Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/13/00 JEO MINUTES Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council Joint Work Session Springfield Library Conference Room--Springfield City Hall--Springfield September 13, 2000 5:30 p.m. EUGENE COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. EUGENE COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr, Scott Meisner. SPRINGFIELD COUNCILORS PRESENT: Sid Leiken, Anne Ballew, Christine Lundberg, Fred Simmons, Tammy Fitch, Lyle Hatfield. JOINT WORK SESSION: TRANSPLAN: NODAL DEVELOPMENT Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi called the roll of the Springfield City Council. Mayor Torrey called the Eugene City Council to order and noted that councilors Pat Fart and Scott Meisner were excused from the meeting. Mayor Weathers called the Springfield City Council to order. Mayor Torrey announced that the Friends of the Library had invited the Eugene City Council to march with the organization in the Eugene Celebration Parade. He encouraged councilors wishing to participate to contact the City Manager's Office. Mayor Torrey and the members of the Eugene City Council wished Mayor Weathers well and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to work with her over the past few years. Those present applauded the contribution of Mayor Weathers. Noting that the meeting was Eugene Councilor Bobby Lee's last, Mayor Torrey presented Mr. Lee with a plaque recognizing his contribution to the City of Eugene. Those present applauded the contribution of Mr. Lee. Eugene Planning Director Jan Childs reported that there were six outstanding issues related to nodal development remaining for the two bodies to resolve. She referred the elected officials to a list of the issues, posted on a flip chart, with the time scheduled for each. Springfield Planning Director Greg Mott referred the councils to two wall maps, one entitled BRT System and the other entitled Nodal Development Areas. MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council September 13, 2000 Page 1 Joint Work Session Issue ~4: Revise Definition of Nodal Development Ms. Childs compared the fundamental characteristics of a node as defined in the May 1999 TransPlan with the 1999 and 2000 definitions authored by the Friends of Eugene. At this point, Ms. Taylor asked if councilor-elect Bonny Bettman could join the elected officials and participate in the discussion. Mayor Torrey ruled that, because Mr. Lee was present to represent Ward 3, it would be inappropriate to have two representatives from the ward. Mayor Torrey left the meeting. Mayor Weathers emphasized the need for sufficient flexibility so that the two communities could implement the definition on the basis of location. She wanted to ensure that the cities did not adopt a "cookie cutter" approach. Mr. Hatfield did not perceive sufficient difference between the Friends' 1999 definition and the draft TransPlan definition to justify amending the plan. He said that the Friends' later draft would preclude implementation of the Mohawk Draft Redevelopment Plan, Gateway Refinement Plan, and Jasper-Natron Plan, because they were all greater than one-quarter square mile, and because the Mohawk, Gateway, and Glenwood areas all contained more than 2,000 people. He asked why nodes needed to have a recognizable center, how a center was defined, and if there could be more than one center. Mr. Hatfield thought that the Friends' other ideas, such as that nodes were safe places where walking was encouraged, were implicit in the concept of nodal development. He termed the suggestion that nodes be located in an area whose residents generate no more than 12 VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) per day to be absurd, because the community needed them in peripheral areas where VMTs could be reduced, such as in Thurston. Mr. Rayor indicated his agreement with Mr. Hatfield's remarks. He emphasized the need for a definition that included housing and neighborhood commercial, saying he did not consider Gateway to be a node. Mr. Hatfield clarified that the actual Gateway node was to the east of the shopping center. Ms. Childs commented that the Eugene and Springfield planning commissions had felt strongly that the map should show the full range of potential nodal development; it was not the commissions' intention that they should all be implemented. The question of which nodes to designate was a separate question from the definition. Mr. Kelly said that he liked the 1999 draft but also liked the Friends' prelude text, which indicate that a node required, rather than included, certain elements. He thought the Friends' last bullet in the 1999 definition stating a node was pedestrian- and transit-oriented should be added. He agreed with Mr. Hatfield about the location of nodes in an area whose residents generated no more 12 VMT daily. He was interested in constraining the size of a node and suggested that Springfield consider the Jasper-Natron node as two or more smaller areas with nodal characteristics. He determined from Mr. Mott that the entire Jasper-Natron site was 900 acres. Mr. Hatfield reiterated that he did not want to be constrained by a size limitation. Mr. Kelly argued that Springfield could include all the characteristics of a node within the quarter-mile radius suggested by the Friends inside the larger area. Mr. Hatfield pointed to the Mohawk area as another argument against a size limitation, saying that the area was greater than one-quarter mile radius. MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council September 13, 2000 Page 2 Joint Work Session Mr. Kelly said that he was not committed to the one-quarter mile limit but thought it was important to constrain the size of a node to ensure that it contained the appropriate characteristics. Mr. Kelly believed that the definitions of neighborhood, commercial, and employment centers in the glossary were good examples but were overconstraining and should not be included in the glossary. Ms. Nathanson indicated concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Hatfield. She said that the elected officials could continue to wordsmith the definition and be at it all evening. She pointed out that the elected officials were not just discussing new nodes but also the need to encourage redevelopment that resulted in nodes on a variety of sites. She said that she did not want to create regulations that imposed a degree of uniformity because it was not realistic and could discourage redevelopment of sites with a variety of conditions. Ms. Nathanson supported the 1999 TransPlan definition. Mayor Weathers proposed that the elected officials look at the fundamental characteristics to determine if they were sufficiently broad enough to allow the individual jurisdictions to define the criteria for each node. She agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the nodes would be different in nature depending on the nature of the site. She said that the impetus for Springfield's mixed-use ordinance was its interest in incorporating some of the elements of nodal development into some of the development plans it was in the process of reviewing. Mayor Weathers pointed out that the purpose of nodal development was to provide an incentive for pedestrian-friendly mixed-use development by lowering regulatory barriers. She urged the elected officials to maintain a level of flexibility that allowed each jurisdiction to interpret the plan in the way that works best for it. Ms. Lundberg agreed with the remarks of Mr. Hatfield and Mayor Weathers regarding the need for flexibility. She was particularly interested in accommodating redevelopment because of constraints on Springfield's ability to grow. Ms. Lundberg reminded the elected officials that the cities would not be the developers of the nodes in question, and the cities must do what they could to encourage the private sector to do nodal development. Ms. Ballew supported the general approach in the 1999 TransPlan definition. She agreed with Ms. Lundberg's remarks regarding the private sector actually doing the development in question and said that general and flexible policies were needed to guide development. She suggested the possibility of including the definition of mixed use inside the definition of nodal development. Ms. Taylor said that there would be variety between nodes but nodes needed to have certain characteristics and regulations ensuring that those basic characteristics were included inside a node. Mr. Leiken said that flexibility allowed for greater creativity and would serve the public better. He pointed out that the inclusion of parks and open space inside a node would increase the size of a node beyond one-quarter mile in many cases. He said that there was enough of a difference between Eugene and Springfield to support a less specific approach that was inherent in the Friends' 2000 definition. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Ms. Childs said that Eugene was working on a five-year nodal development plan, and Eugene could be more specific in that plan about what it wished to see in a node. Mr. Lee believed that Eugene could address the concerns expressed by Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly in that planning process. MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council September 13, 2000 Page 3 Joint Work Session Ms. Childs noted staff support for the use of the word "require" in the introductory text preceding the characteristics of nodal development. Mr. Kelly indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Taylor. He asked if Springfield could accept any size limit, pointing out that Springfield land use patterns would affect Eugene. Mr. Hatfield did not see that the Friends' definition represented an improvement over the 1999 TransPlan definition, which had already gone through an extensive public process. He suggested that Eugene could implement less flexible measures if it chose to do so. He did not perceive any benefit to Springfield from the Friends' recommendations. Ms. Nathanson said that while she thought the Friends' 1999 definition was somewhat better than the TransPlan definition, it was not so much better that she was willing to have a fight over it. She pointed out to Ms. Taylor that no one was saying there should not be a definition or characteristics. The issue before the elected officials was how much to include in the definition. She did not think that the 1999 TransPlan definition, if adopted, meant it would be "business as usual" for the community. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Ms. Childs said that the only significant difference between the Friends' 1999 definition and the TransPlan 1999 definition was that the Friends' definition did not include the minimum 12 units per acre residential density. Mr. Rayor recommended that the phrase "core commercial area" be removed from the definition. There was general concurrence. Mr. Simmons observed that the two jurisdictions could overcome the objections voiced by Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor in their implementation strategies. Mayor Weathers agreed. Ms. Childs summarized the majority position of the elected officials, which was to replace the word "include" with the word "require," and to delete the reference to "core commercial area in the third bullet of the 1999 TransPlan definition. Issue #5: Delete Definition of Employment and Commercial Centers Mr. Hatfield agreed with Mr. Kelly's earlier suggestion that the three paragraphs following the glossary definition of nodal development that defined neighborhood, commercial, and employment centers be deleted and included elsewhere in the plan as examples. He anticipated that in Springfield there would be some areas with nodal characteristics that did not include residential uses. He wanted TransPlan to be flexible enough to ensure that Springfield could establish employment centers with services that meant that employees did not have to leave the site to, for example, drive to a restaurant. Mayor Weathers agreed. She added that Springfield wanted the concept to work in as many places as possible and wanted to be able to require that services be included in proposals for employment centers. Mr. Rayor said that he agreed that services should be included in employment centers to lower VMT during the day but he did not believe that such an approach did anything to lower VMT during the morning or evening commuting hours. He did not agree with the statement in the paragraph defining employment centers that residential uses may not be appropriate for inclusion in the node, and suggested that each jurisdiction could determine the appropriate percentage of housing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council September 13, 2000 Page 4 Joint Work Session Ms. Ballew reiterated the need for flexibility, pointing to the Mohawk area, which was surrounded by housing but which was largely older commercial development. She said that at this point there was little interest in redeveloping the commercial areas, and it would require both creativity and flexibility to induce private developers. Mayor Weathers said that the challenge was to improve pedestrian and transit service in that area. Ms. Nathanson said that it was her expectation that an employment center would be served by transit so that people working there could take the bus. She had previously questioned the need for keeping the definitions in question as they were not prescriptive, but had subsequently concluded that they had an educational benefit and helped communicate the vision in TransPlan to the citizens. Mr. Kelly asked if the Department of Land Conservation and Development's definition of mixed use included housing. Ms. Childs said yes. Mr. Kelly perceived a potential conflict between Springfield's intended use of mixed use and the State definition. Mr. Hatfield clarified that Springfield intended to have nodes to reduce VMT that would simply not be nodes for bureaucratic purposes. Mayor Weathers added that it did not mean Springfield could not do the right thing, but it would not get credit for it from the State because of the approach it chose. She expressed frustration about the fact that Springfield intended to do the right thing but was being hampered by definitions. Mr. Kelly asked what meaning the bullet regarding housing had in the definition in a node that did not require housing. Mr. Mott responded that Springfield was preparing a mixed-use overlay ordinance with a subset of nodal development sites. Where the council determined the nodal development sites would occur, they would be overlaid with the nodal development requirements of the ordinance, which would include residential. He said that to this point, Springfield has had other sites that have been designated mixed-use, but had not been able to effectively implement the designation because it was limited by its existing zoning districts. Mr. Mott said that Springfield needed a more effective way of zoning those properties, which were not intended to be nodes, although they may be located in transit corridors and served by bus. Springfield intended to maintain those sites as mixed-use sites, and would have other sites that were designated as nodal development sites consistent with the transportation planning rule (TPR) definition. Bob Cortright of Department of Land Conservation and Development assured the Springfield council that it would receive credit for its approach, pointing out that reducing reliance on the automobile was the larger goal. He said that the department recognized mixed use as an appropriate strategy for reducing VMT. Mr. Leiken concurred with the remarks of Mr. Hatfield and Mayor Weathers, saying he envisioned self-contained employment centers served by transit. Mr. Simmons found the definition of nodal development adequate and agreed that the definitions of neighborhood, commercial, and employment centers should be struck. A majority of the elected officials agreed. Mr. Kelly recommended that the paragraphs be placed elsewhere in the plan as educational examples. Issue #1: Land Use Policy MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council September 13, 2000 Page 5 Joint Work Session The elected officials agreed that this issue was resolved by their agreement on Issue #5. The phrase "which consists of neighborhood centers, commercial centers, and employment centers" will be deleted from the policy. Issue #2: Land Use Findings Ms. Childs recommended that the finding be divided into two separate complete sentences. The elected officials accepted Ms. Childs' recommendation. Issue #3: Section E, Land Use Diagram Ms. Childs confirmed with the Springfield council its acceptance of a staff recommendation that text under Item 2 in the plan diagram be struck and replaced with the list of nodal development characteristics. Issue #6: Land Use Poficy #5 The elected officials discussed the Department of Land Conservation and Development's interest in seeing the metropolitan area commit to implementation of nodal development with the addition of a new policy in TransPlan. Staff recommended language was included in the meeting packet: Land Use Policy #5: Implementation of Nodal Development. Within one year of TransPlan adoption, apply the ND, Nodal Development, designation to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply interim measures to protect designated nodes from incompatible development and adopt a schedule for completion of nodal plans and implementing ordinances. Mr. Cortright encouraged the addition of the new policy, saying the more clear the metropolitan area was about its commitment, the more clear the State will be that nodal development will achieve the goals of the TPR. He said that the State was interested in clear steps toward implementation and the timing of those steps. Mr. Cortright said that the use of alternative measures triggered the TPR's requirement for an integrated land use transportation plan, and the metropolitan area had three years from the date of adoption to have the plan in place. Mayor Weathers asked if the State expected the two jurisdictions to apply the designations selected by each city to areas included in TransPlan, and if there was some minimum number of nodes that must be identified. She said that would require much study, which would require funding. Mayor Weathers pointed out that some things can only be achieved over time. There was general concurrence among Springfield councilors. Mr. Cortright indicated that the State would look to TransPlan for that information. Responding to a question from Mayor Weathers, Ms. Childs said that the State expected the jurisdictions to select areas that they wish to move forward with as nodes and designate and apply the zoning districts over the course of three years. Mr. Hatfield thought that given the State-suggested reductions in VMT were not feasible, the metropolitan area was forced to take the alternative modes approach. He wanted Springfield to be able to take the approach that was best for it, even though TransPlan was a metro-wide plan. Mr. Cortright pointed out that the plan was adopted by the individual jurisdictions, and he thought Springfield had some flexibility to describe how the plan would be implemented. Mr. Hatfield MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council September 13, 2000 Page 6 Joint Work Session asked how Springfield was to pay for the work that was needed, as most of the work on nodes that had been done to this point had been underwritten by State Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grants. He said that such work was extremely costly. Mr. Cortright noted that the State hoped to continue its Transportation Growth Management Program with reduced dollars. Mayor Weathers said that given sufficient time and money, anything was possible. However, given limited funding, limited time, and the potential passage of ballot measures that would further limit government funding, she was concerned about the lack of flexibility in the deadline. Mr. Cortright said that if the ballot measures pass, all governments will have a different world to deal with. During the three-year period following adoption, Mr. Cortright recommended that the jurisdictions target their planning work to those areas where they expected to realize the most gain, and that they establish interim controls to preclude incompatible development. Ms. Nathanson said that the two jurisdictions were trying sincerely to meet the intent of the rule but had different rules and policies that meant they could not be specific in TransPlan about what would be "on the ground." She asked what would happen if the two cities were on different implementation schedules. Mr. Lee did not think the two cities had any choice but to comply with the State's deadlines. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Childs said that Eugene was on track with the adoption of its nodal development overlay zone to have the needed interim measures in place when TransPlan was adopted and the new Metro Plan designation was available for application. At that time, the council would select the nodes and apply the Metro Plan designation and city overlay zone. She said that Eugene would meet the three-year State deadline. Mr. Rayor concurred with Mr. Lee. Responding to a question from Mayor Weathers, Mr. Mott described the approach that Springfield would take toward implementation. He anticipated an eight to ten month process. Responding to a request for input from Mayor Weathers, Mr. Cortright said he believed that the two cities were moving in the right direction. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Cortright said that LCDC had enforcement authority if the State determined the metropolitan area was not making satisfactory progress. That would probably include the State's institution of some interim controls. Mr. Kelly clarified that the new policy, if adopted, would establish a three-year window for compliance. Ms. Childs said yes. Mr. Kelly asked if the policy would be satisfied if each jurisdiction did two nodes, adding that he did not think that, given the rate of development, much area would be protected to "do the right thing." Ms. Childs said she believed it was not the two jurisdictions' intent to do the minimum number, and anticipated that the two councils would examine and identify other nodes as well. The exact number was not known. Mr. Kelly suggested that a statement to that effect be included in an intent statement. Responding to a question from Ms. Ballew, Mr. Mott said he did not see much difference between development of interim protection measures and the development of the final measures. He did not want to go through an interim process followed by an almost identical process. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council September 13, 2000 Page 7 Joint Work Session anticipated that Springfield would embark on one process, and expressed concern that the State might expect Springfield to do both interim and final measures. He preferred to "jump right to final." Mr. Cortright indicated that was acceptable. Ms. Nathanson observed that the metropolitan area's transportation issues were not entirely within the two cities' control given that many people outside the community commute to Eugene- Springfield to shop and work. She said that she would feel bad if the community was penalized for the impacts of that inmigration. Mr. Cortright said that the State shared Ms. Nathanson's concerns. He said that the State adopted a definition of VMT that ensured that only trips inside the boundaries were counted for metropolitan areas. The State was not holding the community accountable for reducing VMT outside its boundaries. Mr. Cortright clarified that the trips those commuters made inside the boundaries did count toward the total VMT. He added that the strategies the community adopted for nodal development would probably have a similar effect on trips from the outside as they did for trips originating with residents. Ms. Childs noted that the Lane Council of Governments had just received grant funding for a Region 2050 plan to address some of the concerns raised by Ms. Nathanson. Mr. Hatfield said that it was clear a policy was needed, but it should be set by each jurisdiction and it should be a minimalist policy. He commended the State for its reasonable approach and for providing for the alternative measures approach. Mr. Simmons concurred. The elected officials agreed to add a new Land Use Policy 5 related to implementation, with a three-year deadline, and eliminating the word "interim" from the policy drafted by staff. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson Eugene City Manager Respectfully submitted, Mike Kelly Springfield City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council September 13, 2000 Page 8 Joint Work Session