Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/08/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall May 8, 2002 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Rayor. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.ACTION: 1. An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Readopting and Amending Portions of Ordinance No. 20224; Providing a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date; and 2. An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations, Amending Sections 9.6730, 9.6820, and 9.8325 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Providing a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date; and 3. An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations, Amending Sections 9.8230 and 9.8440 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Providing a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date. Addressing comments from citizen Kevin Matthews regarding access to City staff, City Attorney Emily Jerome said there was no disparity in access to the City Attorney's Office or City staff. She said this was a very conscious effort on the part of the City. She said none of the parties assisted in initially drafting the three ordinances and added that before the hearing there had been a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce and the Lane County Homebuilders Association where drafts of the ordinances were distributed. She said, on the same day, she had personally called all of the citizen interveners and offered them the opportunity to meet with herself and City staff and explained, on voice mail or individually, the substance and the process of the ordinances, and offered drafts to the ordinances and gave drafts to the interveners that requested them. Ms. Jerome said none of the interveners took the opportunity to meet with her before the public hearing. She noted that there had been numerous e-mails between herself and the interveners, particularly with Kevin Matthews' attorney, with specific issues being responded to by herself. Ms. Jerome said that after the public hearing, she had personally called/e-mailed all of the interveners and offered them the opportunity to meet with her and City staff to discuss the revisions that would come from the testimony. She added that she gave copies of attachments D, E, and F to Mr. Matthews through an e-mail to MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2002 Page 1 Work Session his attorney and left a phone message explaining the attachments. She noted that Mr. Matthews and his attorney did not take the opportunity to meet with City staff. She said that Rob Zako did schedule a meeting and she made a point of contacting Mr. Matthews to participate in that meeting, which he did. She stated that Tom Coyle and Teresa Bishow of the Planning and Development Department and another attorney attended the meeting; the meeting with the homebuilders association and the chamber after the hearing included Mr. Coyle, Ms. Bishow, and herself. Ms. Jerome said that the revisions in attachments D, E, and F consisted of eight sections that were proposed by citizen interveners, seven changes proposed by City staff or the City Council, and two that were proposed by the homebuilders association. She noted that none of the revisions reflected proposals by the Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Jerome distributed replacement pages that reflected a drafting problem with Section 9.6010 on page 65 of the meeting packet. She said Mr. Kelly's motion would reflect those replacement pages. Mayor Torrey called for comments from the council. Mr. Kelly requested a preliminary draft of the information on the remanded code issues before the July 8, 2002, meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly said the day's meeting was just the first step in addressing the remand of the Land Use Code Update (LUCU). He said the easy-to-restore-parts would be addressed first. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding in what ways the City would be "worse ofF' than before LUCU came into effect, Senior Planner Teresa Bishow said, in general, updated standards that provided clarity but appeared to change the level of protection of a natural resource were no longer part of the updated code. She said staff were reinstating as much protection for natural resources as possible in the action before the council at that meeting. Ms. Bettman expressed her preference for a phased approach to address the remand issues. She suggested addressing the easiest parts first. Ms. Bettman confirmed with Planning Director Jan Childs that some of the provisions in the new LUCU would actually provide for additional housing opportunities. Ms. Nathanson expressed her unhappiness with the way West 11th Avenue was developing regarding the sign code. She remarked that there had been little improvement since her time on the Planning Commission. Ms. Nathanson stressed that she was not interested in re-arguing LUCU. She said the provisions that staff and council were trying to put back in place reflected a huge amount of compromise and work. She commented that her interest was only in re-establishing the code that had been put in place as expeditiously as possible. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding whether there could be a retroactive adoption of LUCU provisions, Ms. Jerome said there was a State law that the applicant had to abide by the criterion standards that were in effect when the application was filed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2002 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman said she would support the staff recommended motions but was not prepared to support any alternative motions. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding protecting natural areas from the construction of roads, Ms. Bishow said there would be allowances for developers if they could demonstrate a need for street connectivity as well as reasons why the road needed to go through a natural resource area. City Manager Carlson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4785, an ordinance concerning land use regulations; readopting and amending portions of Ordinance No. 20224; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Mr. Kelly noted that his proposed motion included the language from the "fixed" packet page that was distributed at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved that the bill, including the amendments contained in replacement page 3 of Attachment D, with unanimous consent of the council be a read a second time by council bill number only and that enactment be considered at that time. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Carlson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4785 by number only. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Carlson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4786, an ordinance concerning land use regulations; amending sections 9.6730, 9.6820, and 9.8325 of the Eugene Code, 1971; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved that the bill, including the amendments contained in Attachment E, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only and that enactment be considered at that time. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Carlson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4786 by number only. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. In response to a question from Mr. Papd regarding Section 9.6820 (2) and tum-arounds other than cul-de- sacs being built, Ms. Bishow said that the section would ensure that traffic could maneuver and turn around even though construction of the cul-de-sac was not completed. In response to a question from Mr. Papd regarding Section 9.8325 (9) and how the required quarter mile would be measured, Ms. Bishow said the quarter mile would be measured from the perimeter of the planned unit development. She added that if there was a public park or recreation area within that quarter mile then there was no open space requirement in the planned unit development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2002 Page 3 Work Session The motion passed unanimously, and became Ordinance No. 20250. City Manager Carlson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4787, an ordinance concerning land use regulations; amending Sections 9.8320 and 9.8440 of the Eugene Code, 1971; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved that the bill, including the amendments contained in Attachment F, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only and that enactment be considered at that time. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Carlson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4787 by number only. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. The motion passed unanimously, and became Ordinance No. 20251. B.WORK SESSION: Discussion of Animal Control Issues Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office introduced other staff present for the work session: City staff Dee Ann Hardt, Trudy Salerno, Carol Pomes, and Cindi Hamm, and Mike Wellington of the Lane County Animal Control Authority. Ms. Walston said the topic was a complicated one but she hoped to leave the meeting with council direction on five items outlined in the agenda item summary. She outlined the five items: · Change the word "owner", which was currently in the code, to "guardian" · How to handle complaints about urban wildlife · City of Eugene and Lane County definitions of"dangerous dogs" · Whether the council wished to consider a cat licensing program · An update on the report on the committee formed by Lane County Commissioner Bill Dwyer to look at animal issues Mr. Meisner said the item was not a high-priority issue. He said there were no real defined issues. He said he had no interest in changing "owner" to "guardian," saying that changing terms would not make a bit of difference. He said he also had no interest in a cat licensing program. He stressed the need for proactive enforcement of existing dog leash and barking laws. Mr. Kelly expressed a desire to see similar code language defining "dangerous dogs" for both the City and the County. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the term "guardian" and whether that word could be defined specifically in the code dealing with pets, City Attorney Glenn Klein said the council could define terms in the code to be specific to the Eugene Code. He said the use of "guardian" would cause confusion. He recommended not making the change from "owner." MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2002 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman reiterated Mr. Kelly's desire to see a common code language with the County. She recommended addressing animal issues through the committee formed by Commissioner Dwyer. She expressed her specific concern over enforcement of leash laws and issues of solid waste in parks. Ms. Bettman suggested the code language read "owner/guardian." Mr. Papd said most of the complaints he heard were regarding dangerous dogs and dogs off-leash. He also stressed the importance of enforcing existing laws. Ms. Nathanson said the council needed to spend its time on things where it could be effective. She stressed the importance of practicality and effectiveness and added that services from the City should not overlap those provided by other organizations. Ms. Taylor said she was in favor of the term "guardian" rather than "owner." She said she had received complaints that the leash law was enforced too much. She raised concern that complaints over barking dogs needed no proof for the owner to get a citation. She believed that some existing rules were too strict and suggested forming a committee with the County and the City of Springfield and expressed her willingness to be the council representative. She said the City should be enacting laws to protect dogs and dog owners and not punish them. Mayor Torrey said the City of Eugene should not be getting involved in protecting people's pets. Mr. Kelly reiterated Ms. Nathanson's concern over duplicating services that were already available. Regarding cat licensing, Mr. Kelly opined that it was worthy of further study. He remarked that it was not unheard of to license cats or regulate them in some way. Mr. Fart commented that the council had spent too much time in discussing the item. He reiterated previous comments regarding barking dogs. He was not in favor of licensing cats. He urged the council to finish the discussion. Mr. Meisner said a cat licensing program did not seem worthwhile. He raised concern that Ms. Taylor was talking about protecting barking dogs and dogs off leashes. He stressed that the impact from these animals was reducing the quality of life for surrounding neighbors. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding a loan program for live traps, Mr. Wellington said there were State regulations for the trapping and relocation of animals and added that the County did not want to impose on those regulations. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the proposed committee on animal issues, Mr. Wellington said there was going to be a task force rather than an advisory committee. He said this would enable staff to handle problems more quickly. He said there would be representatives from Eugene, Lane County, the Judicial System, non-animal affiliated citizens, and veterinarian agencies. Mr. Pap~ suggested directing City Manager Jim Carlson to return to the council with a proposed ordinance limiting the number of large animals that could be housed on a city residence. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2002 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to not consider the wildlife or guardian issues further at that time and to work with the County Committee on the issues of dangerous dogs and licensing of cats, and that the City Manager bring a status report back to the council between three and six months from the date of the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to direct the City Manager to report back to the council what current enforcement of animal controls take place and what resources would be needed to increase that enforcement effectively and proactively, and recommend an ordinance to permit the City to remove animals in excess of what is permitted under City zoning ordinances. The motion passed 6:1, with Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro rem (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2002 Page 6 Work Session