Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 12/11/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall December 11, 2002 12 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING COUNCILORS Councilors took the time to acknowledge the hard work and accomplishments of Councilors Rayor and Farr. Mr. Rayor commented that he had learned a lot from each of the councilors. He said he had enjoyed his time on the council and expressed his confidence in his replacement George Poling. He thanked the councilors, staff and citizens of Eugene for their work during his tenure on the council. Mr. Farr said he felt humbled by sitting at the table with the other councilors. He added that he felt privileged to work with such a talented staff as those working for the City. Mayor Torrey expressed his hope that the entire City was aware of how valuable the services of Councilors Farr and Rayor had been. B. WORK SESSION: Alternatives for a Geographic Adjustment to Transportation Systems Development Charge City Manager Carlson noted that the item was a follow-up discussion on providing a geographic adjustment to the City's transportation systems development charges (SDC). Fred McVey of Public Works Engineering provided the staff report. He said staff had responded to council direction by further developing information on the three options for geographic adjustments that had been previously presented. He said these would adjust the transportation MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2002 Page 1 Work Session SDC. He said additional analysis was included in the meeting packet as well as alternatives for refining the options previously presented. Mr. McVey said there was another item from a previous meeting that had been added to the agenda that was a motion related to nodal development adjustments. He said staff was recommending Option 2, which retained the greatest level of defensibility. He noted staff was also recommending the ongoing use of the current SDC with its current nodal development adjustment without separate specific geographic adjustments, Option 4. Mr. Kelly said there was a great value to geographic adjustment to conform to the City's growth management policies as well as to capture the impact of new development on infrastructure costs. He noted that Springfield, Salem, and Portland all had some geographic adjustment to SDCs. Mr. Kelly said the day's action would set a 90-day notice process in motion until a public hearing before the City Council. He said he had reached a different conclusion than staff and expressed his preference for Option 1. Ms. Nathanson clarified that any geographic adjustment would be in addition to any existing nodal development adjustment. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the status of a downtown node, City Manager Carlson said downtown was designated as a potential node in TransPlan. He said that, as a result of the finalization of the downtown plan, part of the implementation measure would be the official designation through the zoning overlay of the downtown area. Ms. Nathanson said that already having a charge that recognized nodes was a geographic component. She expressed a preference for Option 4 with a second choice of Option 2. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding who the members of the SDC project team were, Mr. McVey said the team was comprised of staff and consultants, including Debbie Galardi from CH2M Hill. Ms. Taylor said she had been in favor of geographic components but raised concern over whether the plan would be fair to people living further from the center of town. She expressed a preference for Option 1. Ms. Bettman said the SDC was not a user fee but a charge that compensated the City for its expenditures for building new capacity for development. She commented that it was much less expensive to build in a compact urban form and stated that was the reason why a geographic component was justifiable. She said she could go with Option 1 or Option 2 as long as there was something in place to keep them revenue neutral. Mr. Rayor said he believed in a geographic adjustment. He said he was in equal favor of options 1 or 2. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2002 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Meisner said he was interested in a geographic adjustment that was legally and technically defensible. He expressed his preference for Option 2 with a refinement for revenue neutrality. Mr. Pap~ said Option 1 was not fair. He said Option 2, if downtown again found itself as the center of the community, would be acceptable, but expressed doubt that this would be the case. He expressed his preference for Option 4. Mayor Torrey expressed his interest in listening to the input from a public hearing on the matter before making a decision. Mr. Farr expressed his preference for Option 4 or Option 2 if it was revenue neutral. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare modifications to the Transportation SDC methodology to include a geographic adjustment consistent with Option 2, Scenario 3a (presented in Attachment A). Ms. Bettman said she could support the motion even though it was not her first choice. Mr. Rayor said he supported the motion but noted that it was based on a 20 percent reduction in that area. Mr. Kelly raised concern over the lack of analysis of State or County roads that were at capacity during peak times and therefore adding to the trips over the City street network. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding whether the City was trying to find a way to encourage development or punish people who were building outside of downtown, City Manager Carlson said it would be a benefit to the developer who decided on a downtown location but it would not make them decide to go downtown and not locate somewhere else. Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion. He opined that none of the geographic adjustment options would truly act as an effective planning tool. Mr. Pap~ reiterated that he was in favor of Option 4 or Option 2 with revenue neutrality. Ms. Bettman noted that the City of Eugene was in the lowest third of the cities in Oregon for SDC cost-recovery. She said if the City was getting enough SDCs it would have enough money to build transportation infrastructure to accommodate new growth, but noted that this was not happening. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Farr and Mr. Pap~ in opposition. Councilor Bettman reviewed a tabled motion she had made at a previous meeting regarding. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the tabled motion to read: "1 move to direct the City Manager to provide for system development charge discounts in nodes with the following two exceptions; 1. The discount shaft not apply to buildings that are 30,000 square feet on the ground floor or larger. 2. The discount shaft not apply to applications proposing needed housing as that term is defined in Eugene Code 9.60~0." Mr. Kelly said SDCs were reduced in nodes because studies had shown that there was lower vehicular traffic in nodes. He said a large warehouse type store located in a node would attract more vehicle traffic from other areas. Ms. Taylor said she would support the motion. Mr. Meisner offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted, to specify transportation for the SDC charge. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding the staff reaction to the motion, Planning Director Jan Childs said that as part of the nodal development implementation work that would come to the council in 2003, staff was not proposing any code amendments so there would be no opportunity to make amendments on a node-by-node basis. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding whether there was a chance that the amendment might make a grocery store or other primary component of a node choose a different location that was not within a node, Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle said it could. He said many market chains would not adapt to alternative floor areas. He added that the distinction was whether the market would have to drop a facility that it wanted in the building. Mr. Coyle noted that the loss of space to a chain market would mean the loss of ancillary uses that those markets provided that would otherwise not locate in that node. He said there was a level of concern from the planning and development side because there was no specification of uses. Mr. Fart said it was probable that such a limit would discourage multi-business facilities from locating in nodes. He said the motion was not a good idea. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding whether State legislation provided for SDC discounts for needed housing, City Attorney Jerry Lidz said State legislation did not address that issue. He noted that the category of "needed housing" could encompass virtually any kind of housing. He said the "catchy title" did not limit the definition of "needed housing" to Iow-income housing. Ms. Bettman stressed the importance of fine-tuning incentives during a time of budget stress. She said her motion did not preclude/forbid any kind of development but would use incentives to help realize the objectives of nodal development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2002 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly reiterated that the motion would not preclude any development but would only decide which development would receive SDC discounts. Ms. Taylor said having a mega store with other businesses in it hurt smaller local businesses that would be located in a node. She said she would support the motion. Ms. Nathanson said she would not support the motion because she was concerned about the perception it created about what would be allowed to develop in a node. The main motion resulted in a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes, and Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Rayor voting no. Mayor Torrey voted in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2002 Page 5 Work Session C. WORK SESSION: Implementing Ordinances for a Royal Nodal Development Area Ordinance Number 1: An Ordinance Concerning the Royal Nodal Development Area; Amending the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date; and Ordinance Number 2: An Ordinance Concerning the Royal Node Special Area Zone; Amending Sections 9.1030, 9.8030, 9.8865, and 9.9510 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 9.3800, and 9.3823 to that code; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to defer street assessments for major streets until the property benefitting from the street improvement project annexes to the City and receives final approval for new development on the benefitting property as indicated by Policy 4 of the proposed amendments to the Bethel- Danebo refinement plan. Mr. Kelly said the plan was excellent and that it balanced/accomplished a variety of interests. He said it was a compromise that represented good development. He said the one thing that he strongly opposed was the motion on the table and said it would affect his vote on the overall nodal plan. He said he and Mr. Pap~ had spent two years developing a street assessment plan and one of the recurring themes of the public input was consistent assessment. He said it was not fair to the City to not be consistent in assessments. Ms. Bettman said she agreed with Mr. Kelly. She said it was not a fair policy currently and the motion made it worse by not applying it consistently. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the reason why staff was recommending the ordinances, staff said it was not recommending the plan but the Planning Commission had made the recommendation without either Public Works staff or Planning staff approving it. He said this was based on the issues of inequity. The motion failed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the staff recommendation to change the land use designation for an eight-acre parcel, shown on Attachment B, from Low-Density Residential to Natural Resource Land. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the staff recommendation to delete the description of "neighborhood center node" MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2002 Page 6 Work Session from Exhibit B of the ordinance amending the Bethel Danebo Refinement Plan. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to reconsider Councilor Bettman's motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to divide the motion on the table into two parts. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to provide transportation system development charge discounts in nodes with the following exceptions: 1. The discounts shall not apply to buildings that are 30,000 square feet on the ground floor or larger. 2. The discount shall not apply to applications proposing needed housing as that term is defined in Eugene Code 9.60~0." Mr. Farr said Mr. Coyle's description of chain market facilities and the motion's impacts was an important one. He said precluding them from any SDC discounts would make them locate outside of nodal areas. He said it did not make sense to vote yes on the motion. Ms. Bettman said the motion was carefully figured to include the type of business Mr. Fart was referring to. Mr. Kelly said he would support the motion because it did not preclude any development but only specified which kinds of development would receive SDC discounts. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Pap~, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Rayor voting in opposition. Speaking to Section 2 of the motion, Ms. Bettman said it was not a new issue. She said she had made the proposal because there were many parts of the code still in limbo because of the Land Use Board of Appeals remand of the updated Land Use Code. She said there was potential for someone to put in an application under the needed housing rule and would not have to comply with the kinds of objectives/standards made by the council for nodal development. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Fart and Mr. Rayor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro tem MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2002 Page 7 Work Session (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2002 Page 8 Work Session