Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/20/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon September 20, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Land Use Code Update Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. Senior Planner Teresa Bishow said that the meeting would be a continuation of land use code update matters. She noted that motions that were tabled or postponed from the September 18, 2000, meeting were before the members of the council. Planning Director Jan Childs noted that the first of the motions that would be considered at the meeting would be Item D. There were two options before the council. Mr. Kelly said that the motion was at his suggestion based on testimony by the Chamber of Commerce and the Friends of Eugene. He said that he did not have a strong preference among the two options and expressed his desire to hear from the rest of the council. He said that the point of the motion was to ensure that in commercially zoned areas there would be commercial business on the ground floor. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding why housing would need to be on the second floor, Mr. Kelly said that traditional mixed-use development had commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor. Ms. Bishow added that if the council's preference was to have a certain portion of a structure or development site residential but retain flexibility in how it was designed, she would recommend the second motion. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding whether the building designs would be multistoried or have separate commercial and residential structures on the same site, Ms. Bishow said that the second option would allow stand-alone uses such as a restaurant with housing elsewhere on the site. She noted that 25 percent of the ground floor needed to be dedicated to commercial use. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 20, 2000 Page 1 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding where Option 2 applied, Ms. Bishow said that, as the option was written, it would apply to all property in commercial areas zoned C-1, C-2, or C-3. Ms. Bishow said that if the council wanted flexibility and yet a requirement of commercial use within a building, she said that it should pass option 1 amended such that it did not specify ground floor commercial but required 25 percent of the structure to be commercial. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to allow residential uses in C-1, C- 2, and C-3 zoned areas, provided that at least 25 percent of the structure was used for commercial or non-residential uses. Ms. Bettman was in favor of the motion. Mr. Meisner commented that the motion did not require residential uses. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey regarding what the practical impact of the motion would be to the available commercial land under State law, Ms. Bishow said that staff assumed that a certain amount of residential development would occur in commercially zoned areas when the inventory of needed commercial land was determined. She noted that the City had a long history of promoting housing in the downtown area and other areas with commercial activity. Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer added that it was difficult to get financing for mixed-use development projects. He raised concern over the wording of the motion since it would mandate that residential could only occur in structures that had a portion of the building in commercial use. Mr. Kelly commented that the motion was turning into a bigger issue than he had intended. He said that he was only trying to watch over the amount of available commercial land. He said that the motion was prompted by the fact that the existing code allowed multiple-family housing in C- 1, C-2, and C-3 if the ground floor of the structure was in commercial use. He said that the rule did not apply to row houses and duplexes and he wanted to have those uses allowed with the same requirement for commercial use. With the permission of the second, Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the same special use limitation in the code that currently applied to triplexes, fourplexes, and multi-family housing also apply to row housing and duplexes. Mr. Meisner commented that if the rule was applied to structure rather than to site the council would have failed to address the issue. He expressed a desire to have the rule be site-based. Ms. Bishow suggested amending the code to require some level of commercial use on the development site and consistency among the housing types. Mr. Kelly, with the permission of his second, withdrew his motion. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the code to require some level of commercial use on a development site with consistency among housing types. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 20, 2000 Page 2 Work Session In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding whether it was a good strategy to pursue mixed-use in the same building, Mr. Farmer recommended pursuing mixed-use in buildings as much as possible. He raised concern that if it was mandated as the only option it would retard housing development and mixed use. He stressed his recommendation to allow flexibility for separate buildings to provide a mixed usage of the same site. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bishow explained the next group of motions, beginning with E. Ms. Nathanson commented that expansion of existing medical facilities should be allowed without requiring residential development on the same site at the time of the expansion. Mr. Meisner said that he was more interested in Ms. Bettman's suggestion to grandfather the existing uses, but when significant expansion occurred then some portion of the expansion area should be designated to housing, either within the building or on the site. He suggested dropping the requirement of housing for any expansion and put in a percentage of expansion that would trigger the need to include residential in the development. Mr. Kelly commented that it was an issue of preserving residential land. He liked Ms. Bettman's motion #5 but suggested replacing "any expansion" with "significant expansion." Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to grandfather existing medical facilities in R-3 or R-4 from the requirement to provide residential use on the property, but to require that any significant expansion of such facilities provide at least 60 percent of the expansion area for housing within the building or on the development site. Mr. Pap8 raised concern with forcing an expanding medical practice to provide 60 percent of the expansion as residential. He commented that financing would be difficult to get for such an idea. He urged the council to think hard about the motion. He suggesting making the code flexible enough so that the facilities could expand without requiring residential development on a portion on the site. Mr. Rayor questioned the definition of "significant expansion." Ms. Taylor also raised concern over the definition of significant expansion. She believed that the term could be manipulated. Ms. Bettman also called for a definition of significant expansion. She commented that the proposed ordinance should be triggered at a reasonable threshold. She expressed a desire to see the proposed ordinance expanded to R-2 as well. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the original motion to include R-2 zoned land. Ms. Bishow said that medical clinics were not permitted in R-2 land, so the code would have to first be amended to allow the use and then amended to include the residential requirement. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 20, 2000 Page 3 Work Session With the permission of her second, Ms. Bettman withdrew her motion. Ms. Nathanson commented that sites with existing medical facilities were not counted in the available land inventory for residential land. She opined that the proposal behind the residential requirement was unfair and commented that it would drive out neighborhood-based medical facilities. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion to delete the words "...but to require that any expansion of such facilities provide at least 60 percent of the expansion area for housing within the building or on the development site." Mayor Torrey was supportive of the amendment. He said that the council was running the risk of not utilizing land to its full potential. Mr. Kelly reiterated that the issue was availability of residential land. He disagreed with Ms. Nathanson that the land was not needed for residential use. He commented that just because it was not counted in the Residential Lands Study did not mean the land would not be a valuable addition to available residential land. Ms. Bishow reiterated that, under the April 2000 Draft Code language, the moment the code went into effect, only medical facilities in R-3 and R-4 that had 60 percent housing on the lot would be conforming uses, unless it was clarified that it was facilities established after the date of the adoption of the ordinance that were required to have housing. Mr. Rayor was against the amendment. He called for staff to bring back a recommendation. Ms. Bettman was also against the amendment. She commented that including residential uses on the site of the facilities was consistent with other decisions the council had made and with goals to create walkable transit accommodating land use patterns. Mr. Pap~ said that the language of the proposed ordinance might require an expanding facility to add a second story with a footprint that was larger than the lower story. Mr. Farmer said that any part of the code could be adopted in a way that pertained to only new development and existing uses could be grandfathered in. He added that existing facilities could be grandfathered in if they were less than a certain size. He said that the code could apply to anything new, but there were a variety of ways to handle existing facilities. Mr. Pap~ commented that the proposed ordinance, without the amendment, would be discouraging legitimate expansions of existing facilities. Mr. Meisner disagreed with Mr. Pap~. He opposed the amendment. He did not think that most of the existing facilities were neighborhood clinics. He expressed a desire for staff to come up with language to clarify that the council was not asking for an unreasonable investment in the future, but if an expansion was such that it could support the development of residential use. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Meisner. She said that medical facilities in neighborhoods were frequently detrimental rather than beneficial. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 20, 2000 Page 4 Work Session The motion to amend failed, 5:2, with Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Nathanson voting in favor. The main motion passed, 6:1, with Mr. Pap~ voting in opposition. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to exempt the Goodpasture Island Road property owned by PeaceHealth from being required to provide residential use on the property. Mr. Pap~ commented that PeaceHealth owned a significant portion of land on Goodpasture Island Road and had plans that did not include residential uses. Mr. Kelly opposed the motion. He said that PeaceHealth's interests had been addressed by broadening the previous motions language to include development site. He raised concern over creating site specific sections of the code. Mr. Meisner commented that the site was 22 acres of R-2 zoned land that was planned for high- density use. He opined that this was an enormous amount of residential land to lose. He opposed the motion. Ms. Nathanson supported the motion. She opined that too much continuous multiple-family housing in one area created seas of apartments with nothing breaking them up. Mr. Rayor opposed the motion. He said that the motion was going against the intent of the current code. Ms. Bettman was in favor of medical facilities being accessible to neighborhood residents. Mr. Meisner reiterated that housing could be included on the site with a medical facility. The motion failed, 5:2, with Mr. Pap~ and Ms. Nathanson voting in favor. Ms. Childs wanted to get consensus from the council that it agreed with substituting the word "development site" for "building square footage." Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to allow hospitals, clinics, and other medical facilities in R-3 and R-4 zones if no more than 40 percent of the square footage on the development site is used for the medical facility and the remainder is dedicated to residential use and achieves the minimum residential density required for the zone. Mr. Rayor suggested language that would allow for housing to be provided either on the development site or within the same structure as the medical use. He opined that adding structure into the language of the motion would allow more flexibility. Ms. Childs said that the current language would allow either option. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 20, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Nathanson expressed her desire for a motion that simply stated that it was the council's intent to ask staff to provide the maximum flexibility for analyzing the site. Ms. Childs said that the term "development site" allowed the most flexibility. Mr. Meisner stressed the importance of meeting minimum densities in R-3 and R-4 zoned lands. It was accepted as a friendly amendment that the council wanted to see a minimum residential density met when there were any nonresidential uses on a site. Mr. Kelly expressed his expectation that staff would notify the council if its decisions caused unintended consequences. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to limit nonresidential uses in residential zones to nodal development areas only. Ms. Bettman commented that mixed uses were being allowed citywide when they were strategies that were originally discussed in terms of nodal development. She commented that it would be more difficult to encourage development within nodes when it was being allowed citywide. Mr. Kelly commented that the city was a long way from distinguishing nodal from nonnodal. As an example, he observed that nodal had more strict floor area ratios. He said that the issue deserved study and should be a line item in the work plan, but added that he would not support the motion. Mr. Meisner said that he would not support the motion for the same reasons as Mr. Kelly. He added that he was interested in closely examining the list of nonresidential uses permitted in residential zones. He commented that he lived in a mixed-use area and liked having access to some commercial uses in the neighborhood. Ms. Bettman, with permission of her second, withdrew the motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to prohibit methadone clinics in residential zones and allow them in C-2, C-3, C-4, and I-2 zones when the property was within 1/4 mile of a transit stop. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the impetus behind the motion, Ms. Bettman said that she had seen problems in four different neighborhoods over the last eight years. Ms. Nathanson commented that methadone clinics were not the only kind of clinic to worry about in residential zoned areas. She commented that there was already a State law that prohibited clinics next to a daycare facility or a school. Mike McKerrow of the Planning and Development Department agreed that there were State laws that addressed siting of methadone clinics. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 20, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bishow added that other facilities that were distinguished in the draft code were blood banks, correctional facilities, and plasma centers. She said that methadone clinics were another example of a type of facility that perhaps needed a special review. Mr. Kelly raised concern over banning clinics because of the clients that used it. He stressed that the rule must apply to all clinics. Mr. Rayor agreed with Mr. Kelly and expressed his own concern over segregating specific facilities. He suggested sending the item back to staff for more study. Ms. Taylor commented that commercial areas were very accessible. She added that the clients of methadone clinics were often dangerous. She commented there were a number of things that did not belong in residential zones when one thought of children playing around the neighborhood. She commented that methadone clinics were not the only facilities that should be addressed in such a way. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He commented that the placement of clinics had been unfairly placed in the central area of the city. He called for a worksession on the social services dispersal policy. Ms. Nathanson called for some staff comment on using the term "nonresidential drug treatment clinics." The motion passed, 5:2, with Mr. Kelly and Mr. Rayor voting in opposition. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Councilor PapS, to direct the City Manager to change the code to reduce the minimum lot width requirements for duplex divisions to 40 feet per side. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding whether there would be significant consequences to the motion, Ms. Bishow said that staff did not foresee any adverse consequences. The change would continue to allow narrower lot widths for duplex divisions. The motion passed, 6:1, with Ms. Bettman in opposition. Ms. Childs directed the council's attention to an item that it had begun to discuss at the September 18, 2000, work session. She said that, originally there had been a single motion that dealt with prohibiting both government and religious services on residentially zoned land. She said that the council had addressed the motion related to government services (the motion failed), but noted that the motion, as it pertained to religious services, still needed to be discussed. Mr. Kelly called for discussion before putting the motion on the table. He pointed out that if something was prohibited outright that was currently permitted a nonconforming use was immediately created, which may or may not have unintended consequences. He commented that, for him, it was an issue of compatibility with surrounding use. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 20, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to provide code language that allowed impact review of religious services on residential zoned land. Mr. Kelly said that he was looking for some level of review rather than an outright prohibition. He said prohibiting churches would create a hardship and what he was primarily interested in was addressing compatibility. He asked staff to provide direction on how best to address. Ms. Nathanson raised a concern over other activities that would be held on a religious site with associated structures. She asked if staff could provide information at the appropriate time regarding the pending federal legislation related to churches. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the application of the motion to religious schools, Ms. Bishow said that schools would not be affected since both public and private schools are regulated the same under the land use category of "education." Mr. Meisner said that he would support the motion. He stressed the importance of impact review and also of impacts on the residential land supply. The motion passed, 4:3, with Mr. Pap~, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Bettman 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 20, 2000 Page 8 Work Session