Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/25/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon September 25, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Joint Meeting With Planning Commission The council was joined by Planning Commissioners Peter Barrel, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, and Ellen Wojahn. Mr. Barrel thanked the council for the opportunity of a joint session with the Planning Commission. He said that the pressures of growth on the community made seemingly small issues more important because of the desire to make the City a better place to live. He said the commission had reach a balance between the policies in the Growth Management Study, new environmental regulations, the desires of the council, and the desires of the neighborhoods. Mr. Barrel said that the experience of the commission was an asset to the council in regards to the land use issues that came before the council. As examples, he mentioned Iow-density residential transition zones, interim setbacks for open waterways, and the environment. He believed that the council's commitment to the environment would shape the community's policies for decades to come. Moving on to the topic of nodal development, Mr. Barrel said that the commission's shaping of nodal development policies would affect how fast the city used its urban reserve. He said that densification of the city's inner core would slow down the usage of the urban reserve. Mr. Barrel stressed his advocacy of the downtown area. He urged the council to work to keep major employers in the core area. Mr. Meisner stated his appreciation for the work of the Planning Commission. He said that there were mixed feelings about the size of the Land Use Code Update (LUCU), and noted that the updated code would not be an unchanging document. He believed that there would be adjustments made even after the code had been adopted. He raised concern over the implications of Ballot Measure 7 to the City. He opined that if the measure passed the City's efforts with the Land Use Code were close to "dead in the water." Mr. Kelly thanked the Planning Commission for its hard work. He said that there were many fundamental improvements in the current draft code update as opposed to the previous draft. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 25, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly commented that he would find it helpful to get a sense of the discussion that lead to Planning Commission decisions and not just the decision itself. Mr. Kelly said that the work plan submitted by the commission had two things that he thought were missing. The first was the desirability of a alternate or performance path for some of the items in the update. The second item was neighborhood refinement plan updates, which was a significant issue to him personally. He stressed the importance of addressing neighborhoods that had no plan at all. Ms. Bettman commented that the proposed work plan was a formidable one. She echoed Mr. Kelly in his concern that there were areas of the City that needed updated neighborhood refinement plans as well as areas that lacked such plans. Mr. Pap~ raised concern that the council was delving too deeply into work that the commission had already covered. Regarding issues in the future, Mr. Pap8 suggested a separate code for the downtown district. Mr. Fart also complimented the work of the Planning Commission. He reiterated Mr. Papa's concern over the council delving too deeply into work that the commission had already done. Mr. Farr believed that smaller towns surrounding Eugene had less concern over urban sprawl than Eugene did. He asked how much time the commission spent discussing how Eugene's growth policies affected smaller outlying communities. Ms. Nathanson raised concern over implementation of policy. She called for information on how the commission went about policy implementation. Mr. Rayor commented that much of LUCU was proscriptive. He said that this would provide a certain amount of uniformity of policy for developers, but noted that until all the "bugs" were worked out of the new code it would be hard to look at alternate paths. He raised concern that bad developments would be able to result by using alternate paths that could exist. He suggested applying the best pads of neighborhood refinement plans to the entire city. Mayor Torrey complimented the work of the Planning Commission. He expressed a desire to see a financial impact statement for new employees necessitated by implementation of the code update. Ms. McMillan said that next year's work plan could possibly have room for a neighborhood refinement plan update. Mr. Bartel said that fiscal issues were the purview of the City Council while planning issues were the purview of the Planning Commission. Regarding the suggestion of a separate code for the downtown area, Mr. Belcher said that a downtown district needed to be accurately defined before a separate code could be discussed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 25, 2000 Page 2 Work Session City Manager Jim Johnson acknowledged the need for neighborhood refinement plans but noted that they cost upwards of $100,000 each and raised a concern over how they could be fit into the City budget. Regarding things that were lacking on the proposed work plan, Planning Director Jan Childs noted the number of large issues that had been before the commission in the last year and said there had been many items that had been put on hold while larger issues were dealt with. Regarding the encroachment of smaller cities on Eugene's urban growth boundary, Ms. McMillan said that Eugene's urban growth boundary could continue where it was so that a space between urban growth boundaries could be maintained. Mr. Kelly expressed his dismay that the Historic Review Board did not receive project funding from the State Historic Preservation Office. He asked if council should be lobbying for it at the State level. Mr. Kelly commented that the pilot nodal development projects had not been completed yet. He added that if nodal development was the way Eugene was going to focus growth, then the City was off to a slow start. Mr. Rayor called for density studies for differing areas. He commented that "one size did not fit all" in different areas of the City. As an example he mentioned Gresham, which had reduced density requirements as slope increased. Mr. Farr stressed the importance of keeping housing costs down within the city. He said that land was significantly less expensive in outlying communities and there would continue to be pressure to expand urban growth boundaries in outlying communities to accommodate the influx of new residents. He said that decisions about land use and housing should include consideration of the need to keep housing costs as affordable as possible. He commented that Eugene was "dreadfully out of skew" in terms of housing costs compared with median incomes in the community. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Rayor that differing density requirements were needed for differing parts of the city. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to approve the Planning Commission's work program. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B.Land Use Code Update Ms. Childs indicated that the council would be referring to material from the September 20, 2000, meeting. Senior Planner Teresa Bishow said that the meeting topics included trees, historic related ~ssues, and those pertaining to the environment specifically related to wildlife and soil stability. She said that any topics not covered would be carried over to the next work session. Urban Forester Mark Snyder said that LUCU's tree provisions in the chapter 6 revisions had been a team effort between Planning and Development, Public Works Maintenance, and the City Attorney's Office. He said that he was presenting clearer guidelines for tree preservation in both MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 25, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Chapter 6 and Chapter 9. He stressed that the vast majority of permit activity, with the revisions in place, would be changed from Chapter 6 to Chapter 9. He also said that the Chapter 6 right- of-way and public land exemptions would no longer apply. Ms. Childs referred to proposed motions from the council. Mr. Kelly said the first motion was clerical but important to the main tree section of Section 9.6885. He said that the term "tree preservation" did not have a specific definition. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to change the code to define the term "tree preservation" to clarify that trees identified to be preserved shall include measures to sustain the health and integrity of the tree. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding whether the language of the motion meant trees in the public right-of-way only or trees on private property as well, Mr. Kelly said that he was thinking of it only in context of Chapter 9 of the code. He said that it would apply any time the term "tree preservation" was used. Ms. Bishow said that there would be a definition within Chapter 9 of the code that would clarify the term when it was used in a land use application review. Mr. Farr raised a concern over the number of motions laid on the table by one councilor for the meeting. He believed that the process needed to move faster and that the council was holding extra meetings to accommodate a relatively small number of councilors. Ms. Nathanson raised a concern that when the council started discussing motions that had already been prepared, she would never get to ask questions or comment generally on the item because that section of code had not been discussed yet. Mayor Torrey said that every councilor had the right to be recognized and present their positions on issues and urged them to do so even though the process would be slowed down. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly, in response to Mr. Farr, said that all the motions he was raising were in response to the testimony he had heard at the hearing in May. He invited all councilors to make whatever motions they felt strongly about. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the City Code to change the allowed number of trees to be removed on a large lot within a 12-month period from five per year to three per year. Mr. Kelly said he intended the motion to apply to both chapters 6 and 9 of the Eugene Code. Mr. Rayor was against the motion. He said that he did not see the rationale behind it. Ms. Bettman supported the motion. She said that the maximum number that could be removed had been three per year until the revised draft was released, and she supported going back to three per year. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 25, 2000 Page 4 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the definition of a large lot, Mr. Kelly said that a large lot was defined at 20,000 square feet or larger. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the smallest tree that would come under the proposed rule, Mr. Snyder said that regulated trees had to be eight inches in diameter at breast height. Mr. Farr raised concern over putting restrictions on housing because of trees. He said he was against the motion because it was too restrictive of property rights. Mr. Meisner was against the motion. He raised concern over added staff costs. Ms. Taylor said that the motion was a step in the right direction and commented that the proposed rule should apply to even smaller lots. She commented that removal of five trees a year was like sequential logging. Mr. Pap8 opposed the motion. He said that the rule would compete with solar light standards and work against urban density. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding whether the rule would apply to diseased or dead trees, Mr. Snyder said that there would be exemptions for diseased and hazardous trees. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding why Eugene differed from Springfield in that they regulated eight-inch trees as opposed to five-inch trees, Mr. Snyder said that the eight- inch rule was not a deviation from current regulations. He was not sure why Springfield had a five-inch rule. The motion failed 5:3, with Mr Kelly, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly said that putting tree standards in Chapter 9 integrated tree planning with land use planning. He believed that this would make things more straightforward for the public. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to change the code to include a new requirement that the City execute a performance agreement for all subdivisions to help enforce tree preservation plans. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding whether the motion duplicated something that already existed in the draft code, Ms. Bishow said that the performance agreement was currently included in all land use applications that contained tree preservation standards except the subdivision application. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding how much staff costs would increase as a result of the passage of the motion, Ms. Bishow opined that the cost would be marginal. She said that staff would come back to council with an overall picture of staff costs as a result of the changes in the draft code. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 25, 2000 Page 5 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding whether the proposed performance agreement would cause delays in residential development, Ms. Bishow opined that it would not cause a delay and added that if the agreement was required it would make any conditions of the subdivision, such as those addressing tree protection, more understandable. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding whether the proposed motion would remove any developable land from the inventory, Ms. Bishow said that it would not, and added that the motion would simply give the City another tool to ensure compliance with standards. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding whether there would be any impact to the cost of development, Ms. Bishow said that it would not as long as there was a willingness to comply. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the City's obligation for notification of the public about what residents needed to do to comply with the new rule, Ms. Bishow said that the City was striving to make the public more aware of tree protection rules and to be more flexible in the kind of trees that could be used for replanting by providing a list of native species that the public could work from. Mr. Rayor stressed the importance of putting the performance agreement in the deed for the property when it was sold so the new owners would be aware of it at the time of purchase. Mr. Meisner said that he would support the motion because it made good sense by applying exactly the same rule to subdivisions as planned unit developments and other land use decisions. He believed that staff costs and costs to new home owners would be minimal. In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding what the motion would achieve, Ms. Bishow said that passage of the motion would add a new enforcement tool for subdivisions by requiring the City to create a legal binding agreement with the property owner at the time they received approval of the subdivision that they would adhere to the conditions of approval. The motion passed 6:2, with Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Farr voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey took a short break to notify the council that there were 25 people signed up to speak at the regular session's public forum speaking only to the tobacco issue. He called for direction from the council since council rules said that the public forum could not exceed 30 minutes and this time limit would not allow 3 minutes to speak for each person. There was general consensus among the council to divide the 30 minutes allowed for the public forum by the number of people signed up to speak and give each person an equal portion of time (though less than 3 minutes). Mr. Kelly directed the council's attention to item 4 on the motion sheet regarding subsequent actions impacting trees. He called for consensus from the council that a motion was not needed for this item and that staff would try to clarify the existing code language specified in his proposed motion. There was general consensus. Regarding the next motion, Mr. Kelly said that he wanted a pro forma records check so that new owners would not cut trees that had been preserved, by the original developer, as a natural area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 25, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to require a tree preservation and removal verification check prior to any site changes impacting trees. Mr. Farr raised concern over charging another fee to members of the public for a records check. He doubted the fees would be $10 $20 and raised concern that yet another fee to a home buyer would raise the cost of housing in the city. Ms. Bishow said that the fee would help the City recover the costs of doing records checks. Ms. Bettman said permits needed to pay for themselves and said she would support the motion. Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer remarked that small fees did not pay for themselves. He said a small fee would cost more to process than what was brought in. The motion passed 7:1, with Mr. Pap~ voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 25, 2000 Page 7 Work Session