Department and Planning Department staffs, and Arlie and Company. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments. Mr. Kelly thanked all those involved for responding to the questions and for the changes in the ordinance. He requested staff to craft language for an amendment that would add to Policy 15 in the ordinance language directing that some percentage of the development would have two functional floors. Ms. Bishow requested of the mayor that a majority of the council agree to suggested changes. Mr. Meisner recommended that the council engage in some discussion regarding Mr. Kelly's proposed amendment. Ms. Solomon arrived. Ms. Bishow estimated that design proposal for the Crescent Village planned unit development (PUD) indicated at least 30 percent of the commercial development would be built with two functional floors. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for prompt answers to her questions. She alleged that the trip caps were %n paper only; "the functional number affecting vehicle trips would be the 329,000 square feet of commercial office space. She asked what distinguished this ordinance and made the proposed a node, rather than another development in line with current development practices. Ms. Bishow responded that the design team had looked at mixed-use urban villages and crafted the vision before the council. She said this did not preclude other visions of what nodal development should be. She stated that the vision would shift the balance of high density residential (HDR) to allow a greater mix of uses throughout the node, including at least 40 dwelling units within the area zoned C-2. Ms. Bettman said this was the answer received in the agenda packet and asserted that it did not answer her question. She cited the Valley River Village as an example, noting that it contained a shopping mall, office uses, and high-density housing. She opined that the ordinance before the council had been presented as nodal to encourage its adoption and that staff had not provided adequate evidence that the ultimate result would be a nodal development. Mr. Meisner reiterated that the ordinance before the council was not a nodal development overlay, but rather a development within a node. He felt the developer did a commendable job of replicating many of the desired elements of a node. He was not inclined to amend the ordinance at this point. Noting the questions of what would happen should the properties be sold, Mr. Meisner commented that there were no guarantees. He likened it to speculating on how a council would vote in six years. He said it was possible to amend the ordinance in order to guarantee a restricted use of the property after sale, but the ultimate result would be ;;less good and something the neighbors would not like." Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Meisner that the council should not take such a prescriptive tack. He asserted that it was impossible to dictate what the market would do. He expressed appreciation for the vision, calling it ;~tasteful development," but was concerned the council would try to transform the vision and restrict it through legislative edicts. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Bishow affirmed that the entire area of the Crescent Village boundary would need to be reviewed and approved within a single PUD, in order to ensure an integrated master plan approach. Ms. Taylor agreed that there were no guarantees. She asked if it would be possible to ensure that the council was not merely rezoning land from residential to commercial and contributing to an increase in commercial activity in an area where there was already an abundance of it. Ms. Bishow replied that as a nodal development area, a number of safeguards were in place such as the limit on a big box retail store of 50,000 square feet, a limitation on drive-through facilities, and pedestrian and transit-oriented regulations required even though the development was not in the downtown core area. She said the ordinance was mostly intended to remove barriers to good design in a node and less to enact new regulations. Ms. Taylor opined that allowing for a 50,000 square foot retailer would not be conducive to nodal development. Ms. Bishow reminded the council that, within the entire node, there was an allowance for one large retailer. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bishow affirmed that the main element of the ordinance was an allowance for commercial development where it was not currently allowed, but that it would also immediately impose the requirement for a master plan approach for the property by applying the PD overlay zone. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Poling asked what percentage of the development in the plan were to be two-story structures. Ms. Bishow replied that all of the residential development was slated to have at least two and a half stories and the commercial development was planned to be in buildings of three or four stories, except the proposed grocery store. She said the predominant development pattern was buildings with at least two functional floors. Mr. Poling then asked Mr. Kelly if he wanted something in the ordinance to guarantee a certain percentage of the development would be built with more than one floor. Mr. Kelly responded that he wanted to put into the legal document one important part of the vision, and not necessarily to transform the vision. Mr. Poling extended his appreciation to all of the people that had been involved in the project. He called it a "fine example of what happens when people work as a team on a project." He noted the City had been trying to implement nodal development and was closer now than it had been in any other project. He implored the council to take into consideration all of the collaborative work that had been done on the project. He thought Crescent Village represented a great vision and an opportunity to create an urban nodal village. He said it would be good to see this concept made real. Ms. Nathanson cited different types of commercial development across the City, such as that on West 11th Avenue. She said this vision represented a "huge step forward" and demonstrated the positive things that could come from master site planning and collaborative work. She called the development a "very good thing to do." She indicated support for the ordinance. Mayor Torrey conveyed his confidence in the people who resided to the east of the project. He stressed that residents had been involved in the planning process and supported the PUD. He hoped the council would join the neighbors in helping the plan to go forward. Mr. Kelly disagreed with the implication that he was trying to change Arlie and Company's vision of the Crescent Village development. He asserted that, rather, he was trying to encapsulate it. He called the commercial development in the vision a "step forward." He opined that nothing in the ordinance, as written, encapsulated the distinctiveness of their vision for commercial development. He felt the addition of a "number" to the ordinance helped the City attain its goals regarding nodal development. He acknowledged the work the neighbors had done in the planning process and reiterated his assertion that the council should ensure that the development would proceed as planned. Mr. Kelly asked staff to explain whether anything would be lost by deleting Policy 8. Ms. Bettman reiterated her concern that the ordinance would only create more commercial development than was currently allowed. Ms. Bettman asserted that the council had taken elements out of the Nodal Development Overlay zone that contributed to the characteristics the City sought in order to foster a reduction in vehicle miles. She felt it more important to ensure the nodal development elements and, to that end, Mr. Kelly's amendment to legislate the floor area ratio (FAR) in Arlie and Company's vision was the only thing that tied the vision to the ordinance. She said her support for the ordinance was contingent on the inclusion of the aforementioned amendment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2003 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked staff to explain what the money allocated in FY03 for master planning nodal develop- ment areas was to be spent on. Ms. Bishow said she would provide this information in writing. Mayor Torrey closed the work session. B.ACTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code Regarding Hospital and Related Medical Uses; and Adopting a Severability Clause City Manager Dennis Taylor requested council action on the amendment to the Land Use Code. He introduced Planning and Development Director, Tom Coyle, who would provide the final overview prior to the action. Mr. Coyle said the ordinance before the council reflected three changes that staff perceived as directed at the work session: 1) New language added regarding the hospital site, specific to its adjacency of a collector grade street or above. 2) A requirement that subsequent reviews would be subject to the public hearing process and modification to the site plans or elevations would go through the conditional use process. 3) The definition of hospital use was refined to now provide for PeaceHealth on the Hilyard campus as well as the project envisioned by McKenzie-Willamette Hospital. City Attorney Glenn Klein added that the allowance for the PeaceHealth campus on its current site did not allow for any expansion, as per the West University Refinement Plan. He explained that the only way the campus could expand would be through the conditional use permit (CUP) process. Mr. Papd moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4849, an ordinance concerning hospital zoning. Mr. Kelly wanted any ordinance adopted to be provider-neutral. He was concerned this definition would allow PeaceHealth to buy the surrounding four blocks and develop it as an outright permitted use. Mr. Klein reassured Mr. Kelly that a CUP would be required for any expansion. Mr. Kelly called the adoption of the ordinance an "adoption of a very permissive use." Mr. Klein stressed that there were two levels of protection, a refinement plan incorporated into the ordinance through the definition of hospital development site and the existing code provision. Mr. Kelly questioned the need to hurry in adopting such a broad ordinance. He noted that the council had unanimously passed a resolution that welcomed hospitals in the City of Eugene and provided liberal incentives for hospital development within two miles of the core of the City. He did not feel the need to approve a hospital zoning ordinance when no hospital entity had concretely said it wanted to put a hospital '~just about anywhere" in Eugene. He said he would rather work with a specific provider when the time came and fashion something specific to its needs. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein assured her that the PeaceHealth Campus could not MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2003 Page 4 Work Session expand unless it was consistent with the refinement plan. Ms. Bettman opined that a CUP was not onerous enough to deter a developer from building a large surgery center that provided elective surgery on land zoned R-l, R-1.5, and R-2. She called the definition too broad. Mr. Klein said the definition now in the ordinance was the same definition in the State statute regarding certificates of need. He related that, based on a question from the council after the last session, staff had talked to the providers and removed the language about the certificate of need. He stated that the definition only differed from the State statute in that it placed a limit of 45 on the amount of beds a small clinic could have, whereas the State statute placed no such limit. He stressed that the definition would not allow an elective surgery center in that part of the definition dictated that the facility had to provide surgical treatment primarily for, though not exclusively for, acutely ill patients, accident victims, or treatment for mentally ill patients. Mr. Meisner indicated his support for the ordinance. Noting Mr. Kelly's question regarding the timing of the ordinance, he called the ordinance a way of encouraging and welcoming such development. He felt that once a provider had come forward to develop, amendments could be made to prevent other unwanted elements of clinic development. Mr. Meisner asked when staff and the Planning Commission would be addressing code issues regarding clinics independent of hospitals, especially in industrial zones. Mr. Coyle said the item would be queued in with the annual review of code, which would put it on a 12- month timeline. He noted it could be expedited if the council so desired. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly that there was no urgency to pass the ordinance at the present session. She felt it would not be right to ~throw open so many possibilities" without carefully considering the consequences. Ms. Taylor stressed the importance of citizen involvement when planning for a possible hospital siting in a residential neighborhood, as per Land Use planning Goal 2. She cited Land Use Planning Goal 6, stating a hospital could lower air quality in a residential area because of an increase in traffic. She cited Land Use Planning Goal 7 having to do with disaster preparedness, calling it the big reason hospitals should be sited on both sides of the river. She cited Goal 9, and stated that a hospital would promote economic activity wherever it was sited. Continuing, Ms. Taylor declared that no one was opposed to a hospital. She felt it very important to consider where the hospital should be located and the resulting impact of the location to its environs. Mr. Pap~ disclosed that he was a member of the board of the McKenzie-Willamette Health Foundation. He related that he had conferred with legal counsel and had determined that it did not represent a conflict of interest. Mr. Pap~ agreed it would be beneficial to locate a hospital on the southern side of the river, but reiterated that the facility would be privately owned and, as such, the City did not truly have the right to dictate to the provider where it could locate. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2003 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Papd asked where the limitations on redevelopment of the current PeaceHealth campus lay. Mr. Klein clarified that redevelopment of the existing property would not be constrained under the ordinance, but no development outside of the current site could occur without the CUP process and an amendment to the refinement plan. Mr. Coyle said the net effect of the ordinance would allow PeaceHealth to do redevelopment work within their existing pad, absent going through a CUP. He stressed that nothing in the code went beyond this to usurp the goals and policies of the refinement plan. He explained that the recommendation was based upon the review of numerous hearings the PeaceHealth organization had been through over a number of years. He assured the council that PeaceHealth was amenable to the ordinance as it had been set forth. Regarding whether there was urgency in passing the ordinance, Ms. Nathanson stated that it was timely. She commented that six months earlier the council had proclaimed that it wanted to address the hospital situation proactively and lay the foundation to welcome a hospital and to ensure that the zoning code was prepared for the facilitation of locating a hospital. She averred it was important to make sure a hospital could locate in Eugene, stating that the City should ensure that it was not faced with a situation in which it did not have a hospital. Ms. Nathanson opposed redefining a hospital. She said technology was dynamic and it was uncertain how medical care would evolve. She also opposed defining elective surgery. She felt people sometimes opted for surgical measures to improve mobility and other aspects of life that, while not necessarily addressing life- threatening conditions were, nonetheless, extremely important to the individual. Mr. Taylor echoed Ms. Nathanson's remarks. He noted that, while the City had made great expressions of the desire to have the hospital and had conducted due diligence around the specifics of the change, the ordinance represented a degree of commitment and certainty and responded to specific requests from the communities of interest. He felt this alone would help to change the perception of whether the City was ready for this type of large development. Mayor Torrey said there was no question the council had determined it wanted a hospital in Eugene and wanted it within the confines of the area in which the council was prepared to provide incentives for siting. He voiced his support for the ordinance. He pointed out that the ordinance offered additional areas in which to consider locating but no incentives were provided for these areas. He averred this offered the hospital the flexibility to make the necessary choices to be successful in our community. He felt speed to be extremely important, as property values were escalating. He urged the council not to be lulled into a false sense of confidence that this would be the only area in which a hospital would consider locating. He asserted that the Glenwood area and the City of Springfield would both prefer the hospital locate there. In addition, Mayor Torrey approved of the PeaceHealth campus maintaining 45 beds, stating that this provided citizens on the south side of the river with access to medical care in the event of a disaster. Regarding clinics, Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Coyle to look into how expeditiously the clinic issue could be addressed. Mr. Kelly agreed there was urgency in giving the health care providers the ability to site a hospital promptly. He reiterated his concern that this ordinance might not be the best vehicle to accomplish this. Mr. Kelly disagreed with Mr. Pap~ on whether the City could dictate to private enterprise what they did with development funds, calling this the fundamental basis of zoning. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2003 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly felt the ordinance provided hospital uses with a degree of permissiveness no other land use was allowed. He opined it needed scrutiny and asked the council to consider whether a hospital should be allowed to develop in a single-family residential neighborhood. Ms. Bettman asserted the hospital had the ability to site a hospital immediately and nothing in the ordinance would stop it. She felt the ordinance to be extremely permissive in terms of expansion of the PeaceHealth campus and that people at the public hearing had no chance to provide comment on this specific portion of the language. Ms. Bettman said having a hospital north of the river would not fill the City's need for emergency facilities. She opined that it would be more beneficial to have a hospital in Glenwood because of its proximity to the City of Eugene. Ms. Taylor clarified that she did feel it urgent to welcome a hospital but did not feel the ordinance before the council was needed. She stressed the City's responsibility to regulate private businesses, noting the communities of interest were neighborhoods. She felt it important to place the hospital in a location that was better for the community. Mr. Pap6 concurred with the comments of Mayor Torrey and City Manager Taylor. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Klein said the 45-bed limit was intended to ensure that the provider was large enough to be considered a hospital, but small enough to ensure that it worked for both of the providers. Mr. Pap6 favored the ordinance. He opposed forming a facilitation committee. He called the incentives offered for hospital siting "the right thing." Regarding the assertion that the needs of the south hills might not be met, he suggested the community had other options, such as opening a public clinic, should the need be great and unmet. Mr. Meisner commented that zoning had been created to separate and categorize land uses. He opined that strict use of zoning categories did not work well and many jurisdictions had moved away from this paradigm. He said having easy access to shopping, work, and health care was the fundamental element of nodal development, and added that one site suggested for the hospital siting was located in his neighborhood of single-family residences and the neighborhood would welcome it. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to remove the use of hospital siting in the R-1 zone, noted on page 6 of the ordinance. Mayor Torrey asked which sites this would remove from the list of possibilities. Mr. Klein said one specific site, Gheen Irrigation, did contain R-1 property. Mr. Kelly asserted his amendment would not take the Gheen Irrigation site out of the running, but it would require a hospital to apply for a zone change. He did not feel this to be an insurmountable barrier to hospital development, adding the Arlie and Company PUD had been moved through the City Council in two or three meetings. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2003 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Coyle noted, as a point of correction, that Arlie and Company, while before the council for little over a month, had been in process for a year. He clarified that a zone change would have to be accompanied by a plan amendment. Ms. Nathanson disagreed that a hospital could be "plopped down" in a residential neighborhood, should the ordinance be approved. She reminded councilors of the language in the ordinance that specified that it would only be permitted to be sited on an arterial street or a major collector. She said, further, because it would be under a CUP it would take additional hearings and the applicant would be required to work with the neighborhood. She opposed the amendment. Ms. Bettman conveyed her support for the amendment. Mr. Pap~, noting the Gheen Irrigation site was in his neighborhood, said he would accept a hospital at this site in order to have a hospital in the community. He reiterated that the CUP process would prevent a hospital from "plopping" into a site in a residential neighborhood. He voiced his opposition to the amendment. Mr. Meisner opposed the amendment. He noted that, while the Gheen Irrigation site was zoned R-1, it was not currently being used in that way. He said there were neighborhoods with many single-family residences that were not zoned R-1. Mr. Kelly expressed concern that the hospital could be sited on 24th Avenue or Agate Street in a residential neighborhood as a result of the ordinance. He asserted these neighborhoods needed to be protected from this. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The motion to amend failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting in favor. Ms. Nathanson commented that common sense would dictate that a developer not choose to site a hospital on Agate Street, as traffic access was essential to its function. Ms. Bettman reiterated her previously stated concerns. She asserted the ordinance would pave the way for development of a hospital in north Eugene. Mr. Pap~ disagreed. He said, while he preferred the hospital to develop south of the river, he acknowledged a hospital of this magnitude would need 20 to 25 acres of property. He asked where in the City such a property would be found without some level of condemnation. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The motion to adopt Council Bill 4849 passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2003 Page 8 Work Session Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) M: 12003 ICentral Services DepartmentlCity Councillcc031022talA. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2003 Page 9 Work Session