Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/26/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall November 26, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Pap~. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Meisner had no items. Acknowledging the City Manager's authority over the issue, Mr. Kelly said that as a part of the council's economic development goal related to family-wage jobs, he hoped that the City tried when possible to use union labor on contracts. Ms. Taylor had no items. Ms. Nathanson had no items. Mr. Rayor had no items. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the discussions that City Manager Jim Johnson was having with the chief executive officer of the McKenzie-Willamette Hospital and noted her and others' long-term support for a full-service hospital in the city center. She did not want to foreclose the community's options in securing a centralized hospital. She wished Mr. Johnson and staff the best of luck in the discussions. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the resignation of Mr. Johnson, and said now was an important time for the council to provide strong leadership and stability for the organization. She thought the City Manager's shoes would be hard to fill and the recruitment process to fill the position should occur as soon as possible. She wanted the new councilors elected in 2002 to have a role in the selection MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 1 Work Session process, but pointed out the process could be long and drawn-out. She hoped to schedule time to discuss the issue before the council holiday recess. Ms. Bettman reported she participated in the Whiteaker Community Dinner and found it inspiring and representative of everything good about Eugene. While she wished to thank all the volunteers, she particularly thanked the volunteers who worked both before and after the event to assure its continuance. Mr. Rayor asked if there was a status report on the City's position regarding cell tower siting. Mr. Johnson indicated he would need a third person to join in the request for a work session on cell phones. Mr. Rayor said he would support the request but needed to know the current state of affairs. He was unsure if the City had any jurisdiction over the issue. Mr. Johnson said that the County had jurisdiction over land use decisions in the unincorporated area. Mr. Rayor said he would request the work session in writing. Ms. Taylor indicated concurrence with Ms. Bettman's request for a work session on the hiring and selection process for a new city manager. Ms. Nathanson explained her reasons for not supporting the request for a work session on cell tower siting, saying the current ordinance was working well and collocation had been occurring. She noted two major concerns generally expressed about cell towers, the aesthetics of the issue and the potential of health risks from RF emissions, and pointed out that federal guidelines preclude the City from passing ordinances to address health concerns related to cell tower siting. Amending the ordinance could invite a court challenge. She said that ordinances such as the City's or ordinances that were more restrictive were being used to make the case effectively and successfully with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that such local ordinances get into the way of telecommunications deployment, and when a company could demonstrate a barrier to market entrance, the FCC was then tempted to preempt any local authority. Ms. Nathanson was unwilling to pass an ordinance that would worsen the regulatory situation. Mr. Farr deferred to Ms. Nathanson's comments in regard to the cell tower issue, noting her work as chair on the Council Committee on Telecommunications and her work on the topic at the national level through the National League of Cities. He hoped the council would consider those remarks before making any decisions on how to move forward and how to spend staff time on the subject. Mr. Farr agreed with Ms. Bettman that the next council needed to be involved in the hiring of the next manager. Regarding the hiring and selection process, Mr. Johnson suggested that the council could use the opportunity of approving the Tentative Working Agenda to schedule a work session, or three councilors could request a work session. He noted there was time available on the January 16 agenda. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Johnson reported that there would be a fiscal impact to Eugene as a result of the Board of County Commissioners' decision to grant the Lane Rural Fire & Rescue District an ambulance service area. He estimated a possible $500,000 loss to Eugene. He indicated the council could expect a memorandum on the subject from Fire Chief Tom Tallon. Mr. Meisner wanted the memorandum to indicate the consequences and implications of the decision in terms of Eugene's staffing levels and financial resources, and whether reductions were possible because of the loss of service area. Ms. Bettman agreed that Ms. Nathanson had considerable expertise on the subject of telecommunications, and suggested that expertise could be taken advantage of in a work session during which the council could discuss the issues involved and find out if it had any leverage to ensure collocation was working and that impacts on property values were avoided. She did not think having a work session meant that there would be a new ordinance or changes to the existing ordinance. Ms. Taylor expected Ms. Nathanson to be a major participant in such a work session on telecommunications, but she thought the council needed more education on the topic. Noting the amount of information available on telecommunications, Mr. Farr suggested that councilors spend some time outside the council meeting setting researching the topic. Mayor Torrey did not think that the City Council should rush the process of recruiting and selecting a new city manager. He believed the key to the process was involving the people the new manager would be working for. Mayor Torrey suggested that councilors contact members of the Board of County Commissioners and urge the commissioners to follow-through on their tentative support for the funding for the Broadway reopening improvements. Referring to the Six-Year Financial Forecast, Mayor Torrey suggested that the council consider scheduling a work session to examine the possibilities of doing a service review similar to that done following the passage of Ballot Measure 47/50. B. Work Session: Capitalizing City Buildings Through Facility Rental Rates The council was joined by Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, Sue Cutsogeorge, and Glen Svendsen of the Central Services Department for the item. Central Services Department staff DeeAnn Hardt, Becky Koble, and Vic Martin were also present. Mr. Svendsen provided background on the proposal, reminding the council that it recommended through the Downtown Space Plan that staff include a mechanism for funding a portion of the capital costs for new construction to reduce the amount of bonding needed. The proposal was one MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 3 Work Session way of generating internal resources, and would allow staff to get a better sense of the actual operating costs for City services. Ms. Cutsogeorge called attention to the agenda item summary, which described the fiscal implications of implementing the proposal. Mr. Carlson said the concept of charging services a capital component for the use of City facilities was similar to what the City did when it rented space from the private sector. The proposal was an attempt to equalize the cost of service component between divisions that operated out of City- owned space and divisions that operated out of leased space. By doing so, the City would generate funding that could be placed in a reserve and used to buy down the future capital costs of the organization. He characterized the proposal as saving money for a future capital investment. Mr. Svendsen noted a correction to page 8 of the agenda packet, which indicated the total estimated amount of funding generated over time was $22.3 million; he said that should actually be $33.5 million. Of that amount, $4.8 million was one-time funding, and $28.7 million was General Fund-backed bonds that would be paid for from the reserves. Mayor Torrey called for council questions. Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Svendsen that the City had not taken this approach before. Mr. Carlson added that the plan for library financing assumed that type of funding for the Information Service Division and Finance Division, which would be located on the library's fourth floor. Mr. Rayor said it seemed that the City was proposing to build buildings that were what he termed "Class A minus," but the proposed rate was based on "Class B" office space; he asked why. Regarding the extension of the concept to other services outside the downtown, he suggested that would depend on future budgets. He did not perceive that new funds were involved in the proposal, and in fact saw the proposal as a type of service reduction. He asked for confirmation of the statement that if departments paid more for overhead, they would have less for service provision. Mr. Carlson said that in the short term, there would be no decrease in services because the needed resources were already available and were already dedicated to the Facility Reserve, which was the money from the fiscal year (FY) 2000 marginal exception value. The proposal in question would take that funding stream and translate it into rent for facilities that operate out of downtown. It would potentially increase contributions from Non-General Fund services in fiscal year 2003, but Mr. Carlson believed it would have a fairly small impact to those dedicated funds. Over time, the council would have to make budget choices, especially as new buildings were constructed, regarding the amount of funding attributable to the capital component of the rent payment. Mr. Carlson suggested there was a relationship between those choices and the financing mechanism ultimately selected to construct a building. Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Svendsen that staff did not anticipate an increase in the revenues going to the Facilities Reserve until new General Fund-related space was constructed. Mr. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Svendsen said the amount would be further increased by the reallocation of the funding now dedicated to debt service payments on the Library 4th floor bonds, once those bonds were paid off. Mr. Kelly suggested that the result of the proposal could be that the Police Department moved into a new facility, but then the department must immediately make service reductions to cover the increased rent. Mr. Svendsen pointed out it was a council decision how General Fund resources were spent. Mr. Carlson concurred, saying the council would have to make that decision when it made a decision to construct the building because the City would either go to the voters for a general obligation bond, or it could dedicate a revenue stream from the General Fund to pay back General Fund-backed bonds. He further concurred, in response to a statement from Mr. Kelly, that the funding approach would most likely be a mix of the two approaches. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Carlson confirmed that the executive managers favored the proposal, believing it showed the full costs of doing business more consistently and was a good way to save money to build new facilities. Ms. Taylor said "that's a puzzler." She asked if the affected departments would receive additional funding from the General Fund to support the extra cost. Mr. Carlson said yes, those departments' baselines were adjusted to include rent when they had to move into a rent-related space. Mayor Torrey asked staff to develop a worst-case and best-case scenario for implementation of the proposal to any department it wished for the next budget year. He wanted to know the impact of the proposal, good or bad, on the General Fund. Mr. Carlson said that the proposal had no negative impact on the General Fund in fiscal year 2002; in fiscal year 2003 it would impact the General Fund as an inflationary adjustment to the materials and services line item in the fiscal year 2003 budget. Mayor Torrey reiterated his request, suggesting staff develop a one-sheet synopsis of the impact for one department. Mr. Meisner asked if staff was proposing to charge the library rent for its new building, which was a century building the public was paying for through private donations and was being funded by the Urban Renewal Agency, so the Police Department could build a new facility within ten years. Mr. Svendsen said staff proposed to include a capitalization component only for those services immediately related to the new Downtown Space Plan. He cited a new City Hall and new police facility as examples. Mr. Meisner wanted to know the degree to which programs with no relation to any new facility were being asked to pay for new facilities. Mr. Svendsen said that the proposal did not include, for example, the library, community centers, or pools. Mr. Meisner asked if the Planning and Development and Public Works departments were affected. Mr. Svendsen said staff assumed that the services in the downtown core, excepting the Planning and Development Department, were affected by the proposal. Mr. Meisner did not recall that the council gave staff clear direction that the City was to build a City Hall that replaced other facilities not in City Hall at this time. Mayor Torrey called for the first round of council comments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Meisner did not think the timing of the proposal propitious, given the recent Six-Year Financial Forecast and the eventual impact of the proposal on the General Fund and the services its supports. Mr. Rayor suggested that staff project the long-term implications of the proposal on a downtown department beyond the six-year forecast and the point it occupied a new building, as far out as 20 years. Mr. Rayor termed the proposal a "shell game" but said that was okay with him, because it would allow the council to more accurately evaluate the costs of expanded City services against the costs of outsourcing a service. He thought that many cities in general believed they could deliver services at a lower cost than the private sector because they were not accounting for facility replacement. Mr. Rayor said the proposal would help keep the departments aware of their true costs. Mr. Kelly said there appeared to be some confusion about the proposal among councilors as well as some opposition. While he appreciated Mr. Rayor's remarks about the proposal as an accounting procedure, he reiterated his concern about the potential impact on services in the long- term. While he supported the concept of setting aside facilities reserves, he was not comfortable with the proposal before the council, and supported instead continuing the policies to build the reserves that the council had adopted over the past few years. He advised staff to take into account the council's sentiments when it developed the Supplemental Budget that was to implement the proposal. Ms. Nathanson generally supported proposals that illustrated the full cost of service delivery, and agreed with Mr. Rayor that to some degree the proposal was an accounting procedure. However, she also agreed with Mr. Meisner that the timing of the proposal was poor, and suggested the best time for establishing a rainy day fund was when times were good, not when they were bad. When times were bad, the demand for all types of government services frequently went up at a time when revenues were going down. Ms. Nathanson also expressed concern about the proposal because it was not clear what departments were affected or what buildings would be built or replaced with the funds collected. If the proposal affected departments currently occupying leased space or departments that needed a new space, such as the Police Department, she would understand it better. Absent a list, it was hard for her to see where the money was going. Ms. Bettman said she wanted a way to fund a new City Hall and police and fire facilities, but she was concerned about the proposal. She was concerned that the contributions to the reserve would become automatic and when there was a need for funding for other purposes, the Budget Committee would forget that the department's budgets were artificially increased and the money could be used for other, higher priorities. She appreciated the concept of accounting for the actual department costs, but continued to be concerned that the expenditure would be "lost in the shuffle" MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 6 Work Session when future councils were prioritizing funds, and needed services would be cut. Ms. Bettman believed there was more flexibility in a general obligation bond for a new City Hall then the council had in its revenues to fund services. Ms. Taylor noted her concurrence with Mr. Rayor's remarks that the City needed to be aware of its costs, but she did not think the proposal the way to accomplish that goal. She hoped the City would soon have a performance auditor, which she believed would make everyone more aware of where the costs were and where savings could be found. The proposal did not create any money, and if departments had to pay market-based rents, they would have to cut services. Mr. Farr thought the benefit of the proposal was that it created no new money and helped the City operate within its existing budget. He agreed with Mr. Rayor's remarks regarding the need to assess the long-term impacts of the proposal. He believed the staff proposal represented a step in the right direction, as it responded to the community's desire that the City operate more efficiently. He said the council must consider any potential service reductions very carefully, but he continued to support the proposal for the reasons he stated. Mayor Torrey said the council needed to know the impact of the proposal so it could evaluate the tradeoffs in an aboveboard fashion. Mayor Torrey called for the second round of council comments. Ms. Nathanson asked if the plan was intended to impose discipline upon the organization to save money. Mr. Carlson said yes. Ms. Nathanson said that was a good thing. Mr. Meisner agreed that such discipline was a good thing. Responding to Mr. Farr's comments, Mr. Meisner reiterated his remarks about the Six-Year Financial Forecast and said it was his belief the proposal would require further reductions to services in the near-future. He said the City must operate efficiently and he thought the City made substantial reductions and accomplished great efficiencies during the Ballot Measure 47/50 budget process. He was not prepared to say at this time what programs he would eliminate to pay for the proposal. Mr. Kelly characterized the concept behind the proposal as a good thing but he believed Ms. Bettman's points were well-taken: he would prefer to see a line item in the budget that moved money overtly to the Facilities Reserve so the committee could make an overt decision on the expenditure. Mayor Torrey called for a staff response. In response to the comments made, Mr. Carlson characterized the proposal as long-term budget planning. The proposal also reflected a decision the council made in the FY01 budget for the dedication of the FY00 exception value; staff was attempting to institutionalize the funding in the capitalization component of space utilitization. The FY00 exception value would be used to pay MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 7 Work Session the rent; all the departments subject to the rent would be held harmless through that dedication of funding. Mr. Carlson said the proposal was intended to support the Downtown Space Plan, which the council provided direction on several months past. Mr. Carlson noted that many City departments paid rent now, citing the services housed in The Atrium, the Central Building, the Eugene Hotel, the Aster Building, and the Jacobs Building. The advantage to treating the departments in the same manner was that it would generate non-General Fund resources to accumulate capital for the construction of facilities. He said the money involved was not large at the current time, but it would be a revenue stream added to what was already being saved. Mr. Svendsen said that it was not staffs intent that the proposal would have a General Fund impact until the council was at the point of deciding what to do about a new building or additional space expansion. Staff attempted to create a situation where there was no competition for resources outside the initial dedication of the FY00 exception value. He believed that the effect of the proposal would be felt most immediately in the multi-year financial plan, which the council had reviewed, where new capital facilities were shown in years 6 and 7 with the associated facilities operating costs. Mr. Svendsen said that staff attempted to be explicit about the ramifications of the proposal, with the understanding there was to be no other General Fund impact outside the dedication already made. Mayor Torrey called for additional council comments and questions. In response to staffs comments, Mr. Kelly disagreed that the proposal was reflective of the council's decision to dedicate the FY00 exception value to the Facilities Reserve, saying the proposal created a different mechanism that might be designed to do the same thing but represented a new approach. He expressed concern that staff was proposing to place dedicated fund moneys into the Facilities Reserve. Mr. Johnson said that staff was proposing that such services be charged for the General Fund-supported space they occupy, such as the Stormwater Program, which was occupying space at 858 Pearl Street. Mr. Kelly indicated understanding, but said he did not like what was proposed. Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Carlson that the FYO0 exception value was an ongoing source of funding adjusted annually for inflation. Mr. Kelly said he preferred to continue to contribute that amount of funding, plus an inflation factor, to the Facilities Reserve, "now and forever." Ms. Bettman said the council agreed as to the importance of funding the Facilities Reserve, but had not committed to a funding mechanism. She did not want to commit to the proposal without more information about its long-term implications. Mr. Meisner said he knew of no legal restriction or requirement that indicated the General Fund could not charge rent to non-General Fund programs without spreading their rent to every single program in the organization. He believed the City could recover rent from those programs quite MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 8 Work Session legally without charging rent to every single program, and requested legal analysis of his question before the next work session. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that the council did not approve a rent program when it approved the transfer of the exception value. He did not think that staff had the authority to implement the program, and hoped it would be coming back to the council for action. Mr. Carlson said his point was not that the City Council started a new commitment of General Fund dollars with the action contemplated; his point was that in FY01, the council committed the FY00 exception value, and that was the resource the staff was proposing to use. Mr. Meisner agreed, but said the decision did not represent a policy statement that programs and services should be charged a rent. Mr. Farr said the staff-recommended approach seemed to be an equitable way of addressing the issue of constructing new facilities. He thought the proposal got to where the costs were actually incurred. He reiterated his support for the staff recommendation. C. Work Session: Minor Land Use Code Amendments The council was joined for the item by Planning Director Jan Childs and Senior Planner Teresa Bishow. Ms. Bishow identified two issues for further council discussion and direction: 1) large multi-tenant commercial standards and 2) flag lot standards, particularly those related to the building setback and building height limitations. Ms. Bishow called attention to Attachment D in the council packet, which included options for amending the multi-tenant commercial standards, noting the issue was not the standards themselves but when the standards should be triggered. Ms. Bishow noted the Planning Commission's recommendation for Option 1, to apply the standards to new buildings in cases where three or more new buildings were being constructed, and to the portions of the development site affected by the new buildings. Ms. Bishow called attention to three options for the flag lot standards, noting the Planning Division's recommendation the standards be applied only to lots created after August 1,2001, and that the Planning Commission further review the flag lot standards during its spring 2002 amendments package review. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance to amend Section 9.2175(2) addressing large multi- tenant commercial standards, Option 1. Mr. Kelly agreed with the suggested change related to the portion of the development site directly affected by new buildings. He also agreed the multi-tenant commercial standards should apply to new buildings. However, he said there were many projects in Eugene where buildings were partially remodeled by destroying everything but one wall to avoid triggering code provisions. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 9 Work Session asked if there was a way to ensure that buildings that were new with the exception of one wall triggered the standards. Ms. Bishow said that issue was addressed in the new Land Use Code, which referred to "building" as opposed to a "structure," and "building" as defined in the definitions as a "structure designed and used as a place of occupancy, storage, or shelter." That might have meant that The Meridian, an example of a project where the initial building was largely removed, would have lost its status as a "building" under the new code definition. Mr. Kelly suggested that the problem with Option 1 was that it attempted to define what a large multi-tenant commercial facility was, and when the standards were triggered. He preferred to separate the two concepts, and recommended that first "large multi-tenant commercial facility" be defined as a development project with at least 50,000 square feet within three or more buildings on a development site, but the standards would be triggered when a single new building over X thousand square feet was constructed. Mr. Kelly said it seemed reasonable that the standards would apply when, for example, a new 40,000 square foot building was added to an existing shopping mall. Instead, the option indicated three buildings must be constructed to trigger the standards, even when a major new anchor was being added to a shopping center that the standards could reasonably be applied to. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks. She did not want to preclude triggering the standards in the case of a major redevelopment or remodeling of such a shopping center. She believed the difficulty would be addressed by including in the trigger that the standards apply to the new construction only. Ms. Bishow cited the former Wards building in the Valley River Center as an example, and said if the council wanted to ensure that renovation projects triggered the standards, she believed it would be very difficult in such a situation to create a shopping street, address on-site vehicular circulation, etc. She thought the standards were designed for new development, and would be difficult to apply to the renovation of an existing building. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Bishow said that the standards would be triggered, for example, on a five- to ten-acre site with three buildings of any arrangement that had a total of 50,000 square feet. She said the large multi-tenant standards were not suitable for already developed sites, and suggested that there may be other standards for redevelopment projects associated with nodal development. Ms. Bettman asked why the trigger was three buildings rather than two. Ms. Bishow said that the commission discussed likely development outcomes, and concluded that two buildings did not seem to be significant enought to cause a trigger. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend Option 1 by stipulating that two buildings would be the trigger for the multi-tenant commercial standards. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Bettman pointed out that the higher the trigger, the less development the standards would be applied to. She said that the council was talking about a limited amount of development, and she wanted the standards to apply because of the ultimate benefit to the community. She said that two buildings as a trigger was a compromise. Mr. Farr was not comfortable revising the commission's recommendation without more understanding of its reasoning. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bishow said that the illustrations used to depict such centers before the commission typically had five to seven buildings, and three buildings seemed to be the minimum number that created a sense of place, and had the capability of creating a shopping street. Mr. Meisner asked how the City would address a development where the developer submitted one building plan at a time for a multi-phased project, and ifa developer could avoid the application of the standards by staging construction. Ms. Bishow said if a development was not subject to a land use application that required them to show full build-out, it was possible that approach could be used to avoid the standards. She noted that there were efficiencies realized by developers in doing a master plan for an entire site. Ms. Nathanson supported the commission recommendation. She said that it seemed the council was attempting to influence something beyond its control to some degree. She thought the analysis before the council was missing an understanding of the relationship between the trigger and its relationship to what else was located on the development site and the size of the development site. Ms. Nathanson said that three buildings that completely fill a development site was different than the first three buildings on a linear parcel with more developable space, which was also different from a development on a more square parcel. Mr. Kelly thought Ms. Nathanson made a good point, although he intended to support the amendment as a compromise. He suggested that the Planning Commission recommendation could be interpreted to allow the construction of two buildings in the Valley River Center parking lot totaling 60,000 square feet without triggering the standards, and that could be the first phase of a very different center over time. Ms. Taylor asked about possible negative results of reducing the number to one or two. Ms. Bishow responded that the standards address the concept of achieving a more urban commercial center. She said that some of the standards did not seem workable with one building, such as the creation of a shopping street. Ms. Taylor asked if there were negative effects changing the trigger to two. Ms. Bishow said there would be higher costs and site constraints for the developer, and the impact might be a delay in construction or a decision to drop the project. Ms. Childs added that the Planning Commission did not, in its discussion of issue, reconsider the number of buildings involved, as commissioners believed that required more substantive discussion than was merited by the minor code amendments process. She suggested that the council could consider making the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 11 Work Session specific amendments recommended by the Planning Commission, and then direct the commission to review the trigger as part of the spring amendments package. Ms. Bettman thought the protection built in for the developer was the 50,000 square foot minimum. Even if the trigger was two buildings, the two buildings could be 25,000 square feet each and still would not trigger the standards. She thought such a development would still be a significantly sized development. The amended motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting yes. The main motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Responding to a question from Ms. Childs regarding whether the council wanted the commission to reconsider the trigger, Mayor Torrey said no, not based on the vote. Ms. Taylor moved to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance to amend Section 9.2775(5)(b) by addressing residential flag lot standards, Option 2. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance to amend Section 9.2775(5)(b) addressing residential flag lot standards, Option 1. Mr. Kelly said he was philosophically opposed to flag lots because of his belief that the residents living on such lots feel disconnected from neighborhoods because of a lack of street connection. However, he acknowledged that was not a land use issue. Mr. Kelly had initially supported the standards as a way to address the impact of such developments on surrounding dwellings, but he found the testimony submitted, particularly by Pete Forsman, to be convincing. He supported Option 1 because it addressed the immediate concerns raised by residents and allowed the Planning Commission to explore the issue in more depth. He believed the issue was bigger than flag lots, and touched on how the City did infill development and balanced density and livability. He hoped there was a way for the commission to look at neighboring lot impacts in general, and determine how to achieve goal of minimizing the impact while allowing the infill. Mr. Rayor said the existing flag lots were platted on the basis of the existing setbacks in the code, and the standards would seriously constrain how such lots could be developed. He agreed that the lots would affect existing neighbors, but the neighbors knew the lots were there. He supported the motion as supportive of infill. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Bishow that approximately 15-20 applications for flag lot development had been turned away at the Permit and Information Center since August 1 because MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 12 Work Session they did not meet the new standards. Ms. Bishow said that in most cases, the lots in question were platted many years ago. The most immediate hardship was on the property owner who bought a flag lot in the 1970s and were now coming in with a building application. She believed that other property owners did not submit plans because they became aware of the regulations and turned to, for example, the Lane County Homebuilders for assistance in getting the code changed. Ms. Bettman favored Option 1 because she wanted the commission to look at the standards again and because she thought it fair to grandfather those lots created before the new code was adopted. She said that while a five-feet setback was not enough, a fifteen-foot setback seemed to be too much. She said the City had an overlap between regular lots with a five-foot setback from the interior lot line. She had received a call from a senior citizen living next to a lot where an "eight- pack" was being constructed, and after living in her house for more than 30 years was moving because the new structure was less than ten feet from her bedroom window and she could not sleep because of the noise. Ms. Bettman urged the commission to develop a solution with some flexibility. She said she would be more inclined to remove the height restriction in a situation where there was a need for a deeper setback. Mr. Meisner thought the motion seemed equitable given that the flag lots in question were often platted long ago, and because the Planning Commission would discuss the standards at a later time. He said he had felt some affinity for Option 3, Eliminate special setback and height standards for flag lots, saying that if one increased the setback, he questioned the need for such a restrictive height limitation. The combination seemed based in what he termed "fear of density." He thought that City could densify well, pointing out that both neighborhoods and flag lots vary. He hoped the commission believed it had broad direction to look at all the elements of the issue. Ms. Taylor had supported Option 2, suggesting that it was a hardship if nearby development ruined one's backyard. She said that people bought their houses considering the neighborhood they were in and what they saw from their windows. However, she would support Option 1. Ms. Nathanson supported Option 1 for the reasons stated by other councilors. She asked if the commission had viewed pictures of developed and undeveloped flag lots. Ms. Childs said there may have been site plans but no photos. Ms. Nathanson recommended that staff take a few sample photos to aid in the commission and council's understanding. Mr. Rayor determined from Ms. Bishow that the solar ordinance and maximum lot coverage standards would apply to flag lots, and suggested those regulations were a form of protection for the neighbors of such lots. He further determined that flag lots were permitted on commercial and industrial zoned lands and in the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones. Ms. Bishow said that flag lots were subject to the special standards regarding setbacks and height limitations only in the R-1 zone. Mr. Kelly suggested the commission consider a Portland requirement for general lot development that stipulated that one could only build within the setback to an adjacent property if one did not, MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 13 Work Session for example, include windows on that side of the structure. He said that such flexibility could provide for both density and livability. Mr. Farr favored the motion and hoped that as the commission considered the issue in the future, it would take into consideration Growth Management Study Policy 8, Promote the construction of affordable housing. Ms. Bettman asked that in the future, staff provide context for the amendments, such as identifying where the standard was applicable. She also asked staff to think of ways to improve the commission's understanding of the council's discussion, as her review of the commission's minutes did not indicate the commission always had an understanding of the concepts and objectives discussed by the council. The motion passed, 7:0. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the Planning Commission to 1) monitor implementation of revised geotechnical standards; 2) evaluate requiring a licensed Landscape Architect for certain kinds of projects, and 3) create options regarding the maximum front yard setbacks for commercial redevelopment projects. Referring to the geotechnical standards, Mr. Rayor hope that the Public Works and Planning and Development departments worked together in support of the commission's effort as it was his impression that the geotechnical standards would apply to improvements to be taken over by the public or improvements to be used by the public, such as the streets in a planned unit development. Mr. Farr supported the motion with the caveat that the Planning Commission consider the impact of requiring additional professional involvement for certain projects in light of Growth Management Study Policy 8. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by directing the Planning Commission to look at the plant list and decide whether it should be an exclusionary or inclusionary list. Ms. Bettman thought it would be a more manageable task to identify prohibited plant species rather than attempt to identify all allowable plants in a single list and continue to amend the list of plants with additions. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the nature of the list, Ms. Bishow said that with regard to landscape materials, the code does not delineate the actual plants; it instead stipulates plant spacing and number requirements. Landscaping only resulted in the right outcome if the plants selected were drawn from a certain list, although Ms. Bishow acknowledged that a MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 14 Work Session landscape professional was likely to pick the right plants. Someone less knowledgeable could do plantings that did not produce the intended outcome. Ms. Bishow said the plant list was adopted by administrative rule, which allowed staff to adjust it in response to new information. Ms. Nathanson asked if the Planning Commission approved the list. Ms. Bishow said no, the City Manager had authority over the list. She added that the code created uncertainty from the person applying for the right to develop or use their property by eliminating staff discretion regarding plant materials required from the process. She said that the downside of the list approach was that it could hamper creativity, and the result may not be the best innovative planting. She emphasized that the plant list was also only applicable to plantings in required landscape areas, so a single- family house was not affected. Ms. Nathanson said that the effort involved sounded more like it required an ad hoc advisory committee, rather than a commission work item. Mr. Kelly said he would not support the examination if it required more than two commission meetings. He supported the motion because the issue came up in testimony on October 8. He believed that the code would have to be amended in the long-term because the list was referenced in code. Mr. Meisner expressed concern about the amount of detail the council was getting into on the topic, suggesting it was excessive. Speaking to the motion, he expressed concern that it would increase the commission's work load and strain staff resources. Ms. Taylor preferred not to address the topic at this time as she was concerned about the unintended consequences of the list that might result. Mr. Rayor agreed with the comments of Mr. Meisner. The motion to amend failed, 5:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman voting yes. The main motion passed, 7:0. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 15 Work Session