Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/20/06 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall November 20, 2006 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the public hearing of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Stormwater Provisions; Amending Section 6.010 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending the Title of “Stormwater Service: in Chapter 6 of that Code; and Adding Section 6.615 to that Code Development Review Manager Peggy Kepler of the Public Works Department was present to answer questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She determined that the council had no opposition to taking action that evening. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 3934, an ordinance concerning stormwater provisions. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0 (Mr. Papé having not arrived at the meeting). 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Bush Ballot Measure 37 Claim for Compensation (M 37 06-1) Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Associate Planner Patricia Thomas of the Planning and Develop- ment, who provided the staff presentation regarding the Ballot Measure 37 claim filed by Judith Bush th alleging a reduction in value of her property at 1333 West 10 Avenue as a result of the City’s adoption of the Chambers Special Area Zone Standards. The standards, which limited development on the property, were effective January 13, 2006. Staff determined the Bush claim was valid. Ms. Thomas reported that the owner, immediate neighbors, and the representatives of the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors worked cooperatively to reach an agreement on the development to be allowed on the site. The recommendation before the council included a waiver of the relevant density standards to allow another dwelling unit on the property. The remaining standards were not waived for future development on the lot. Ms. Thomas said the waiver was consistent with the agreement reached between the property owner and neighbors Mr. Papé arrived. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 1 Public Hearing Continuing, Ms. Thomas said that City Manager Taylor recommended the claim be approved and a waiver granted. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, supported the proposed claim. He then went on to address claims that the Churchill Area Neighbors for a Healthy Neighborhood was elitist and against infill, pointing out the neighbors worked with the property owner on the plans for the dwelling, which would be an infill dwelling. He said that just because the neighborhood had special standards did not mean the neighbors were bad people. th Marie Nemir , 1353 West 10 Avenue, an immediate neighbor of the subject property, supported the staff recommendation for a house to be built in accordance with the recently adopted infill standards. She said that throughout the process the owner’s son Ron and wife Bess had worked with the neighbors to develop a solution that was compatible with the neighborhood and would improve the block’s appearance, safety, and stability. While she did not generally support Ballot Measure 37, she supported the example of responsible property ownership and restraint demonstrated by the Bush family. She thanked Paul Conte and Rene Kane, co-chairs of the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors and the owner’s family for reaching a good outcome. th Rene Kane , 254 West 14 Avenue, co-chair of the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors, thanked all those who cooperated to reach the Ballot Measure 37 agreement, saying they showed what remarkable things could be accomplished when people worked together toward a common purpose, in this case, that of maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Kane thought it appropriate that those with a stake in the neighborhood and knowledge of it worked to make it a better place. Ms. Bush had welcomed what her neighbors had to say, and common ground was found. The agreement maintained and enhanced the character and stability of the neighborhood. She congratulated all those involved for providing an example of real community. th Paul Conte , 1461 West 10 Avenue, co-chair of Jefferson/Westside Neighbors, thanked Ms. Bush and her family for working with the neighborhood toward a positive outcome. He suggested that their actions were a benchmark against which others could be measured. They were true to their word and worked toward a solution that made a positive contribution to the neighborhood. Mr. Conte also thanked neighbors such as Ms. Nemir and her husband for initiating a process that had as a goal the common good. He said the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors executive board unanimously endorsed the recommendation before the council. Mr. Conte thought there were several lessons to be drawn from Eugene’s first residential Ballot Measure 37 claim. First, residents and councilors could take heart that sensible infill compatibility standards need not be put aside due to Ballot Measure 37. The house Ms. Bush would construct would demonstrate that property owners can build new, modest houses that meet sensible infill design standards. The solution presented to the council was further evidence that resident-driven processes could produce sound solutions to residential land uses issues given residents’ familiarity with their neighborhood and stake in its future. Mr. Conte hoped the Planning and Development Department and council took notice of what had been accomplished through a constructive approach to challenging issues. He quoted from Wendell Berry: “A viable neighborhood is a community, and a viable community is made up of neighbors who cherish and protect what they have in common.” He said that Jefferson/Westside neighbors cherish their homes and neighbors. He thanked the council for its leadership in supporting neighborhood communities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 2 Public Hearing Ron Blacquiere , 1858 Lawrence Street, thanked Mr. Conte and the neighborhood association for their work and hoped for the council’s endorsement of the recommendation. He was excited by the process and hoped it happened elsewhere in Eugene. th Jon Belcher , 1240 West 15 Avenue, #4, said the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors Web site called the recommendation a win for the neighborhood, owner, and City, but he questioned how it was a win for the City given the fact the recommendation overturned the City land use code. He questioned why a Ballot Measure 37 claim was required if both the proposed house as well as the infill standards were great. He suggested that something must be broken, and he believed it was the density standards approved for the neighborhood in question. He said that the standards would preclude the building that existed on the lot now, much less another structure. He said the standards also precluded such desirable things as owner- occupied row houses. While for the most part he found the standards related to scale and size acceptable, Mr. Belcher maintained that the code represented a de facto downzoning of the neighborhood from R-2 to R-1 and the claim before the council showed that did not work. He said if the goal was to reduce the underlying zoning, the City should be honest and just do that rather than set limits on the number of dwelling units by lot size essentially rendering the area R-1 and additionally precluding infill that meets the size and mass standards. Mr. Belcher said that the community should be built to the standards in the Land Use Code, not through agreements between property owners and neighborhood groups for Ballot Measure 37 claims they liked. Susannah Meininger , 1418 Lawrence, #A, asked if the record could remain open for additional testimony. City Manager Taylor indicated the council could hold the record open if it wished. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to keep the record open for written testimony until November 27, 2006, at 5 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions or comments. Mr. Kelly thanked those who testified. He referred to page 23 of the Agenda Item Summary, which described what was waived, including the applicable multi-family standards. He assumed that was because a single-family dwelling was proposed. Ms. Thomas indicated that adding a single dwelling would trigger the multi-family standards, and it was unclear without more exhaustive study and design that the standards could be met and the building actually constructed. Mr. Kelly referred to the first page of the resolution, Recital C, which referred to the written agreement between the neighbors, Ms. Bush, and the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors, and asked for confirmation that although the written agreement was attached to the resolution, it had no legal bearing in the City’s action because it was a private agreement. City Attorney Glenn Klein concurred, noting it was attached because it explained in more detail the origin of the detail and because part of the agreement was the waiver of any other Ballot Measure 37 rights by the property owner. Mr. Kelly thanked the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors leadership and the neighbors for working together to reach a good conclusion. He said that Ballot Measure 37 was not good law but those involved rose to the occasion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 3 Public Hearing Speaking to Mr. Belcher’s comments regarding the recommendation going around the code, Mr. Kelly acknowledged that the Chambers special area zone came about through an understandable feeling of crisis on the part of the Jefferson/Westside residents. Now that it had been in place for some months, he suggested that the council consider whether it would like to ask the Planning Commission to take a look at the zone to see if the standards needed any kind of fine-tuning in regard to the standards while still accommodating desirable infill. He proposed more discussion on his suggestion when the council took action on the item on December 11. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Diagram to Redesignate Property Identified as Map 17-03-30-44, Tax Lot 8900 (Oregon Motor Pool Site) from High-Density Residential/Mixed Use/Nodal De- velopment Designation to Commercial/Nodal Development Designation; Rezoning the Prop- erty from I-2/TD Light-Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone to C-2/TD/ND Community Commercial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal Devel- opment Overlay Zones; and Adopting a Severability Clause Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules for the public hearing, which involved a quasi-judicial matter. She called for conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. There were none. Mayor Piercy determined that councilors had no site visits to report. City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Associate Planner Ann Siegenthaler of the Planning and Develop- ment. Ms. Siegenthaler said the council would hear testimony related to a request for an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Land Use Diagram and concurrent zone change for a parcel known as the Oregon Motor Pool site, located at 445 Pearl Street. The applicant was the State of Oregon Office of Administrative Services. Ms. Siegenthaler said the applicant requested a Metro Plan amendment from High-Density Residen- tial/Mixed Use/Nodal Development designation to Commercial/Nodal Development designation, and asked that the property be rezoned from I-2/TD Light-Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone to C-2/TD/ND Community Commercial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal Development Overlay Zones. No development was being proposed at this time. The zone change was a quasi-judicial decision but was being reviewed concurrently with the Metro Plan amendment, and thus followed the process described in the code for a Metro Plan amendment. The amendment was a single jurisdiction Type II amendment and the council decision must be based on the record created before the Planning Commission. Ms. Siegenthaler noted no public testimony was received during the Planning Commission’s comment period outside that of the applicant. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request following deliberation of the application’s consistency with statewide planning goal 12, transportation. That goal required the applicant to demonstrate the change would not have a significant effect on adjacent transporta- tion facilities and any effects would be mitigated. The Planning Commission did not believe it initially had sufficient evidence regarding the issue and requested the applicant provide additional information. The applicant subsequently submitted a trip generation estimate, and the commission determined the application complied with all applicable criteria. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 4 Public Hearing Ms. Siegenthaler noted that the Eugene Code required the council to make a decision on the application within 30 days of the hearing. She noted that the criteria for the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment could be found in EC 9.7730(3)(a-b) and the criteria for the zone change were included in EC 9.8865(1-5). Ms. Siegenthaler called the council’s attention to the findings prepared for the application, included as Exhibit A to the proposed ordinance. Ms. Siegenthaler said the Planning Commission found the existing policies in the Metro Plan and Downtown Plan, the applicable refinement plan, supported the change from high-density residential to commercial use. A key policy question discussed by the commission regarded the appropriateness of retaining the existing designation for the site. There were policies supportive of retaining that designation, but staff and the commission found stronger evidence, particularly in the Downtown Plan, in support of a commercial designation. She called attention to Policy 3 in the Downtown Plan, which called for facilitation of downtown redevelopment by redesignating and rezoning underused properties, such as surface parking lots, to commercial land use designations and commercial zones, such as C-2 or C-3. Other policies in the Downtown Plan supported the change to a commercial designation. Ms. Siegenthaler noted that council action on the item was scheduled for December 11. The City Manager recommended the City Council adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the proposed Metro Plan designation and zone change. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. James Spickerman , 975 Oak Street, said he was asked by the State of Oregon to evaluate the parcel in July 2002, which was currently vacant and being used for parking. Planning documents in existence at that time appeared to support a Metro Plan change and zone change, but he was advised by staff of the work being done on the Downtown Plan and had followed that process to its conclusion. The Downtown Plan addressed the parking lots in the train depot area and the parcel in question and that was the source of Policy 3. He urged the council to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and offered to respond to questions. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She asked for a staff response to testimony. There was none. She asked Mr. Spickerman for rebuttal; Mr. Spickerman had nothing further to offer. Mayor Piercy indicated that the record was closed. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman asked about the public notice for the public hearing. Ms. Siegenthaler indicated that notice of the council’s hearing as well as the text of the ordinance was published in The Register-Guard a month prior to the hearing. There was also a notice process used with the Planning Commission’s review of the application. Ms. Bettman asked if the adjacent neighbors were notified. Ms. Siegenthaler indicated she would provide more information about the extent of the public notice on December 11. She noted that a group of interested parties was informed, which included the downtown neighborhood association, the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Bettman pointed out that there was a stable neighborhood just north of the site in question and she believed that if those residents were aware of the proposed changes they would probably be present at the hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 5 Public Hearing Ms. Bettman said that the findings indicated there was no reason to fear the loss of residential land because the commercial zoning accommodated residential use, but if the property owner wanted to build housing there was no reason to rezone the site to Community Commercial. She also believed that the transportation issues involved were “kind of glossed over” as she considered Community Commercial to be regional commercial zoning, creating a “major magnet” on what was “relatively local streets.” Ms. Bettman anticipated the development would result in a significant impact on traffic, and maintained that if the impact was not addressed through this process, the cost of mitigating it would fall on the City. Ms. Bettman believed the council had agreed not to take action on any zone changes that created a benefit for the property owner before it considered the “value added tax” ordinance the council intended to consider on December 11, 2006. She questioned if the zone change would be subject to the “Value Added Measure 37 Compensation 37 Fund Collection Recovery Fee.” Mr. Klein indicated he would have to research that question and would respond on December 11. Ms. Bettman wanted to know what the council would need to do to ensure the fee, if adopted, applied to the zone change. Ms. Bettman asked what use the applicant’s traffic analysis was based upon. Ms. Siegenthaler indicated the ITE manual was consulted, and the assumed use was specialty retail; it was also assumed there would be 18 townhouse units on the second floor. The applicant’s trip generation estimates were included in the meeting packet. Mr. Kelly confirmed with Ms. Siegenthaler that the downtown neighborhood association was informed of the proposal. Mr. Kelly asked staff to research if public agencies had the first right of refusal for such State-owned parcels. He suggested that it might be good to be aware of that fact when considering potential parking sites in downtown. Mr. Klein indicated a memorandum would be provided to the council. Mr. Papé questioned if the City could impose a “value added tax” on the State. Mr. Klein indicated he would address that question through a memorandum. Mr. Papé noted the location of the site near the property owned by the Eugene Water & Electric Board and suggested that the council’s action on the application would be premature given the City’s interest in planning for that site. Ms. Bettman asked if the site was inside the urban renewal district. Associate Planner Nan Laurence of the Planning and Development Department indicated that while the parcel was included in the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, it fell just outside the boundaries of the Riverfront Renewal District. Ms. Bettman said it was unfortunate that the use on which the traffic analysis was based on could be “picked out of a hat” rather than the use which would likely be built, which would create more impact. She asked if there was a way to constrain the development to the impact from the use envisioned. Ms. Siegenthaler indicated staff would address that question in the next AIS. Speaking to Mr. Papé’s questions about the EWEB site planning, Mr. Kelly pointed out that the application before the council must be acted on within a time certain. City Manager Taylor concurred. Ms. Siegen- thaler indicated a decision must be made within 30 days of the hearing. Mr. Kelly said that the application MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 6 Public Hearing could not be denied on the basis of the council’s intent, although he thought Mr. Papé’s points were well- taken. He suggested the issue be addressed in the staff follow-up. Ms. Taylor asked if the application could be denied on the basis of no obvious benefit to the City. Mr. Klein referred her to the criteria governing the application in the Eugene City Code and indicated he would also follow-up in writing. Ms. Taylor asked who wanted the property rezoned. Ms. Siegenthaler indicated it was the applicant, the State of Oregon. Staff did not know what the applicant planned to do with the property. Ms. Taylor asked if that could be a basis on which to deny the application. Mr. Klein indicated he would follow up. The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 7 Public Hearing