Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/08/01 Meeting MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Harris Hall-Lane County Public Service Building October 8, 2001 8p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS, Bonny Bettman, Pat Farr (after 8:20). COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Taylor called the meeting to order. I.PUBLIC FORUM Nick Urhausen, 2858 Warren, raised concern about a questionnaire on racial profiling being used by Eugene Police Officers during traffic stops. He opined that the questionnaire was a waste of officers' time and added his opinion that the council was "toying" with officers. Councilor Pap8 noted that the questionnaire was a police project attempting to identify racial profiling issues in a proactive way and that it was endorsed by the Police Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and Police Chief Jim Hill. II.CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Council Minutes 1. September 10, 2001, Work Session 2. September 10, 2001, Regular Session 3. September 12, 2001, Work Session 4. September 19, 2001, Work Session 5. September 24, 2001, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Resolution 4690; Authorizing the Sale, by Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), of $85 Million of Electric System Revenue Bonds for Reduction of Pension Obligations, for Certain Electric Utility Capital Improvements, and to Refund Certain Prior Incurred Indebtedness MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 1 Regular Session D. Resolution 4691; Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from the Reserve for Encumbrances to Departments and to Nondepartmental Accounts Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman had changes to the minutes. She offered clarification to the second paragraph of page 10 of the September 12 work session minutes. She suggested adding the following language: "...that route did not have as high a concentration of commercial, office, and industrial density, whereas..." Referring to the minutes of the September 19 work session, Councilor Bettman offered the following: In the first sentence of the third paragraph on page 3, she asked that the term "universal build" be changed to "MetroNet"; on the same page in the fifth line of the fourth paragraph, she asked that the word "public" be placed in front of the word "utilities"; on page six in the fourth paragraph, she suggested that the word "without" be replaced with "did not"; on the same page in the fifth paragraph, she said that the word "without" should be replaced by "within geographic areas." Moving on to the minutes of the September 24 work session, Councilor Bettman suggested the following changes: on page 5, paragraph 5, noted that she had been referring to the Community Involved Policing Action Plan rather than the Capital Improvement Program; on page 11 in the third paragraph, she noted that "emotion" should read "emotional." Roll call vote; the motion, with the minutes as amended, passed unanimously. III.PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Amending Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971, Adopting a Severability Clause, and Providing an Immediate Effective Date Teresa Bishow of the Planning and Development Department said that the item before the council was the first set of minor code amendments to amend the land use code adopted earlier in the year. She noted that the proposed amendments were minor in scope and did not raise policy issues previously acted upon. She went on to say that the amendments clarified code provisions, improved the distinction between what standards applied to existing buildings versus new development, and reduced the requirement for professional services in certain areas. She cited the requirement for a certified Landscape Architect to prepare landscape-related plans. She noted that the testimony before the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions, as well as that submitted later than Wednesday of the previous week, had been documented and was included in the council packet. Ms. Bishow submitted three additional items into the record: 1. A letter from Ken Nagao, addressing State law on landscape architects in Oregon. 2. A letter from Bill Kloos requesting written notice, under ORS 197.615, of adoption of any ordinance amending the Land Use Code Update (LUCU). MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 2 Regular Session 3. A letter from Goebel Engineering & Surveying, including a site plan of a proposed tentative partition, asserting that the code had limitations in regard to needed housing in the City. Councilor Taylor opened the public hearing. Kate McGee, 1466 Washington Street, expressed her desire to allowing only certified landscape architects to be able to plan and approve landscapes under the new code. She also raised concern that the minimum landscape requirements required by the code were too large. She added her preference that, rather than a list of approved plants listed in the code, there should be a list of prohibited plants. Daniel Hill, Arbor South Architecture, 4765 Village Plaza Loop, urged the council to return to the original code language regarding the 50-percent lot coverage rule. He maintained that density and lot limitations on lot coverage were not compatible and opined that the use of such rules was making lifestyle choices for citizens rather than providing good public policy. Martin Gascoyne, 78022 Pitcher Lane, spoke in opposition to allowing only certified landscape architects to prepare landscaping plans, but spoke in support of having a list of prohibited plants rather than a list of approved plants in the code. Mark Peeters, 2773 Kismet Way, stressed that non-certified landscape planners were capable enough to handle landscape work. Terry Connolly, representing the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, said that the chamber supported the amendments proposed by City staff. He stressed the importance of maintaining flexibility within the code. Regarding underground utilities, Mr. Connolly cited Eugene Code 9.6775, and said that the proposed language amendment helped to clarify when utility connections were required to be underground and when they were allowed to be above ground. He noted that EWEB and the chamber had concerns that reconstruction projects would pay more for underground utility connections than the cost of the actual projects. He urged the council to support the language amendments. Craig Timmons, 1220 Goodpasture Island Road, raised concern that by excluding non-landscape architects from being able to prepare landscaping plans, the code was excluding knowledgeable people. Steve Gab, 1818 Villard Street, encouraged the council to accept the staff-proposed amendments to Eugene Code 9.2171 and 9.2173. He stressed that non-landscape architects should not be excluded. He also encouraged the creation of a routine procedure for reviewing unintended MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 3 Regular Session consequences in the updated Land Use Code so that making changes did not have to be such an involved process. Carol Schirmer, 1725 Pearl Street, opined that using only certified landscape architects did not increase costs or time involved in development projects. She urged that the current language be maintained. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, spoke as a representative of the Lane County Homebuilders Association. She urged that the maximum lot coverage be returned to its previous language, as proposed by staff. She remarked that it was impossible to get under 50 percent lot coverage under the wording in the updated Land Use Code. She also called for maximum driveway width to be changed to a maximum of 27 feet, rather than the current maximum of 18 feet, or to return to the previous code language. Mike Gansen, 362 Highway 99, called for a return to the previous code language regarding driveway width, setbacks on flag lots, and maximum lot coverage. He commented that the old code language was not causing any problems. Robert Rippee, 815 Sundance Street, said that his business was being hobbled by the maximum lot coverage and driveway width language in the new code. He commented that he was "disadvantaged and disheartened" by the Land Use Code. James R. Hanks, 4765 Village Plaza Loop, expressed his support for the Planning Commission recommendation of increasing parking limitations for call centers. He stressed that call centers had a much higher density of employees in their buildings and stressed the urgent need for increased parking to accommodate their numbers. He opined that call centers would have to leave the area if the problem was not addressed. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, thanked staff for working to clear up accidental errors in the updated Land Use Code. He raised concern over Eugene Code Section 9.6710 and stressed the importance of making sure that development on slopes with over a 20 percent grade were safely designed. Patrick Mustoe, 4021 Hampshire Street, spoke in favor of using old code language for maximum lot coverage and maximum driveway width. He urged the council to return to the old code language or get more practical numbers from the Public Works Department. Mike Butler, Future B Homes, 2053 Laura Street, spoke against an 18-foot maximum driveway width. He stressed the need for people to be able to park their vehicles off the street and opined that the new code language was driving new residential growth out of the city limits to outlying areas. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 4 Regular Session Brad Stangeland, 285 Lawrence, commented that there were other professionals besides certified landscape architects that could be trusted to approve landscaping plans. Douglass Moorehead, 1460 Flintridge Street, commented that if the new code language was not amended, development would move to outside the city limits and builders within the City would be put out of business. He urged the council to return to the old code language. He opined that the new code language was "over regulation" and "foolish." Robin Hostick, 2150 Adams Street, maintained that allowing only licensed landscaped architects to plan and review landscape designs would maintain public health, safety, and welfare. Jou Belcher, 1190 West 17th Avenue, Chair of the Eugene Planning Commission, made himself available to answer questions from the council during its deliberations. Councilor Taylor closed the public hearing. In response to a question from Councilor Farr regarding the reasoning behind the 18-foot maximum width for driveways, Ms. Bishow said that the primary reasoning was to improve neighborhood livability and to eliminate the amount of front yard setback area that was devoted to the driveway. She noted that there was no prohibition on the size of the garage or the total number of cars that could be parked off street. Councilor Farr commented that his idea of streetscaping did not have cars lined up along the street and houses without enough parking to have a guest park. He added that an 18-foot driveway did not allow enough room for cars to park side-by-side and said that to enable two cars to park in a driveway, it would have to be extended in length which would add impervious surface and affect the 50 percent maximum lot coverage rule. Ms. Bishow said that staff had done further analysis on the driveway width and had agreed that there was an unintended consequence of adding to impervious surface area of a home. She acknowledged that the Planning Commission recommendation of a 27-foot maximum would accommodate the straight drive-in entrance and exit of a two-car garage. In response to a question from Councilor Farr regarding the previous code language limitations, Ms. Bishow said that the previous code allowed for 50 percent of the front yard setback to be landscaped and the rest was allowed to be driveway. She noted that staff had recommended using the old code language until more analysis could be done. She said that this could be accomplished by a motion to amend Section 28 of the ordinance to modify subsection (7)(a)(2) by deleting the last two sentences. Councilor Farr raised concern that a maximum width of 18 feet would cause complications with disabled people who had needs for extra space for vehicle access. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 5 Regular Session Councilor Rayor noted that staff was proposing changing the code language on lot coverage back to the old code language and added that the staff proposal was to eliminate the requirement for a certified landscape architect to approve landscaping plans. He raised concern that people who testified were unclear as to the intent of the staff recommendations. Councilor Meisner expressed his concern that there was not better communication between staff and the community. Ms. Bishow said that future amendments could have public information sessions before council meetings to keep the community aware of staff's intentions and the Planning Commission's recommendations. Councilor Rayor said that he had submitted testimony on geotechnical standards to Ms. Bishow, the former Public Works Director, the former City Engineer, and the new Public Works Director, and none of it had been reflected in staff's documentation. He raised concern that there was not adequate communication between the departments. Councilor Rayor questioned the need for requiring geotechnical testing for grades above 3 percent grades. He noted that this was essentially all areas. He cited his testimony that had used the City of Gresham's requirements which he believed were better planned. He raised concern that the new code language was too restrictive. Regarding flag lots, Councilor Rayor said the City was doing an injustice to current owners of flag lots by implementing the current code language. Ms. Bishow said that this was the first time that geotechnical standards had been dealt with in the Land Use Code. She clarified that the level one analysis was only triggered if there was a public improvement, such as a street, with slopes less than ten percent or if the property was subject to site review subdivision or planned unit development. She said that staff would review the matter to see if further adjustments were needed. Councilor Bettman expressed her appreciation for the testimony but said that there was no one representing the salmon or mothers looking for a safe, walkable, streetscape. She stressed her need to balance the testimony with other kinds of considerations. She said that she would support the return to old code language on lot coverage but would not support a return to old language on maximum driveway width. She said that the idea for maximum driveway width was for pedestrian-friendly streets and neighborhoods and looking at impervious surfaces. She raised concern over front yards that resembled parking lots. She remarked that plenty of communities across the country were requiring narrowed driveways. Councilor Kelly thanked staff for getting the revisions to the council in a timely fashion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 6 Regular Session Councilor Pap~ thanked the people who testified. He remarked that the testimony was some of the best he had heard. City Manager Johnson asked that the council consider Council Bill 4771, an ordinance concerning land use regulations; amending Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971, adopting a severability clause, and providing an immediate effective date. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Meisner, moved that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read a second time by number only and that enactment be considered at that time. Councilor Kelly, seconded Councilor Meisner, moved to amend Section 3 of the ordinance to revise Section 9.2161(5) to read: Parking Areas in C-3. For surface parking spaces created after August 1, 2001, there shall be at least 1,000 square feet of floor area on the development site for each new parking space created. The maximum number of surface parking spaces on a development site shall be 20. All parking spaces in excess of these limits shall be in structured parking. Councilor Kelly said that the intent of the amendment was to return to the original intent of the council. In response to a question from Councilor Farr regarding what was included in C-3 zoning, Ms. Bishow said that C-3 was the central commercial zone in downtown Eugene that allowed a wide range of commercial usage and the highest level of density for commercial zoning districts. She cited law offices, theaters, structured parking, and retail as examples of uses allowed under the zoning. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~ regarding the existence of C-3 areas other than downtown Eugene, Ms. Bishow said there was a small area at 13th Avenue and Kincaid Street. She noted that where C-3 zoning occurred, the businesses were exempt from providing off-street parking. The amendment passed unanimously. Councilor Bettman raised concern over Section 5 of the ordinance. She called for keeping the provision but directing staff to bring back an option that would facilitate redevelopment but not require such a huge increase in size before the maximum front yard setback was triggered. There was general consensus among the council. Councilor Farr, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved to amend the ordinance by changing 9.6745(7) by deleting the last two sentences in paragraph 2. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 7 Regular Session Councilor Farr said that the deletion would revert the code to the old language. He commented that the worst kind of streetscaping was cars parked on the street and the worst form of pedestrian safety was also cars parked on the street. He stressed the importance of allowing cars to be parked off the street. He raised concern with children running out from between parked cars. Councilor Kelly said the amendment, as written, would change the current width of 18 feet to 27 feet. He said that by striking the last two sentences it would open the interpretation up to allow 50 percent of the front yard setback to be driveway. He said he would not support the motion. Councilor Rayor commented that the staff proposal would allow 27 feet. He said he would not support the motion. Councilor Meisner was against the motion. He stressed that the staff recommendation would allow 27 feet. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~ regarding known examples of poor development around driveway width, Mr. Belcher cited a house on 18th Avenue in which the entire front yard was paved. Councilor Taylor called for a vote. The amendment failed, 5:2; councilors Pap~ and Farr voting in favor. Councilor Bettman moved to remove sections 5, 7, 28, and 19 from the ordinance for further consideration. Roll call vote; the motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to remove Section 28 from the ordinance. Councilor Farr clarified that if the motion failed the Planning Commission recommendation of a 27-foot driveway maximum width would come into effect. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 4:3; councilors Bettman, Kelly and Taylor voting in favor. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~ regarding flag lots, Ms. Bishow said that flag lot standards were not proposed for revision except for reinserting a clarification regarding the maximum number of flag lots on a panhandle. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 8 Regular Session Councilor Pap~ called for staff to come back with options on how to better address the flag lot standards with special attention to setback and height limitations. There was general consensus on the council. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend Section 9.2175(7) by deleting subsection 2. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Farr voting in opposition. Councilor Rayor called for staff to clarify the language around geotechnical studies for slope. There was general consensus among the council. In response to a question from Councilor Farr regarding a review process to expedite review of code issues, Ms. Bishow said staff would take it under consideration. Councilor Bettman called for options for a trigger point on certain landscape projects that would require the services of a certified landscape architect. There was general consensus. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~ regarding what would happen with the lot coverage rule if the motion were passed as it currently stood, Ms. Bishow said that the lot coverage rule would then revert to old code language. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman regarding the language around maximum driveway width, Ms. Bishow said row houses would need to have driveway/garage access from a rear alley. Regarding multi-family residential, Ms. Bishow said that those were typically larger lots that might have multiple driveways that had two-way traffic with wider ingress/egress situations. She stressed that there had been no problems with driveway widths for multi-family housing under the old code. Councilor Bettman raised concern that there was no longer a maximum driveway width above a single family or secondary dwelling. Ms. Bishow stressed that there was a maximum of one-half of the lot frontage. Roll call vote; the motion, as amended, passed unanimously. City Manager Johnson asked the Council to consider Council Bill 4771 by number only. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Farr, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 9 Regular Session James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 10 Regular Session