Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/26/01 Meeting MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall February 26, 2001 8p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1.PUBLIC FORUM Deborah Evans, 400 Kourt Drive, a member of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, thanked the council for its consideration of the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan and asked the council to accept the plan. She provided background on the planning process and highlighted some of the plan recommendations. Camilla Pratt, 120 West Brookway, a member of the citizen advisory committee (CAC) that had developed the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, spoke in support of the resolution related to the plan included in the council packet. She reviewed the committee process and explained its rationale for the recommendations reflected in the resolution. Harry Dennis, 740 Fair Oaks Drive, stated he worked in the field of wet weather treatment, and asked the council to reject the CAC report. He did not think the plan succeeded in its goals because it placed too much reliance on the expansion of the treatment plan and not enough on repair of leaky sewer lines. He said the City already had a voluntary program for repairing sewers, but it was not used. He advocated for an emphasis on the repair of leaks in public and private sewers. Meg Trendler, Director of the Willamette Institute of Science and Technology (WISTEC), 2300 Leo Harris Parkway, spoke in support of the concept of the City's transfer of the building occupied by WlSTEC to the nonprofit agency. She said that the transfer would assist the agency and provide it with new opportunities to provide services for children. She asked the council to allow City staff and WlSTEC to work together. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50698, spoke in support of Ms. Trendler's request. He hoped WISTEC looked at other examples for fund-raising suggestions. He commended Symantec for its contributions to WlSTEC and hoped other companies would follow its example. He noted that the City was competing for federal funding with other communities and suggested that Eugene employ University of Oregon football coach Mike Bellotti in advocating for its funding requests when local representatives visited Washington, DC. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 1 Regular Meeting Susan Martin, 4755 West Hillside Drive, presented the mayor with a letter from the mayor of Kathmandu thanking him for strengthening that Sister City relationship and inviting him to that city. Councilor Kelly asked staff to provide feedback regarding Mr. Dennis' remarks when the council considered the relevant agenda item. Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation to the members of the committee that produced the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan. Councilor Meisner said that it was true the City competed with many other jurisdictions for funding but because of its Intergovernmental Relations staff it had been very successful. He noted that the upcoming trip to Washington, DC, was a "United Front" trip representing all local jurisdictions and the school districts. 2.DISCUSSION OF CHARTER REVIEW ISSUES The manager had no charter review issues to raise. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Council Minutes: January 24, 2001 Work Session January 29, 2001 Work Session January 31, 2001 Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Agenda C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of January 24, January 26, and February 7, 2001 D. Resolution Amending City Council Operating Agreements and Repealing Resolution No. 4645 Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to adopt the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly indicated he had a minutes correction and pulled Item D, Operating Agreements. Councilor Kelly referred to page 9 of the January 31 work session and asked that the first paragraph after the bulleted list be revised as follows: "Use the council resolution on sustainability as one of the basic components..." Councilor Bettman noted a correction to page 3 of the January 24 minutes and said it should read "science educators" not scientists; the word "choose" was misspelled. She noted that the word "resolution" was misspelled in the January 31 as "revolution," and the date of the meeting should be changed to indicate the year was 2001. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed, 7:0, Councilor Fart being out of the room at the time the vote was taken. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 2 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly referred to page 168 of the meeting packet and noted a needed change to the operating agreements to reflect the council's meeting date change. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the proposed operating agreements to change the last paragraph on page 4 to read "Wednesdays" instead of "Mondays." Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed, 7:0, Councilor Fart being out of the room at the time the vote was taken. Roll call vote; the amended motion passed, 7:0, Councilor Fart being out of the room at the time the vote was taken. 4.PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Providing for Withdrawals from Special Districts, Year 2000 Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, he closed the public hearing. City Manager Jim Johnson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4758, an Ordinance Providing for Withdrawal of Territories (Gould, Ec Eu 00-20; Gerot, EC EU 00-09; MGB Investments, Inc., EC EU 00-08; Minturn, EC EU 00-12; Sorric, EC EU 00-31; Nedco, EC EU 00- 42; Zwang, EC EU 00-45; Jacobson, EC EU 00-47; Bosley, EC EU 01-03; Hammer, Ec Eu 00-06) from the River Road Water District and River Road Park and Recreation District; Proposed Withdrawal of Territories (Hammitt, EC EU 00-15; Roehl, C EU 00-17; Hanson, C EU 00-18; Swartz, C EU 00-28; Smith, C EU 00-23; Tait et Al, EC EU 00-29; King, EC EU 00-36; Harrison, EC EU 00-40; Mulkey, C EU 00-39) from the Santa Clara Water District. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Councilor Nathanson asked if it was possible for the information presented to the council to be presented in plain English, with a simple title and brief description of where the properties are. City Manager Johnson indicated that staff would consult with legal counsel to see what could be done and still remain legal. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. City Manager Johnson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4758 by bill number only. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0, and became Ordinance No. 20222. 5. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting the 2001 Hazardous Substance Tracking Instructions MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 3 Regular Meeting Glen Potter of Fire and Emergency Medical Services was present to respond to questions. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, he closed the public hearing. City Manager Johnson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4759, an Ordinance Adopting the 2001 Hazardous Substance Tracking Instructions. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. City Manager Johnson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4759 by number only. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. Councilor Fart indicated he would support the motion but said there were many in the community who believed that the charter amendment had been interpreted beyond the citizens' intent. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0, and became Ordinance No. 20223. 6. ACTION: Adoption of the Capital Improvement Program Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to adopt the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 2002-2007 with changes as proposed by the Budget Committee. Councilor Kelly thanked staff for the information in the packet and requested a copy of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) from 1999. Councilor Nathanson referred to page 223 of the agenda packet, which mentioned the goals of the CIP. She hoped that when the document was published next year, staff considered rephrasing the goals somewhat. For example, the first goal mentioned balance, but did not explain what was meant by balance. Referring to page 260 of the document, Councilor Nathanson suggested that in the future the location of new capital facilities be mentioned in the document as well. Referring to page 264, Councilor Nathanson thanked staff for the project related to Amazon Creek Park. Regarding page 265, she asked if it would be prudent to add a section to next year's CIP regarding leased facilities such as branch libraries. City Manager Johnson said he would work with the CIP staff on that issue; he was unsure that such costs needed to be in the CIP if they were in the regular budget. Councilor Nathanson suggested the City's bicycle paths were so well-used it might be time to consider wider paths and, in some cases, separated paths. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Fart noted the inclusion of five parks projects in the Bethel Danebo area in the CIP. He thanked the City for its attention to the Bethel-Danebo area. Referring to pages 233-244 related to the airport, Councilor Pap~ supported a strong airport for the community but expressed concern about the speed with which the City was moving on some of those projects. He did not favor spending the money simply because it was available. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 7.ACTION: A Resolution Acknowledging the Receipt of the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan from the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to adopt Resolution 4664, acknowledging the receipt of the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan from the Wastewater Management Commission. Councilor Kelly asked Mr. Ruffier to respond to the remarks Mr. Dennis made in the Public Forum. He asked if Mr. Dennis was a member of the citizen advisory committee that developed the plan or involved in the committee process. Mr. Ruffler responded that Mr. Dennis was not involved in the process. Mr. Ruffler briefly reviewed the components of the functioning system and indicated that the citizen advisory committee did not rely solely on reduction of inflow and infiltration (l&l) in the collection systems because the City's experience was that the problem could not be eliminated by that route alone. There would still be some I&l reaching the treatment plant during times of high flows. Councilor Kelly asked if most of the I&l was from old lines or illegal connections. Mr. Ruffler attributed it to older pipes that needed to be repaired. Councilor Bettman asked if the capital costs of expanding the treatment facility could be paid by systems development charges. Mr. Ruffler said no; those costs would be paid for by user fees. Councilor Bettman suggested it would be appropriate to establish a loan program to assist residents in upgrading their private lines, and asked if that could occur in time to prevent a large expansion to the treatment facility. Mr. Ruffler said that the CAC had debated the topic extensively and had not reached agreement. The plan acknowledged the need to address the private lateral program, and acceptance of the plan would be direction to staff to bring back an implementation plan for council approval. He did not know if that could occur before an expansion was necessary. Councilor Rayor asked what it meant to "smoke-test" a sewer. Mr. Ruffler said that smoke testing revealed illegal connections and leaks to the system. If an illegal connection was found, the home owner was required to disconnect the connection. Councilor Rayor wished to highlight the fact there was a smoke-testing program. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0 MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 5 Regular Meeting 8. ACTION: Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to reappoint Gal! Pierpoint to position 6, a business representative position on the Lane Workforce Partnership, for a term of three years, beginning January 1,2001, and ending December 31, 2003. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to reappoint Carl Huchison to position 4, a business representative position on the Lane Workforce Partnership, for a term of three years, beginning January 1,2001, and ending December 31, 2003. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to appoint Jan Cox to position 7, a business representative position on the Lane Workforce Partnership, for a term of three years, beginning January 1,2001, and ending December 31, 2003. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to appoint Christine Donahue to position 2, a Neighborhood Leader position on the Citizen Involvement Committee, for a period of eight months ending October 31,2001, completing the unexpired term of Lynn McDougal. Mr. Fart noted Ms. Donahue' previous involvement with the citizen involvement program as a member of City staff and said he was happy to support the motion. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to appoint Zachariah Golik to position 6 on the Citizen Involvement Committee for a term of three years, ending October 31, 2003. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to appoint Sara Rich, replacing Andrea Ortiz, to position 7, Human Rights Commission Representative on the Citizen Involvement Committee. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 9. ACTION: Direction on Transfer of Building and Ground Lease to WISTEC Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the City Manager proceed with negotiations with WISTEC to transfer the building and lease land to them in a manner that best meets the public interest. The transfer and lease should include a clause which returns the property to the City if the nonprofit cannot perform its mission. Councilor Rayor did not want the vote to go unnoticed by the public. He said the City does and has supported WISTEC, but must allocate its resources in a measured way. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Meisner expressed two concerns: the first was the board's continued insistence the facility must close, and the second was the lack of a long-range business plan. In addition, the motion does not say the property was to be returned unencumbered. He asked the manager to request a business plan and ensure the City's resources were protected. City Manager Johnson noted that WISTEC had begun to develop a business plan. He referred the council to the memorandum in the meeting packet, which identified the issues which must be resolved before the staff returned to the council for approval. Councilor Pap~ said he was happy to support the motion. Councilor Rayor asked if it was possible as part of the effort that the City provide a bridge loan based on the University's commitment, or if the organization should pursue that funding privately. City Manager Johnson said that the City did not usually lend money to nonprofit organizations. Mr. Klein said that could occur, but it would have to be structured carefully and it would require the University of Oregon's concurrence. Councilor Rayor said he would be happy to have the manager consider that option. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The council took a brief break, and reconvened in the McNutt Room for the next item. 10.ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Repealing Sections 2.027, 7.595, 7.600, 7.605, 7.610, and 9.015 Through 9.1195 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 9.0010 Through 9.9710 to that Code; Repealing Ordinances Nos. 18081, 18974, 19402, 17778, 19975, 19470, 19329, 19401, and 19979; Affirming Site-Specific Historic Ordinances; Providing an Effective Date; and Declaring an Emergency And An Ordinance Concerning Tree Removal and Replacement; Amending Sections 6.300, 6.305, 6.320, 6.325, 6.330, and 6.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending and Renumbering Sections 6.310 of that Code to 6.315; and Adding New Sections 6.302, 6.304, 6.310, and 6.335 to that Code The council was joined by Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer, Planning Director Jan Childs, Senior Planner Teresa Bishow, and Glenn Klein and Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office. Ms. Bishow noted that the meeting was an important step in the Land Use Code Update process. She reviewed the action items before the council, an ordinance concerning land use regulations and an ordinance regarding tree removal. Ms. Bishow called the council's attention to the sample motions distributed prior to the meeting. She reviewed the motions, drafted by staff in response to requests from the council. Ms. Bishow also called the council's attention to attachments B and C; Attachment B outlined amendments to correct errors in the draft code, and Attachment C outlined amendments addressing staff efficiencies. In relation to Attachment B, Ms. Bishow noted the distribution of the southern section of Map 9.4120 Airspace Plan, which was omitted from the draft ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 7 Regular Meeting City Manager Johnson said that the council would consider Council Bill 4760, an Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Repealing Sections 2.027, 7.595, 7.600, 7.605, 7.610, and 9.015 Through 9.1195 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 9.0010 Through 9.9710 to that Code; Repealing Ordinance Nos. 18081, 18974, 19402, 17778, 19975, 19470, 19329, 19401, and 19979; Affirming Site-Specific Historic Ordinances; Providing an Effective Date; and Declaring an Emergency. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to approve the amendments outlined in Attachment B--Amendments to Correct Errors in Draft Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to approve the amendments outlined in Attachment C--Amendments to Draft Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations to Address Staff Efficiencies. Councilor Kelly expressed concern about items 1 and 2 in the list of proposed efficiencies. While the commercial development standards were left in place, the changes would eliminate public notice. Regarding Item 5, he objected to the lack of a definition of a lighting specialist, saying there was no certification for lighting specialists. Regarding Item 6, he said that the effect, again, was less public notice. He was particularly concerned about the removal of development in the /ND overlay zone from public notice, and that requirement was explicitly added by council motion. Ms. Bishow said Councilor Kelly's summary of the effect of the items was correct. The changes to items 1 and 6 would eliminate neighborhood notice for commercial and multiple-family projects and remove the review of the applicable standards from being a land use decision to being a procedure associated with the building permit process. Regarding Item 5, Ms. Bishow said that after consulting with Eugene Water & Electric Board and City staff, there was apparently no professional lighting organization issuing such certifications. Mr. Farmer agreed that there was no lighting specialist certification, but there was a national body with membership that issued standards; the City could require membership in that group. He was unsure of the membership requirements for that organization. Councilor Bettman did not think implementation of items 1, 2 or 6 would result in savings of staff time. She said that when the bulldozers began to arrive on a commercial development site, the City would begin to hear from abutting neighbors, and the efficiencies and cost savings would be lost at that point as the City had to address those complaints. Councilor Nathanson said she was comfortable approving the items because the needed permits could be granted only if the application complied with the standards. She thought that the neighbors' objections could be irrelevant to those standards. She suggested the value of public input at that point was lessened. She supported retaining items 1 and 2. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Meisner clarified that items 1 and 2 referred to the Type II process. He asked about the notice provided in that process. Ms. Bishow said notice was provided to the neighborhood organization and to nearby property owners and neighbors. The proposed change would eliminate the notice as well as the appeal process. Councilor Kelly said that if all the standards were clear and objective he would agree with Councilor Nathanson, but a certain number of them had a level of subjectivity. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the amendment to the motion by deleting items 1, 2, and 6. Councilor Nathanson suggested that developers be required to place large visible billboards with information regarding proposed development on their development sites as was done in other cities. She thought it would be a more useful form of notice than posting or mailing notices. Ms. Bishow noted that the draft code called for large display signs to be posted for certain types of land use applications, such as site reviews and tentative subdivisions. Such signs were not suggested for the standards review process. Responding to a question from Councilor Pap~, Ms. Bishow explained how notice for the Type II process would work. Responding to a question from Councilor Meisner, Ms. Bishow said the only enabling legislation that required standards review for multi-family housing was included in Section 9.8465, which Councilor Kelly's motion would delete. Councilor Nathanson reiterated that a large display sign would be more effective in providing public notice than the City's traditional public notice procedure. She wished to extend the current code provisions for large display signs to include multi-family commercial development. Mr. Klein strongly urged the council to give direction to staff if it wished to make further changes to the code rather than attempting to craft policy "on the fly." Rayor said that he was interested in placing the burden of providing notice on the developer, which could save the City staff time and money. Councilor Bettman said that given the fact that otherwise the neighbors would lose their right to appeal along with their right of notice, she supported the amendment to the motion. Councilor Pap8 asked what recourse citizens would have if they felt a developer was not complying with the design standards. Ms. Jerome responded that there would be no recourse through the land use process, but a building permit could be appealed through a writ of review. Councilor Pap~ believed the council was overlapping the concept of design review with the concept of design standards. He suggested the City needed to go one direction or the other. If the City had clear and objective standards, he did not support adding a review process that included public notice. Councilor Meisner said he tended to agree with Councilor Pap~. When he considered the implications of the Type II review procedure, he anticipated appeals on every large commercial MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 9 Regular Meeting development, and if the City wanted to accomplish its goals he was willing to try a clear and objective standards approach. He did not support the amendment at this time. Once the code was implemented, he wanted to see how the standards worked, adding it may only take one development for him to change his mind about the issue. Meisner did not want to superimpose design review on design standards, adding there were significant staff costs involved. Roll call vote; the amendment to the amendment failed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Bettman, and Kelly voting yes. Roll call vote; the amendment passed, 7:1; Councilor Bettman voting no. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend Section 7 of the draft ordinance concerning land use regulations to provide: "Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the Eugene Charter of 1976, it is necessary for the orderly implementation of the new provisions and procedures adopted herein that this ordinance become effective 30 days after the effective date of a final court decision voiding Measure 7. If that date is less than six months from the date this ordinance is adopted, those sections referenced in Section 6 above shall not become effective until the six-month period has expired. If the date is more than six months, those sections shall become effective at the same time as the other provisions of this ordinance. If this final court decision finds Measure 7 valid, then this ordinance is automatically repealed." Councilor Bettman wanted to know why the motion stipulated the six-month's delay rather than stipulating the code would automatically go into effect if the measure was voided. Mr. Klein responded that the code had some provisions relating to vacation procedures and that, for those provisions, the charter calls for adoption with two-thirds majority and requires those provisions take effect in six months. The rest of the code could be implemented if the final court decision was handed down in six months' time. He added he doubted a decision could be expected within that time frame. Responding to a question from Councilor Taylor, Mr. Klein confirmed that the motion would delay implementation of the code, perhaps into fall 2001. Councilor Taylor questioned the purpose of passing the motion. Mr. Klein responded that by passing the ordinance now, any appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals would be addressed before the ordinance went into effect, avoiding the confusion the City faced in the adoption of the Whiteaker Plan. Councilor Meisner asked for clarification of what would occur if the Oregon Legislature decided to refer Measure 7 to the voters. Mr. Klein anticipated a final court decision even if there is a referral. If there is a referral, staff would return to the council with an amendment to the effective date clause. Councilor Kelly acknowledged the strength of the legal arguments in support of delaying implementation of the Land Use Code Update. He said it was important to adopt the code not only for the point made by Mr. Klein, but because the longer the delay, the hazier the institutional memory and the council's focus would no longer be on the code. Referring to the requests the council continued to receive for further code changes, Councilor Kelly believed the council had time to address those requests incrementally, after adoption, in code amendment "packages." MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 10 Regular Meeting Councilor Rayor believed the motion should be adopted because it addressed to some degree the uncertainty of the retroactivity of Measure 7. Mr. Klein concurred. Councilor Nathanson supported the motion. She acknowledged the effort represented by the update and regretted the code could not be implemented now. She noted Eugene's lack of support for Ballot Measure 7. Eugene wanted a strong code for purposes of supporting community values. In addition, the update was not intended to impose onerous new standards, but was intended to fix things in the code that were broken, to make improvements to existing code text, to clarify the code, and to reflect new and evolving community standards. Mayor Torrey supported the motion. He said the motion would give the council time to consider the ramifications of the code, and it recognized the risk facing the community. Councilor Meisner pointed out that the Growth Management Study policies were adopted unanimously by the council in response to a public outreach effort that involved thousands of people. The update was intended to implement those policies. Councilor Meisner said a court decision could happen anytime, and the motion allowed the update to be implemented as that decision was handed down. Councilor Pap~ expressed support for the motion. Mr. Klein recommended that the council delete the provision in the motion stipulating that the ordinance became effect 30 days following a court decision regarding Measure 7. He said that the provision was not needed. He recommended the motion read the ordinance would become effective on the effective date of a final court decision. Councilors Kelly and Taylor indicated acceptance of Mr. Klein's recommendation as a friendly amendment to the amendment. Roll call vote; the amendment, with the deletion of the provision that the ordinance became effective 30 days after the effective date of a final court decision voiding Measure 7 and with the addition of a provision that the ordinance would become effective on the effective date of a court decision, passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the draft ordinance concerning land use regulations as follows: A. Page 30, change title of term in definitions from "Parking Garage" to "Structured Parking." Change all references on zoning land use and permit requirement tables from "Parking Garage" to "Structured Parking". Page 54, clarify that the requirement for structured parking in C-3 applies to spaces that directly serve a primary use on the same development site by changing Accessory Use in Table 9.2160 to read: Accessory Use. An example includes storage and distribution incidental to the primary use of the site. Parking areas that are accessory to a primary use on the same development site shall comply with EC 9.2161(5). MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 11 Regular Meeting Page 59, change EC 9.2161(5) Parking Areas in C-3 to allow a more reasonable amount of surface parking by changing to read: (5) Parking Areas in C-3. Any parking spaces created after__ (effective date of ordinance) that exceed 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area, up to a maximum of 20 spaces per development site, shall be in structured parking. Councilor Kelly indicated that the amendments he was proposing were intended to clarify the intent of the motions the council passed last fall. The motion on the table clarified the council's intention in restricting surface parking lots. Councilor Bettman said she would support motions clarifying the council's intent, but would not support motions that were an attempt to revisit issues that had been previously decided. Councilor Meisner concurred. Councilor Nathanson supported the motion. She thanked Councilor Kelly and staff for their work in preparing the motion. Councilor Meisner believed that the motion represented a clarification of the council's previous action. Roll call vote; the amendment passed, 7:1, Councilor Pap8 voting no. Councilor Taylor moved to amend the draft ordinance concerning land use regulations as follows: 1. Page 17, amend definition to read: Dwelling, Secondary. A dwelling unit that is part of the same structure as a primary one-family dwelling and that is clearly subordinate to the primary one- family dwelling. 2. Page 103, amend Table 9.2740 Residential Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements, line Secondary Dwelling to read: Secondary Dwelling (Shall be Within the Same Structure as the Primary One- Family Dwelling on Same Lot.) 3. Page 106, amend EC 9.2741(2) Secondary Dwellings to read: (2) Secondary Dwellings. Secondary dwellings are only permitted in R-1 and shall conform to all of the following: (a) The dwelling shall not exceed 800 square feet unless occupying the full stow of a multi-stow structure with ground floor residential use. (b) Either the primary dwelling or the secondary dwelling shall be occupied by the property owner. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 12 Regular Meeting (c) There shall be at least 1 off-street parking space on the property. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the draft ordinance concerning land use regulations as follows: 1. Page 109, amend Table 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards to clarify outdoor living area requirements by referencing only "Minimum Total Open Space" and deleting references to "Common Open Space" and "Private Open Space." 2. Page 111, amend EC 9.2751 (12) to read: For multiple-family projects, refer to EC 9.5500(9) Open Space. 3. Page 113, amend EC 9.2761(5) to read: (5) Exceptions to the maximum lot size shall be granted if either of the following is met: (a) For circumstances such as topographically constrained lands, conservation easements, existing buildings, utility easements, and land divisions intended to reserve a large lot for future land division with feasibility demonstrated by a conceptual build out plan. (b) If the subdivision achieves an overall density of nine units per acre. 4. Page 286, amend EC 9.6883 Tree Verification to read: Prior to a site change that impacts a significant tree, a tree verification request form shall be submitted to the City. Councilor Kelly said that the motion represented clarifications of changes to the current draft. He thanked Roxie Cuellar of the Lane County Homebuilders Association for calling them to his attention. Councilor Meisner asked staff to confirm the motion reflected a clarification and had no other effect. Ms. Bishow concurred. Responding to a question from Councilor PapS, Ms. Bishow said that the tree verification request form would ensure verification before a building permit was issued that the trees impacted by development could be removed. Councilor Bettman asked if (5)(a) meant that a large lot could be set aside for future development. Ms. Bishow clarified that the developer could set aside, for example, a five-acre parcel as long as MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 13 Regular Meeting they provided information on the long-term build-out of that parcel and the street system that would serve it. She noted that Councilor Kelly's amendment was not specific to that section. Roll call vote; the amendment passed, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to amend the draft ordinance concerning Land Use Regulations as follows: 1. Page 106, amend EC 9.2741(1)(0 to read: In the areas described in (b) through (d) above, hospitals, clinics, or other medical facilities are permitted subject to an approved conditional use permit, and are not required to comply with the residential density requirements of Table 9.2750. 2. Page 106, amend EC 9.2741(1) to add a new subsection (g) to read: Except in the areas described in (b) through (d) above, hospitals, clinics, or other medical facilities are permitted, subject to an approved conditional use permit, if no more than 40 percent of the square footage of the land within the development site is used for medical facilities, and the remainder is dedicated to residential use in compliance with the density requirements of Table 9.2750. For purposes of this section, assisted living facilities, residential treatment centers, and nursing homes may be used to meet the density requirements at a ratio of 1.5 beds equals 1 dwelling. Mayor Torrey indicated that PeaceHealth had requested the clarification reflected in the first part of the amendment. Ms. Bishow said that PeaceHealth was concerned the draft ordinance could be misinterpreted by a reasonable person and requested the change to avoid future debate. Councilor Kelly was comfortable with the first section of the amendment as a clarification. However, the second section appeared to "water down" the residential density goals the council had been trying to accomplish in its original motion. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Meisner, moved to amend the amendment by dropping item 2 from the amendment. Mayor Torrey explained that PeaceHealth had argued that there were limited uses for its planned facilities at Goodpasture Island, and it believed assisted living was a residential use. PeaceHealth would like to see that interpretation codified. Mr. Farmer said the amendment attempted to suggest that whatever qualified as a person's permanent address for census purposes should meet the definition of residential purposes. If a place could be considered a person's permanent address, it should be added to the list of medical or quasi-medical facilities that could help meet residential density requirements. Councilor Bettman supported Councilor Kelly's amendment to the amendment. She said the council discussed the issue reflected in the motion at some length and agreed the densities allowed in the existing refinement plan would prevail. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 14 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly said that with regard to assisted living facilities, the second element of the amendment was not needed to allow those facilities to be counted toward residential densities. The code already defined assisted living as counting toward residential density. Ms. Bishow recalled that a prior council action allowed assisted living facilities to be counted as dwelling units. The same was not true of residential treatment centers or nursing homes. Councilor Kelly said that another problem he had with the second element of the amendment was that it reinstituted the 40/60 square footage split. Staff had determined the council's intent was better realized through having the property comply with the residential density requirements of the underlying base zone. Councilor Pap~ said if the council was trying to achieve residential densities, nursing homes had some of the highest around. Ms. Bishow concurred with Mr. Farmer that people reside in such facilities, sometimes for long periods of time. To be consistent with the council's actions on assisted living, she recommended that the council allow residential treatment centers and nursing homes to be used to meet density requirements. Councilor Nathanson suggested the impact of such facilities were more like an apartment building than a grocery store; for that reason, she was inclined to support allowing such uses to count toward residential density. She also agreed with Councilor Kelly about eliminating the 40/60 split. Councilor Meisner expressed concern that adoption of the amendment originally proposed would eliminate the last sentence in EC 9.2741(1)(c) regarding the conversion of residential land. Ms. Bishow did not believe that was the intent, although it might be the effect. She clarified that the section in question was EC 9.2741(1)(0, and Councilor Meisner was correct in that (c) required new clinics on new R-3 property to comply. She suggested that the amendment be specific to areas described in (b) and (d). Councilor Meisner indicated concurrence and that the word "through" be changed to "and." The council agreed to a modified amendment that changed the text in Item 1 to read: "In the areas described in (b) and (d) above..." Roll call vote; the motion as amended to clarify reference to "(b) and (d)" and deleting Item 2 passed, 5:3; councilors Pap~, Fart, and Nathanson voting no. Responding to a question from Councilor Pap~, Ms. Bishow recommended that, to allow a use to count toward density as an option regardless of zoning, the council amend page 34 regarding residential treatment centers, and page 29 regarding nursing homes, and add to both provisions the same two sentences in the definition of assisted living on page 11. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to amend the draft ordinance concerning land use regulations as follows: 1. Page 34, amend the definition of Residential Treatment Center to add the following text: "For purposes of determining residential density, if the design of the facility does not contain dwellings, as defined in this land use code, then every 1.5 beds equals 1 dwelling. Fractional dwellings shall be rounded to the next highest integer, e.g. 2 beds equals 2 dwellings." MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 15 Regular Meeting 2. Page 29, amend the definition of Nursing Homes to add the following text: "For purposes of determining residential density, if the design of the facility does not contain dwellings, as defined in this land use code, then every 1.5 beds equals 1 dwelling. Fractional dwellings shall be rounded to the next highest integer, e.g. 2 beds equals 2 dwellings." Councilor Kelly said he could support the addition as proposed. Councilor Bettman recalled the council's discussion on the issue focused on the fact the facilities in question would have an impact on the neighborhoods they were located in and the fact nursing homes and residential treatment facilities had residents who were not part of the neighborhood and who were essentially interned or at the facility as sort of an extended hospital stay. She objected to the motion because the council had already discussed the issues involved. Councilor Taylor thought assisted living facilities could be considered the homes of those who lived in them, but she did not think the same was true of nursing homes because people often stayed only a short time after a hospital visit or accident. Councilor Nathanson observed that the nursing homes she had seen in Eugene and other cities generally looked like separate, standalone residential facilities rather than the wing of a hospital. Councilor Meisner supported the amendment, reminding the council it was discussing special use limitations in the R-3 and R-4 zones. He said if an abuse arose, the council could change the code. Roll call vote; the amendment passed, 6:2, councilors Bettman and Taylor voting no. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the draft ordinance concerning land use regulations as follows: 1. Page 75, change EC 9.2451(1) Office Allowance in I-1 to read: (1) Office Allowance in I-1. At least fifty percent of a building designed and used primarily for office use shall be occupied by a single tenant. In addition, any office building constructed after April I, 2201 __ (insert effective date of ordinance) shall require approval as part of a business park according to site review or planned unit development procedures. At least 50% of the total ground floor area on the ...... v ........... within the business park shall be in industrial use. The total office space, combined with any commercial support services, shall not exceed 50% of the total ground floor area on t~e ~ .... ~ .....· ' ........ ~, ....... s:te within the business park. (For purposes of this code, the term "industrial use" includes all uses in the catego~T categories of "Manufacturing" and "Information Technology Services", and the following uses: laboratory, includes medical, dental and x-ray; broadcasting studio; regional distribution center; printing, blueprinting, and duplicating; and publishing service. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 16 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly said that the motion was another attempt to clarify an earlier action. He pointed out the changes proposed for the section. Councilor Rayor suggested the reference to "the business park" in sentence four of the motion be changed to "a business park." He thought the original text was preferable as it covered all the different types of development that could occur. Ms. Bishow said that the initial language could potentially allow a business park to be divided into smaller parcels with different ownerships. The new text stipulated that all land inside the original business park boundaries must be looked at. She added that there was nothing now in the code to prevent someone from calling already developed property a business park. Mr. Farmer suggested the council address that loophole with the addition of a clause that stated "For purposes of inclusion of office space within a business park, industrial square footage existing on (effective date of ordinance) can not be included for calculation purposes in business parks unless the industrial square footage was approved and constructed through a site review or planned unit development procedure prior to (effective date of ordinance)." Councilors Kelly and Taylor accepted Mr. Farmer's suggested text as a friendly amendment to the motion. Roll call vote; the motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to replace the references to April 1, 2001, with whatever the effective date of the ordinance was. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey raised an issue regarding communications from citizens who were pointing out problems in the new code. Ms. Bishow responded that in the period before the code went into effect, staff would pay close attention to correspondence from the development community or other interest groups that certain code provisions would be difficult or costly to implement. Councilor Nathanson referred to an e-mail communication from Philip Farrington regarding restrictions adopted by the council regarding parking between a building and the street and asked if the requirement mentioned was a bad idea or an oversight. She said that the restrictions might not work for hospitals and other uses where people with disabilities need to park close by. Ms. Bishow said that the council was very clear about the topic and had decided to restrict parking between a building and the street. She said that the use mentioned by Councilor Nathanson could go through an adjustment review. Ms. Bishow did not think it appropriate to single out a specific commercial use as receiving an outright modification to the standards without more analysis. Councilor Kelly added that there were design alternatives that could address the concern expressed by Mr. Farrington. Councilor Nathanson asked for a staff response to a letter from the University of Oregon. Mr. Farmer indicated staff only had not yet had time to review the letter, which had only been received that day. City Manager Johnson said the council would consider Council Bill 4760 by number only. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 17 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0, and became Ordinance No. 20224. Ms. Childs emitted a sound of joy. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare for council consideration in April an option to implement a dual code track until such time as Measure 7 is resolved and the Land Use Code Update can be implemented as the new code. Councilor Bettman said she offered the motion because Eugene did not support Measure 7 and because there were probably just as many people wanting to use the new code as objected to it. There was no time line on what will happen with Measure 7, and a lot of development could occur before its resolution. If staff returned with a proposal the council approved, citizens could have the option of using the new code if they wished. Councilor Kelly acknowledged the council's adoption of the Land Use Code Update and thanked the entire Planning and Development Department, particularly Ms. Bishow, and the hundreds of citizens who provided input into the code. Councilor Kelly said that because of the long time frame for resolution of Measure 7, it was worth spending some staff time on alternatives. The motion merely directed staff to explore the feasibility of a dual track. He thought it worth the exploration. Councilor Kelly suggested another possibility was the possibility of applying a code waiver provision to avoid a potential claims filing. He asked Councilor Bettman if she would accept a friendly amendment that staff would explore the potential. Councilor Bettman said no; unless Measure 7 was voided completely, no one had to abide by the new code. Citizens could use the old code, so a waiver was already in place. Councilor Kelly clarified he was not proposing that a waiver be imposed on a dual track; rather, instead of having staff investigate one approach, have staff investigate two independent approaches. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Meisner, moved to amend the motion to direct staff to investigate the possibility of a waiver. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Kelly, Meisner, Fart, and Nathanson voting yes; councilors Taylor, Rayor, Pap~, and Bettman voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the motion. The final vote was 5:4, and the motion passed. Councilor Nathanson asked how likely it was someone would choose to use the new code. Ms. Bishow thought there were some developers who would elect to use the new code because it contained development rights not currently in the existing code. Also, there was some community anxiety about the lack of certainty regarding when the new standards took affect existed, and designers who were looking ahead would prefer to use the new code. Others would attempt to submit applications before the new code took effect. Councilor Bettman asked that the research include other communities that offered their residents a dual code track. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 18 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; the amended motion passed, 7:1, Councilor Rayor voting no. City Manager Johnson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4761, an Ordinance Concerning Tree Removal and Replacement; Amending Sections 6.300, 6.305, 6.320, 6.325, 6.330, and 6.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending and Renumbering Section 6.310 of that Code to 6.315; and Adding New Sections 6.302, 6.304, 6.310 and 6.335 to that Code. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to add Section 4 to thc Ordinance Concerning Tree Removal and Replacement to provide: "Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the Eugene Charter of 1976, it is necessary to further the orderly implementation of the new provisions and procedures adopted herein that this ordinance become effective 30 days after the effective date of a final court decision voiding Measure 7. If this final court decision finds Measure 7 valid, then this ordinance is automatically repealed." Ms. Jerome recommended that, as it had previously done, the council delete the reference to the 30 days following a court decision regarding Measure 7 as the provision was not needed. She also suggested adding the phrase "and providing an effective date" to the caption of the ordinance. Councilors Kelly and Taylor indicated acceptance of the recommendation as a friendly amendment to the amendment. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the Draft Ordinance Concerning Tree Removal and Replacement as follows: 1. Page 5, amend EC 6.304 Tree Removal and Replacement to read: "Prior to a site change that impacts a significant tree, a tree verification request form shall be submitted to the City..." Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. City Manager Johnson said the council would consider Council 4761 by council bill number only. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0, and became Ordinance No. 20225. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 19 Regular Meeting James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 20 Regular Meeting