Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes -10/24/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall October 24, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Par Farr, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Taylor called the meeting to order. Ms. Taylor determined from City Attorney Glenn Klein that the mayor's vote to break the council's tie vote on the appointment of Jennifer Solomon to the Budget Committee was a legal vote under the City Charter. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to reconsider the motion of October 22 reappointing Jennifer Solomon to the Budget Committee. Mr. Rayor said he thought the council should reopen the application process. He thought it would increase options and opportunities available to the council. The motion to reconsider passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Pap8 voting no. The motion to reappoint Jennifer Solomon was recognized as being back on the table. Mr. Fart spoke against the motion, saying Ms. Solomon had spent three years on the Budget Committee and had gained a great deal of experience during that time. He said it was absurd not to reappoint someone who had served on the committee and wanted to continue to serve. The only time such a situation occurred before was when the council failed to reappoint Steve Lee to the Budget Committee. He said it seemed to be a pattern that anyone who was in favor of business would not be reappointed to the committee by this council. He said he was astounded, shocked, and dismayed. Ms. Bettman maintained that the "overwhelming majority" of Budget Committee members were business representatives; for example, they worked for insurance companies and were bankers. She welcomed the opportunity to reopen the application process to get greater income diversity on the committee. Mr. Kelly recalled that the council wanted to interview Mr. Lee for reappointment; Mr. Lee declined to be interviewed and withdrew his appointment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Rayor said his whole concern was based on Ms. Solomon's performance and participation on the committee, and not her affiliations or place of residence. He maintained that he had seen very little participation on Ms. Solomon's part in three years. Mr. Pap8 said it was his understanding that Mr. Lee was not available on the night interviews were scheduled. He said that why Mr. Lee was not reappointed "remained around the table." He indicated he would not repeat his remarks of October 22, but that they still applied. Mr. Meisner clarified that reopening the application process did not preclude Ms. Solomon from being considered with other future candidates for appointment to the committee. Ms. Nathanson said that from the council's appointments to the Planning Commission and Citizen Charter Review Committee, it was not obvious to her that the council was interested in a diversity of opinion or in maintaining a balance across all committees. Mr. Farr said that like the council, there were members of the Budget Committee who talked more than other members. Other people were succinct, or if they agree with what had been said, did not feel compelled to speak. He was discouraged that the amount of time Ms. Solomon talked at meetings was being used to "railroad" her off the Budget Committee. Mr. Farr said that no matter what was said about Ms. Solomon still being under consideration, he "saw the handwriting on the wall" and hoped the public was watching the way the council did business. Mr. Rayor concurred with Mr. Meisner's remarks. He wanted Ms. Solomon to continue to be a part of the applicant pool. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. PapS, and Mr. Farr voting no. Mr. Fart left the meeting briefly. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to reopen the nomination for the vacant position on the Budget Committee, with the new application deadline being October 31, 2001, and stating that Ms. Solomon was part of the applicant pool for the subsequent appointment process. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Pap~ voting no, and Mr. Fart being out of the room at the time the vote was taken. Mr. Fart returned to the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 2 Work Session A. Work Session: Post Land Use Code Update Work Program Jan Childs and Planning Commission President Jon Belcher joined the council for the item. Ms. Childs called the council's attention to the agenda item summary included in the meeting packet, specifically Attachment A, Summary of Planning Commission Recommendations: Post Land Use Code Update Work Program, and Attachment B, List of Post Land Use Code Update Work Program Items, with Planning Commission Recommendations. The first attachment reflected the commission's priorities for the work program. Ms. Childs reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations for the post-Land Use Code Update work program, noting the high- and medium-priority items as well as the commission's recommendation for medium priorities to be addressed in a Spring 2002 code amendments package. She also noted the commission's suggestion that one work item be included in the Greater Downtown Visioning implementation work program, and its determination that one work program item (Find ways to re-establish home ownership in the University area to increase long- term residency) was outside the scope of the work program. Mr. Farr left the meeting. Ms. Childs said that the commission recommended that the council direct staff to move forward with developing the scope of work and budget for the top three priority items. She reminded the council that the Budget Committee had declined to fund staff to work on the code amendments. Staff had indicated that because of that, code amendments would be addressed on a case-by-base basis. Ms. Childs said that the issue caused her concern, and she recommended that the funding question be revisited in the next budget cycle. The commission believed that a modest amount of funding ($10,000 from Contingency Funds) would allow completion of items 2, 7, and 3 within already established work programs. Mr. Belcher indicated the Planning Commission was interested in doing what it could, recognizing the funding limitations. He invited questions. Mr. Meisner said the commission did a good job of prioritizing the work plan items. He expressed satisfaction that the City was going to work to limit the conversion of residential housing in the areas surrounding downtown. He invited additional suggestions from the commission for combining items. He acknowledged staffing constraints in the Planning Division but pointed to the fact the City was in the post-update stage and had just adopted TransPlan with its land use and planning implications. He expressed hope that management would look carefully at staff assignments to determine how personnel could be used more efficiently. Ms. Bettman shared Mr. Meisner's satisfaction that progress would be made in stopping the conversion of residential housing in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown. She continued to be interested in the concepts that the council had talked about in connection with the work program item related to reestablishing home ownership in the University area and thought the MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 3 Work Session wording of the item did not reflect those concepts. She suggested that whatever strategies the City developed to limit conversion of housing around downtown could also be applied in the University neighborhood, and given her belief that the bulk of work would be done through that effort, indicated she would like to see the two items combined. She thought the issue was within the commission's purview. Ms. Bettman thought that the description of the intent behind cottage zoning and asset mapping as reflected in the commission's minutes mischaracterized the council's discussion and the understanding of the issues. She thought it appropriate that the comprehensive review of the Zoning Map occur in conjunction with the creation of asset mapping, and advocated for the incorporation of density dispersal in the item. Ms. Nathanson said she had been working on the issue of home ownership in the University area for many years. She concurred with the commission's assessment of the work plan item, suggesting that the issue had less to do with residential conversions than with property values and the tax incentives and disincentives associated with conversions. She further suggested that the issue was less about conversion of residential structures to commercial uses than it was about further partitioning existing residential structures into smaller residential units. Ms. Nathanson thought the solutions were different, and could include such things as joint ownership and condominiums. She asked the manager for input on how the council could pursue the issue. Referring to Item 17, Provide a mechanism to minimize adjacent curb cuts in commercial development, Ms. Nathanson asked if it related to the council's discussion about internal circulation within commonly owned commercial developments or adjacent developments in different ownership. Ms. Childs believed the item was related to that discussion. Ms. Nathanson indicated interest in more discussion with staff about what the council was looking for. Referring to Item 10, Direct the Planning Commission to investigate design review and an alternative path review process, Ms. Nathanson stated that she did not support design review, although she supported examination of design standards or guidelines. She did not favor a separate appointed body to do design review. Mr. Kelly reminded the council and staff that all 22 items received support from a council majority for further study. He acknowledged, however, that the commission was limited by time. He was comfortable with the priorities the commission recommended. However, Mr. Kelly was troubled that it would be nine months before work began on the high-priority items and was frustrated some of the items could not move ahead in a more timely fashion. He proposed that staff prepare budgets and work programs that allowed the commission to proceed with the priority items simultaneously. Mr. Kelly pointed out to Ms. Nathanson that some cities use their planning commissions or a subcommittee to do design review, so it might not mean a new body was needed. He indicated support for the examination. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Pap~ said it was clear from Ms. Childs' remarks about the budget that the council must help prioritize the items. He asked how other efforts, such as the Broadway reopening, fit with the commission's and division's work. Ms. Childs indicated that the council had funded a consultant to assist the division with the Broadway reopening. That effort was separate from the list of post- update items. Mr. Pap~ indicated his disagreement with Mr. Kelly about design review, saying it would increase the bureaucratic process. He said that if design review was included in an alternative process and was optional, he supported it. Mr. Rayor said that the resolution of flag lot and alley lot standards appeared to be missing from the list. He thought the issue was a huge one for infill development and the standards had a big economic impact on the owners of such lots. Ms. Childs reminded Mr. Rayor that the council had asked staff to return with options to address the issue. She said that the issue was a policy one for the council and did not involve much staff time. Mr. Rayor questioned the need for proceeding on items 14 and 10 if the expense was high. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen to the work program items not prioritized. Ms. Childs said that none of the items would be forgotten, but they could not all be done at once, which was why items were prioritized. Ms. Taylor advocated for heightening the priority of Item 4, related to the development of additional tree preservation standards for heritage trees and a process to identify heritage trees in the community. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Childs confirmed that the new code contained standards related to "big box" stores, but they were adopted too late to stop recent "big box" developments. Ms. Taylor noted her dislike for condominium development as an undesirable development type and noted the detrimental effect that condominium conversions could have on low-income residents. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the issues related to home ownership in the University area went beyond the issue of residential conversions, but she still wanted to see midtown and West University neighborhood issues as an addendum to whatever the commission developed in regard to the work plan item on conversion. She suggested that the council agree that whatever came out of the process could be applied where appropriate to midtown and the West University neighborhood. Ms. Childs believed that any strategies developed through the greater Downtown Visioning implementation effort that were applicable in other areas could be added to the "tool kit" for the areas mentioned by Ms. Bettman. She said that there appeared to be general council concurrence from the nodding heads she was seeing at the table. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman believed that the City lacked staff to work on the high-priority items because of the resources required for the code amendments. She said that it became apparent at the last hearing that many of the issues that were being addressed through that process were not housekeeping omissions or errors, but actual policy issues. She proposed that the City postpone the Spring 2002 amendments until fall, and proceed with the high-priority items, especially the alternative path, because the intent of adopting it for the post-update work program was to give the City a mechanism to deal with policy issues that came up through the adopted code. Ms. Nathanson said in the past she had suggested an Amazon Creek overlay zone. She wanted to promote Amazon Creek as a linear neighborhood park running through the city. If the creek was enhanced it could increase the value of nearby residential and commercial neighborhood. Current development patterns, with buildings with the back to the creek, resulted in trash and junk along the creek in certain places. She was particularly interested in the redevelopment possibilities that existed along the creek west of downtown to the city limits. Ms. Nathanson asked if it was possible to include discussion of the overlay zone during the commission's discussion of design standards in south Eugene given the creek's status as the northern boundaries for the south hills. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's remarks regarding condominiums, Ms. Nathanson noted that the renter- owner ratio in the West University neighborhood was approximately 98:2, a very unhealthy ratio. She wanted to improve that ratio and thought improvement would benefit all residents. She respected the issue Ms. Taylor raised, and said it was a legitimate concern but easy to avoid the problems that could be created. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Nathanson's remarks about condominium development, acknowledging the concerns raised by Ms. Taylor, but pointing out that no one was advocating for the wholesale conversion of residences to condominium complexes. He wanted to look at what other cities had done. He said that in some places a house could be divided and people could own a floor of the house. Mr. Meisner indicated that if he agreed to fold density dispersal into items 1 and 14, he was not agreeing to a density dispersal policy that was a tool for areas to use to stop densification. Mr. Meisner did not question the value of the Amazon overlay zone, but suggested it might be an interdepartmental issue outside the scope of the commission. He believed that it would be an easy project to seek grant funding for planning. Mr. Meisner expressed interest in the alternative path concept, noting that many cities had great success with it. It could encompass a design review process that was not overly bureaucratic. He expressed interest in a flexible approach, saying that standards were great but did not solve everyone's problems. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Meisner's remarks about condominiums, saying that the process of their creation and their impact on residents, rather than the development type itself, was the problem. He supported condominiums as another choice of housing. Mr. Kelly noted that the code did not preclude "big box" development, but did apply design standards to such developments over a certain size. Mr. Kelly asked that the next code amendment package come to the council first as a work session item. Mr. Pap6 liked Ms. Nathanson's idea for an Amazon Creek overlay but pointed out that the council seemed focus on the south and west parts of the city, and there were things in the north citizens thought were equally important. He would prefer to learn more about other priorities before endorsing further work. Ms. Taylor thought the suggestion for a park along the Amazon Creek an excellent one, but believed it should include the headwaters as well. Ms. Taylor suggested that the City should protect environmental assets no matter where they were located. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to add density dispersal to items 1 and 14 as a high-priority item, with the intent of identifying opportunities for density throughout the city. Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Childs if the work contemplated in the motion would occur through the Zoning Map review. Ms. Childs said that some of it would be done in that process, but the item called specifically for a policy. Mr. Belcher added that everyone agreed upon the importance of higher density until it came to their own neighborhoods. He thought it important if density dispersal was to be pushed forward, it should be so stated, and it would carry more weight with those concerned about density in their neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Kelly that the motion read ".. .opportunities for density in all neighborhoods throughout the city." Ms. Bettman said that the purpose of asset mapping was to identify specific opportunities for density, either in nodes or in infill areas outside nodes to avoid blocks of high-density development and provide a diversity of housing. Looking at where density would occur through the nodal development planning process and asset mapping could occur before the Zoning Map was updated. Mr. Papd determined from Ms. Childs that Item 16 (Consider a density dispersalpoficy...) had been primarily focused on residential density, but the commission would also be looking at issues MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 7 Work Session such as the intensity of commercial and industrial development in its overall review of the Zoning Map. Mr. Meisner questioned what was added by the motion. He suggested that the concept might well occur anyway in the Zoning Map review. He asked if flag lots would be considered as opportunity sites in the asset mapping. Ms. Childs said yes, ultimately. Mr. Meisner indicated opposition to the motion. The motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare a scope of work and budget for the three post-Land Use Code Update high-priority work program items recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly asked that the staff presentation include an option allowing all three items to go forward at once. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend Item 10 to read: "Investigate an alternative path review process that would include design review." Mr. Kelly recognized Mr. Papa's concerns but pointed out the council was merely requesting study at this point. He did not want to mandate design review as part of every land use process, but also did not want to narrow the commission's scope of investigation. Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment because the council had spent considerable time on the wording of the item previously and she did not want to change it now without more discussion. Mr. Pap~ said he was not interested in having the Planning Commission investigate design review as an independent process. If design review came before the council as a separate process, he would vote against it. The motion to amend failed, 4:3; Mr. Rayor, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Pap~ voting yes. The main motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Pap~ voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to approve timing and funding options 2B and 2C. Ms. Bettman moved to amend the motion to indicate that the council would postpone the Spring 2002 land use code amendments to Fall 2002, with the MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 8 Work Session exception of errors and omissions, and to move forward with the Planning Commission's recommendations for high priorities for the work program. The motion to amend died for lack of second. Mr. Kelly requested that staff provide a memorandum regarding what was contemplated to occur in Spring 2002. The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. B.Work Session: Ward Redistricting The council was joined for the item by Jim Croteau and Keli Osborn of the Planning and Development Department and Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson. Clair Van Bloem of the Lane Council of Governments was also present to respond to questions. Mr. Croteau noted the distribution of draft council minutes from the regular meeting of October 22 and a matrix entitled 2000 Population of Existing Wards by Ward Boundary Scenarios. Mr. Croteau asked the council to narrow the range of redistricting options, if possible, prior to the next work session on November 14. Mr. Croteau noted the Supreme Court had recently upheld the Secretary of State's legislative boundaries. Staff had not been able to determine at this point how the scenarios matched the State's boundaries. He anticipated that staff would request minor changes to the scenarios to reflect changes that occurred at the State level. In response to Mr. Croteau's suggestion that the council narrow the number of scenarios, Mr. Kelly suggested the council eliminate the Red, Orange, and Green scenarios from further consideration given the public testimony received. He called for a minor adjustment to the Violet scenario to clarify the western boundary of Ward 4. Mr. Kelly pointed out his suggested change on a map of the scenario. Mr. Meisner was not comfortable with striking any of the scenarios at this point since they could provide variants on the final scenario selected. Regarding the values that he based his thinking upon, Mr. Meisner said he believed that transportation corridors were as significant a barrier as the river. He thought it important to "undivide" the River Road area south of Beltline. It was now divided near the area of the former Solstice Bakery. Mr. Meisner said that north of Beltline there was merit to recognizing that it was an area of new development that was closer to Bethel and the north Coburg Road area than to the River Road area south of Beltline. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Meisner noted that two of the most active neighborhood organizations, the Westside Neighbors and Jefferson Neighbors were merging, and almost all the scenarios divided that area. He suggested that staff consider the merger in drawing ward boundaries. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Meisner regarding the elimination of scenarios at this time. He thought the testimony the council received was hardly a mandate to do so. He shared Mr. Meisner's concerns about the River Road/Santa Clara area. He preferred that the area be covered by one ward, but if two were needed he agreed Santa Clara had a greater affinity for wards 5 and 6. He concurred with Mr. Meisner regarding the River Road area but noted the presence of industrial and commercial uses along Beltline west of the river, which could probably be included in either area and the resulting scenario would still work. Mr. Pap~ asked staff to prepare a scenario similar to the Indigo scenario with wards 4 and 5 being horizontal on the map Ms. Nathanson said many Bethel residents would like to be represented by one council member rather than two or even three. She pointed out, however, that there was not just a single councilor to represent the entire south hills, which had unique concerns and interests as well. While she sympathized with such a goal, she was unsure it could be accomplished. Ms. Nathanson said that Mr. Croteau had indicated to her that it was probably not feasible to place Bethel in one ward as the population was too large. It would likely take two, and perhaps even three wards, to cover the Bethel area. Ms. Nathanson suggested that boundaries in the Bethel area be based on things that made sense to residents, such as travel patterns or middle schools one identified with. Ms. Bettman thought it would be difficult to avoid having at least two or three neighborhoods in each ward, and she did not want to single out one ward. Ms. Bettman was concerned that downtown be contiguous with the surrounding neighborhoods. She said that downtown was dependent on the surrounding neighborhoods and residents, and the reverse was also true. She would only be interested in supporting a scenario that kept downtown contiguous with those neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman requested information about the nature of the League of Women Voters' recommendation regarding redistricting: Was the recommendation voted on by the entire membership, or was it done by a policy or executive committee not involving the membership? Mr. Croteau indicated he would ask Janet Calvert, President of the league, to respond to Ms. Bettman's question. Ms. Taylor preferred to eliminate the Orange scenario at this point. She liked the Violet scenario with some slight changes. Ms. Taylor had the same question as Ms. Bettman regarding the recommendations of the League of Women Voters. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct staff to concentrate its future efforts on the Violet and Indigo scenarios. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Meisner that staff continue to look at the concepts underlying the Orange and Red scenarios, considering the use of the Beltline as a divider between River Road and Santa Clara, and adding Santa Clara to either ward 5 or 6. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the motion to consider the possibility that the Bethel area be contained in no more than two wards. The amendment failed, 3:4; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Pap~ voting yes. Ms. Nathanson move to amend the motion to retain the Green scenario. The amendment passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to direct staff to provide a Violet alternative that makes the boundary of Ward 4 in the south less angled, as previously discussed. The amendment passed unanimously, 7:0 Mr. Pap~ left the meeting. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding how often school boundaries change, Mr. Croteau said that he was working currently with Kent Hunsaker of the Bethel School Board on boundary changes. Ms. Nathanson indicated she would want information on the school district boundaries and their relationship to redistricting. The main motion passed unanimously, 6:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 11 Work Session