Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/13/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-City Hall November 13, 2002 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Fart. A.WORK SESSION: Fall 2002 Draft Land Use Code Amendments Ordinance 1: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Amending Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date; and Ordinance 3: An Ordinance Concerning Secondary Dwellings and Flag Lots; Amending Sections 9.2741, 9.2750.9.2751, And 9.2775 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date The council was joined for the item by Senior Planner Teresa Bishow, Planning Director Jan Childs, and Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office. Ms. Childs noted that action on the two proposed ordinances was scheduled for November 22, 2002. The work session was an opportunity for the council to provide further direction to staff on the ordinances in question prior to that date. Ms. Bishow noted that the Eugene and Lane County planning commissions recommended approval of Ordinance 1 and Ordinance 3. Regarding Ordinance 3, Ms. Bishow noted that the commissions had a lively discussion of infill development and how to retain neighborhood preservation objectives as they discussed the ordinance. Ms. Bishow reviewed the proposed motions included in the meeting packet generated as a result of comments from the council and referred the council to motions prepared by staff at the request of Ms. Bettman. Ms. Bishow referred the council to revised Table 9.2750, Residential Zone Development Standards, distributed prior to the meeting, to illustrate the impact of the passage of the proposed motions. There would be a five-foot setback on residential property in general; education, government, and religious uses would have a fifteen-foot setback; an interior yard setback of ten feet for new flag lots in the R-1 zone, and a five-foot setback in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones. Ms. Bishow called attention to a sample display sign mounted on the wall to illustrate the size of the notice sign being recommended by the planning commissions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend Ordinance 1 to retain site review requirements by eliminating Section 40 and amending Section 42 to eliminate 9.8430(4). Mr. Rayor arrived at the meeting. Mayor Torrey called for council comments. Mr. Kelly said that site review requirements were proposed to be eliminated because the council thought the conditional use permit (CUP) requirements were a strict superset of site review requirements, so that if one satisfied the CUP requirements, the site review requirements were satisified as well. Staff research indicated there were differences in the requirements established through the conditional use permit process and through the site review process. He hoped at some time there would be a sort of "super conditional use permit" that included the site review criteria so that two applications were not needed. Mr. Pap~ determined from Ms. Bishow that the approval criteria for the two processes overlap to some degree. The site review criteria were very similar to the CUP criteria, but there were distinct differences. She confirmed that the City provided for a reduced fee if the two application types were processed concurrently; it was about a 25 percent reduction in the cost of the second application. Mayor Torrey said he was contacted by a constituent who had a planned unit development (PUD) application approved under the old code. He asked if that PUD was subject to appeal under the new code. Ms. Jerome said that there were generally two steps in the PUD process, the PUD approval process and the subdivision approval process. The legal issue was whether the applicant was vested to use the old code subdivision process. She suggested that the answer was a case-by- case determination. There was no direction from the courts on the issue. Ms. Jerome thought it likely the City could process the subdivision application under the old code. She said that the applicant in question had legitimate concerns that if the subdivision was appealed, there would be some question about that issue. She suggested that the City needed to take a definite position on how it would process such applications. Mayor Torrey asked how the council should proceed. Ms. Bishow said that the issue could be folded into the code amendments now being considered by the Eugene Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend Ordinance 1 to delete sections 14, 31, 34, and 37 concerning nodal development procedures. Mr. Kelly determined from Ms. Childs that adoption of the motion would not delay the City's work on the eight remaining nodal priority areas. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend Ordinance 3, Section 1, to clarify the property ownership requirements for secondary dwellings as follows: "Prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit for the secondary MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 2 Work Session dwelling (or the primary dwelling if it is constructed later), the owner shall provide the city with a copy of a notice that has been recorded with the Lane County Clerk that documents the requirement that the secondary dwelling or primary dwelling is, and will remain, owner/occupied." Ms. Bettman asked how the document would show up in subsequent years. Ms. Bishow said that a title search would reveal the document. Ms. Taylor confirmed with Ms. Bishow that the accessory dwelling would be sold along with the primary house because the two structures were located on a single legal lot. Ms. Bishow said that the buyer would make the investment choice to purchase two houses, a large house and a small house. Mr. Pap8 asked what occurred when someone who lived out of town inherited a property with an accessory structure and wanted to rent the property. Ms. Bishow said that one's heirs would either need to sell the property to someone who lived there or sell it to someone who intended to live there. Mr. Pap8 asked how the heir would know about the limitation. Ms. Bishow said that it was possible the City would receive a complaint, and if the complaint was founded, the City would work with the owner to ensure enforcement occurred. Heirs would also learn about the owner- occupancy requirement through the title report. Mr. Meisner confirmed with Ms. Bishow that the property owner could live in either the accessory or primary structure. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to approve the Planning Commission recommendation in Ordinance 3 to reduce the setback requirements for flag lots in R-1 to ten feet. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that there were many single-family residential neighborhoods with an underlying zoning of R-2. She was concerned about treating R-2 differently than R-1 for that reason. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to include R-2 zoned land. Mr. Kelly said that in terms of infill development, he perceived R-2 land as a half-way point between the lower density R-1 zone and the higher density R-3 and R-4 zones. He thought it made sense to not be so restrictive as to prohibit infill development in R-2, but give it more of a buffer like that in R-1 neighborhoods. He said that the motion already reduced the flag lots setback significantly, and he was comfortable with that given the testimony the council received on the topic. However, he was not comfortable with reducing the setbacks in R-2 zones to five feet, as the next motion proposed to do. Mr. Pap8 did not support Ms. Bettman's amendment because he was concerned the result would be that the City would not get the density it was after. He said the City must find a way to narrow the setbacks. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Meisner asked the consequence of implementing the motion on westside neighborhoods. Ms. Bishow said that requiring a ten-foot setback for flag lots in R-2 would limit the design options of those building in these areas. In some cases, the buildable area could be constrained by something else, such as a tree or a wetland. On the positive side, if one was an adjacent property owner, one benefitted from the new structure being pushed back at least ten feet, although that space could be occupied by parking if developed with a single-family home. Ms. Bettman believed that the urban core neighborhoods were already comparatively dense and she wanted to preserve the fabric of those neighborhoods. She said that existing housing stock should be preserved, and the City should find another way to achieve density. Ms. Bettman feared that the ordinance would have the greatest impact on established neighborhoods. She wanted to mitigate the impact of infill while still allowing it and creating new opportunities for density. Ms. Taylor indicated concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. She was opposed to reducing the setback and wanted it to be at least 15 feet. She expressed concern about the privacy of existing residents and the potential of stormwater runoff from new development affecting those properties. Ms. Nathanson said she had asked before how many lots would be affected. She questioned whether the result would be the destruction of neighborhoods. She asked Ms. Bishow to comment. Ms. Bishow reminded the council that the provision applied only to new flag lots. She said that the City was still seeing instances of people who wanted to divide their property before they developed it. The rate at which that occurred was hard to predict. The council's decision to reduce the setback to ten feet in R-1 and R-2 lots would provide a greater opportunity for the use of that land. Ms. Bishow pointed out that the developer would still be constrained by lot coverage requirements. The location of existing utilities and large trees were also factors in the design and location of a structure on a site. Ms. Nathanson said that preservation of natural assets were important to many, and she suggested that in many cases neighbors would prefer to see trees on a site retained rather than a larger setback. Regarding the size of the setbacks in R-3 and R-4 zones, Ms. Nathanson said that residents of those areas needed to be considered as well. They deserved a good quality of life in their neighborhood in the same manner as those who lived in less dense zones. She suggested that the council needed to be careful about how the City provided open space for everyone. For example, did it provide everyone with a little bit of open space around individual structures, or neighborhood parks and open space along creeks and in natural areas? Mayor Torrey said that the desires of individual councilors needed to be weighed against the desires of the community. He determined from Ms. Bishow that there was currently no adjustment review process for interior lot lines. Mr. Kelly said that graduated setbacks gave the City a reasonable range of density. He was willing to support a reduced setback in the R-3 and R-4 districts if the setback in the R-2 district was ten feet. He suggested that the City could have zero lot lines in the R-1 and R-2 zones if had design standards. He hoped that the City would move that direction in the future so that density was "done right." Until that occurred or an adjustment review process was established, he opposed the reduced setback in the R-2 zone. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly noted that the testimony offered to the council by Gordon Anslow used a 10,000 square- foot lot and asked if that was an established lot size in R-1 neighborhoods. He added that would reduce design options much less than the design options provided by staff. Ms. Bishow did not know. She noted that the minimum area for a flag lot was 6,000 square feet. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Nathanson that everyone had the right to live in an attractive place, but that was not what society was like. She wanted to protect residents who choose to live in small houses on large lots. She said that such changes had the potential to change the character of a neighborhood over time. She preferred to see the setback increased to 15 feet if there was to be flag lots at all. She suggested that if there were trees that were threatened, the setback could be adjusted. Ms. Bettman said the recommendation for a reduced setback was a rollback from the policy decision the council made in its deliberations on the Land Use Code Update. She did not find Ms. Nathanson's comments about potentially greater setbacks in the more dense zones to be germane to the motion. Ms. Bettman said that in her neighborhood, she had seen several situations where citizens objected to the infill development that was occurring next door. In one case, the resident felt that she had to move because the new development was so close to her bedroom window. She did not want to duplicate the problems that the City was experiencing in the west university neighborhood, where people did not want to own homes and invest in the neighborhood. She said if the City did not protect its urban core neighborhoods, it would cost more in future years to correct the blight that resulted. She thought the reduced setback would have a drastic impact on those affected. Mr. Rayor pointed out that the majority of residents living in R-1 zones, particularly in the flat areas of town, had five-foot setbacks and those setbacks were generally accepted. He said that the land in question was valuable to its owners and valuable to the community because of its infill potential. He did not want to lose land and impel the city to expand onto farmland. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. The main motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to direct staff to amend Ordinance 3, Section 2, to require a five-foot interior yard setback for flag and alley lots on land zoned R-2, R-3, or R-4. Mr. Rayor supported the motion because he believed it created some flexibility for site development. Ms. Bettman opposed the motion because she believed it opened the door to greater density in the already dense urban core without accompanying design standards. That will mean people would be uncertain about the future of their neighborhood and they would hesitate to remodel, and perhaps move away, leading to the residential turnover the City experienced in the west university area. She said that was not good for the environment, and was a way for density to fail. She said that lowering the standards would result in a proliferation of flag and alley lots, leading to removal of the tree canopy and the urban gardens that exist in the urban core neighborhoods. She said that without design standards, densification will result in blighted core neighborhoods over time. Ms. Bettman said there were other ways to densify, and she regretted that those other MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 5 Work Session approaches, such as density mapping, were stalled because the council was "busy rolling back the provisions out of context." Mr. Kelly said he continued to attempt to craft compromises without success. Because the council had rejected the ten-foot setback in the R-2 zone, he intended to oppose the motion. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to direct staff to amend Ordinance 3, sections 2 and 3, to allow an interior yard setback of less than five feet with an easement from the adjacent property owners and at least ten feet between buildings for flag and alley lots on land zoned R-2, R-3, and R-4. The motion passed, 4:3, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to direct staff to amend Ordinance 3, sections 2 and 3, to eliminate special setbacks for alley lots and apply the standard five-foot setback established prior to the code update. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to direct staff to amend Ordinance 3, sections 2 and 3, to require a ten-foot special setback for new buildings on existing alley lots. Ms. Bettman indicated her support for the amendment was predicated on her previous remarks. Mr. Kelly asked how the amendment differed from the council's action to grandfather flag lots. Ms. Bettman responded that she believed that ten-foot setbacks were better than five-foot setbacks. Mr. Rayor determined from Ms. Bishow that the setback was an interior yard setback rather than a street setback. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. The main motion passed, 5:2, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Ms. Nathanson said she was recently asked about a situation where a residential development impacted nearby residents with additional storm water runoff. The resulting drainage patterns had severely impacted a house downstream. The City took no responsibility for approving the development that had occurred. She asked staff to comment at some time about the City's liability in such instances and what could be done. She asked if the new development was illegally displacing water onto other properties. Ms. Nathanson said she wanted to avoid serious liability. Ms. Jerome indicated she would follow up with a memorandum. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the time for the item. The motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 6 Work Session B.WORK SESSION: Update on Downtown Hospital Sites City Manager Jim Carlson introduced the item. He noted that Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle and Glenn Klein of the City Attorney's Office were present for the presentation and to answer questions. Mr. Carlson reminded the council that it directed staff to identify sites for the location of a possible hospital in downtown. Mr. Coyle called the council's attention to the list of possible sites and list of possible incentives in the meeting packet. Mr. Coyle commended Mike Sullivan and Richie Weinman of Planning and Development Department for their work in assembling the materials before the council. Mr. Carlson reported that the City continued to have discussions with PeaceHealth about its downtown campus and with McKenzie Willamette Hospital at a very high level. Many issues were "up in the air," and there was no concrete proposals or requests from either hospital or any hospital. He did not think staff could go much further beyond the work that had been done, and suggested there was no purpose in spending additional staff time until the City had a concrete proposal before it. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for the work it had done. He agreed it was difficult to do much more in the absence of concrete proposals, but the motion the council passed in September was in force, and he hoped the staff continued to meet with the two hospitals and request additional resources from the council if needed. Mr. Kelly said that the candidate sites should meet basic criteria, such as being reasonably near the city center. He said that the Greenhill site did not meet that goal. He wanted two viable, separately owned hospitals in the metropolitan area, appropriately located, so citizens had health care available at a reasonable price. Regarding the incentives, Mr. Kelly thought all could work depending on the situation, but he agreed little could be done on them in the absence of a concrete proposal. Mr. Meisner thanked staff for the work it had done. He concurred with much of what Mr. Kelly said. He did not want the City to be passive, and wanted it to be open to discussion and opportunities. He did not want the City to become a hospital developer, but he wanted it to be more than just willing to respond, but able to be actively engaged at a moment's notice. Mr. Meisner said the incentives seemed reasonable but none would be easy to do when the time came. He hoped that staff continued to actively engage the hospital communities. Mr. Meisner said that it was time for the City to consult with those with expertise in hospital location to determine what a hospital needed in terms of a site, and how a hospital would choose a site. Mr. Rayor also commended the staff work. He wanted to see the work that had been done on the subject and turn it into an information packet to provide to the Metro Partnership for distribution to the representatives of interested hospitals. He thought each site should be accompanied by a site MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 7 Work Session description and analysis. He suggested that the use of incentives could be on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Rayor thought the study mentioned in the packet should be done by the hospital itself. He wanted the City to be ready. Ms. Nathanson suggested the fact the council was having the discussion indicated the City's willingness and readiness to help and ensure there was adequate hospitals in Eugene. She referred to the incentives list and suggested a council discussion about its general level of support for each incentive might be appropriate. The council should look to where it could achieve multiple objectives. She asked staff to look into New Market federal tax credits, and what it took to secure those credits for a new hospital venture. Regarding the list of sites, Ms. Nathanson indicated concurrence with Mr. Kelly. She asked if there was anything in the industrial area that could qualify for federal assistance for brownfield development. Ms. Bettman concurred with the comments that had been made. She said her objective was that the community had two hospitals, and that Eugene have a hospital with a full service emergency department. Ms. Bettman was not willing to wait for a hospital proposal to appear. She wanted Eugene to use its financial and staff resources to actively recruit a new hospital. Mr. Coyle said that the City did not have the dedicated staff resources needed to actively recruit a new hospital, and further noted that City did not have a dedicated position for economic development. Ms. Bettman questioned if other councilors were interested in using funds from the next supplemental budget to support such a dedicated position. Mr. Carlson reminded the council that the community must have a certificate of need to establish a new hospital. The City was now primarily dealing now with the two current providers. He suggested that there was potential that those existing entities could partner with other service providers to establish a new hospital. Mr. Pap~ did not think the new hospital site should be more than two miles from the population center. He said that the issue was complicated by transportation and access issues. He said the City needed to take those factors into account and ensure that they enhanced rather than inhibited the development of medical facilities. Ms. Taylor thought a hospital in the center of the city would satisfy multiple community goals, such as a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, revitalization of downtown, and the provision of parking for the library. She favored the first site on the list, the Eugene Clinic site, followed by the Lane County Fairgrounds. She also wanted the City to be active in recruiting a new hospital, and indicated that she preferred McKenzie-Willamette Hospital. She wanted a hospital on the Eugene side of the river. Ms. Taylor preferred to use the City's contribution to the Metropolitan Partnership to recruit a new hospital. She suggested that needed money could also come from the Facilities Reserve Fund. Mayor Torrey solicited another round of comments. Mr. Rayor said the certificate of need mentioned by Mr. Carlson was a critical component. He thought the problem with having both hospitals in Eugene was the fact that in the event of a large- MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 8 Work Session scale emergency such as an earthquake, the hospital would not be accessible to Eugene residents. He believed the State Medical Board would consider a certificate of need on that basis. Mr. Meisner said a significant point for the council to consider was whether a second hospital was commercially viable, noting that the issue was currently being argued in a federal lawsuit between the two hospitals. He believed the City needed to wait on the outcome of the lawsuit before it contemplated any further action. Ms. Bettman thought the first three sites on the list were the most in keeping with the council's previously adopted motion. The third site, the West Broadway site, was probably the best, followed by the Eugene Clinic site and the fairgrounds. She thought the incentives would likely be dictated by the site selected. Ms. Bettman asked for information about the anticipated time line for the development of the hospital zone overlay and if it could be done proactively so the City was ready if a hospital approached it. Mr. Kelly said that he understood that the relationship between the hospital staffs and City staff was good, and asked the providers present to let the City know what assistance or resources they needed to realize its goals. Mr. Pap8 concurred with the remarks of Mr. Meisner. In response to Ms. Bettman's question about the overlay zone, Mr. Coyle suggested that should an opportunity for an additional hospital to come to the community arise, the best way to be prepared was with a proposed site. Overlay zones and other similar mechanics were not likely to be used more than once, so changing the code would not be cost-effective. Ms. Nathanson did not think that dedicating a staff person to recruit a new hospital would be a cost-effective means of spending money when the City had so many other unmet needs, particularly when the results were unknown. She wanted the City to be ready to respond to a proposal when it was approached. Mr. Carlson reminded the council that the City had been able to respond to the PeaceHealth move proposal in a rapid manner, and he believed it would be able to respond to a new proposal in as timely a manner. Ms. Bettman agreed, and recalled that at time the council provided additional money through the supplemental budget process. She suggested that could occur again if needed. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 9 Work Session