Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/02/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room, City Ha11--777 Pearl Street October 2, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Pat Fart, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Pap~. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A.Work Session: April 2000 Draft Land Use Code Mayor Torrey called the work session to order. Senior Planner Teresa Bishow said that the focus of the night's meeting was the completion of topics related to environment and sustain ability. She distributed copies of a document called "Efficiency of Review." She noted that there were also suggested motions available to the council for the topic that would be considered on October 11, 2000. Ms. Bishow said that the Consent Item motions listed on the agenda dealt with amendments to the code that sought to clarify the direction the Planning Commission recommended. She said that there were two motions that staff wished more discussion on which dealt with establishing a minimum required percentage of tree protection in planned unit developments (PUD) and the changes to Skinner Butte height limitation area. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to: A. Include "Heritage Trees" and trees along drainage ways to the list of priorities for tree preservation in subdivisions, conditional use permits, site reviews, and planned unit developments. B. Clarify that "needed housing" projects are subject to specific tree preservation standards. C. Change the adjustment review criteria for tree standards to require consistency with the purpose of the standards and to require a review of alternative design proposals. D. Change the adjustment review section to allow modifications to standards affecting historic properties. E. Clarify that the S-H historic zones are adopted as separate ordinances and are available in the planning office. F. Clarify when a geotechnical report will be required. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 1 Work Session G. Allow lots significantly affected in the amount of developable area due to natural resource protection measures to have reduced landscape requirements. Mr. Farr pulled Item A. The motion to approve items B-G passed unanimously, 7:0. Speaking to Item A, Mr. Fart asked staff to describe Heritage Trees. Urban Forester Mark Snyder defined Heritage Trees as "A living, standing tree having exceptional value to the community due to its size and species. The specific methodology of classifying a heritage tree shall be established by administrative rule of the City Manger, adoptive pursuant to Section 2.019 of the Eugene Code." In response to a question from Mr. Fart as to whether administrative rules had been written on the topic, staff said that there were existing administrative rules that could be amended during the implementation of the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) but added that the existing rules should be able to operate under LUCU. Mr. Snyder said that the purpose of changing the definition of Heritage Trees was to clarify and simplify the complicated current definition. He noted that the current definition in the Urban Forestry Management Plan took almost three pages to explain. Mr. Kelly said that the intent of the motion was to address the fact that there was no provision in the code for preserving heritage trees in a PUD. He noted that the change in definition would be handled elsewhere. In response to Mr. Fart's confusion as to the actual definition of a Heritage Tree, Mr. Snyder said the definition and determination had to do with three main factors of the current definition: the size of the tree, the condition of the tree, and the species of the tree. He noted that historic elements associated with the tree were also a factor. Mr. Fart raised concern that the stock of buildable land would be reduced because of a loose definition of Heritage Trees. The motion to adopt Item A passed unanimously, 7:0. Planning Director Jan Childs said that the second consent item motion dealt with future work program items. She noted that there was a future work program item that Mr. Meisner mentioned at a previous work session that did not get listed. She said that it would be on the next list of future work program items. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to place the following issues on a list of potential future work program items: A. Investigate ways to encourage upper-story residential development in all C-1 and C-2 zoned areas. B. Investigate ways to more actively encourage and allow shared parking. C. Create a new cottage zone for undeveloped lots to allow very small homes without needing to subdivide. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 2 Work Session D. Create additional tree preservation standards to enhance protection of "Heritage Trees" and design a process to identify heritage trees in the community. E. Update the South Hills Study and/or work on special code provisions for the/HD hillside development overlay zone. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the reason behind Item D, Mr. Kelly said that there was currently an awkward process of identifying heritage trees and he was interested in a process that would identify them over time. As an example, he said that neighborhood groups or volunteer groups could be enlisted to nominate specific trees. He stressed that heritage trees on private land had no protection whatsoever. He said the purpose of the motion was to look into that fact. Regarding item A, Ms. Nathanson asked if residential development was being encouraged in places where there currently was none, or were places that already had second stow residential being encouraged to add third and fourth stories. Mr. Kelly said the motion was intentionally left broader. He said that the motion was in response to testimony that the draft code did not go as far as it should in promoting mixed use. Ms. Nathanson suggested that not only upper stow development be encouraged but also adjacent building development on single lots as well. Ms. Bettman pulled Item A. Items B-E of the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Bettman suggested, to general consensus, that item A be tabled until there was discussion of commercial development standards and density. Ms. Bishow said that motion 3 was initiated by Mr. Kelly. She noted that staff had a concern regarding the concept of always having a minimum required percent of tree protection. She said that in applicable land use applications the suggestion was 35 percent for areas zoned R-1 and 20 percent for all other areas. She noted that the draft code allowed the developer the option of having a development request evaluated according to clear and objective standards where there was a percent of tree protection required or meeting a certain outcome-based approach where, to the degree possible, they preserve trees. Ms. Bishow said the primary staff concern with minimum thresholds was that there could be situations where other community objectives could not be achieved if there was such an emphasis placed on trees. Achieving density or preserving other natural resources, such as wetlands, might not be possible if a certain percent of trees needed to be preserved. She said that there was another concern that if discretionary criteria was used to approve a land use application that had a quantifiable standard, then that would become the norm or benchmark. As an example, she surmised that an applicant, rather than trying to preserve as many trees as possible, would stay at the 20 percent level. Mr. Kelly said that his intent was to avoid discretionary language that talked about preserving trees to the "greatest degree attainable." He commented that he had seen Hearings Officials say that the greatest degree attainable was zero. He said that he was trying to put in a set amount that would avoid that much discretion by a Hearings Official. He expressed his willingness to MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 3 Work Session listen to any councilor who had alternate language that would achieve that objective. He added that he would be open to exempting lots that had under a certain number of trees. Mr. Meisner raised a concern that the example Ms. Bishow used would become the norm if the motion were passed. Mr. Farr opined that trees were what sold residential lots. He trusted the judgement of the people who were trying to sell a particular piece of property. He disagreed with the idea of minimum percentages. Ms. Nathanson called for ideas from staff to get closer to the stated objective. Ms. Taylor opined that a minimum percentage was safer in that it would eliminate the practice of totally clear cutting lots. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding other options, Ms. Bishow said that there were choices for a PUD regarding wetland preservation, protection of scenic views, hillside development, and appropriate locations for roads. She said that if a specific percentage of tree preservation were implemented, it would place trees at a different level than those other components and would make finding an appropriate balance more difficult. She suggested an alternative of requiring an applicant to demonstrate that they had explored alternative design scenarios. Ms. Childs noted that a major shift had occurred over the last five years regarding how tree preservation was looked at. She raised concern that only looking at percentages would drive someone to pick trees on a lot to be preserved that would not survive in the long term just to meet a required percentage. Mr. Kelly said that he would not make the motion. He complimented staff on its feedback. He called for staff to provide information on Ms. Bishow's suggestion of requiring applicants to demonstrate that they had explore alternative design scenarios to preserve as many trees as possible and to provide a definition of the term "broadest degree attainable." Mr. Kelly said that the next proposed motion came out of the discussion of possibly putting the th new federal court house on 5 Avenue. He noted that the Skinner Butte height limitation currently only went south to the railroad tracks. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to expand the Skinner Butte height limitation area south to 6th Avenue, so the north side of 6th Avenue would be included in the area. Mr. Meisner said that it made perfect sense to include the north side of 6th Avenue in the height limitation area. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding the east and west limits of the height limitation area, Ms. Bishow said that the limits were Washington Street on the west and the Ferry Street Bridge on the east. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bishow directed the councilors' attention to the "new motions" list. She noted that the first two motions listed dealt with tree preservation and removal standards. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to clarify during adjustment review what criteria would be used to evaluate the alternative proposals being submitted such as efforts to achieve clustered development and mitigate for tree loss including replanting and ensuring the long term health of the new trees. Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He said that there was merit in clarifying the code for the developer and the public. Mr. Fart reiterated his concern over the impact of the motion to the cost of housing in the City. He acknowledged that the motion was good in its intent, but raised concern that the cost of the motion would be passed on to home buyers. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend Section 9.2520(4)(g) to eliminate the text "...and application of chemical herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers..." and create a new section (h) stating that chemicals are prohibited unless the planning director determines they will address an imminent threat to public health and safety. Ms. Bishow said that the change would clarify the code and would have been on the Consent Calendar if staff had had it sooner. Mr. Kelly said that he was in favor of separating the language of the code section and that it made sense to provide criteria for each part of that code section. In response to a question from Mr. Fart regarding a definition of chemicals as stated in the motion, Ms. Bishow said that chemicals, in that instance, would mean chemical herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Childs said that the next series of motions dealt with lighting. She introduced Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer to address the subject before the motions were made. Mr. Farmer said that lighting technology had changed tremendously in the last 20 years. He stressed that exterior lighted needed to be monitored for appropriate levels, uniformity and avoiding glare. He said that light could be measured in lumins or candle power. He noted that there was a term called "cut off" that referred to an angle at which the main beam candle power fell to ten percent or less, and that the industry used this term to help address the problem of glare. Mr. Farmer raised concern over two of the proposed lighting motions regarding allowing decorative lighting that did not cause glare and an exemption for lighting standards around historic landmarks. He said that staff felt they were not really needed but would be happy to look MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 5 Work Session at specific examples. He suggested that language be added to address maintenance of existing fixtures. Ms. Nathanson raised concern that the University was going to be counted under the same lighting definition as a residential area, when the amount of night activity on campus would seem to call for a higher level of lighting, and that high school, college, and university campuses were activity centers more like commercial than residential areas. She stressed that her intent was to increase the level of safety on campus during evening hours. Mayor Torrey said that others had communicated with him on the issue. He noted that Ms. Nathanson's addressed only the University, and not other campus type areas. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to direct the City Manager to ensure that the outdoor lighting classification for public activity areas such as school and college campuses be classified as high ambient light areas to better reflect the mix of uses on the campus and the high level of nighttime activity. Mr. Meisner said that he would not support the motion. He acknowledged Ms. Nathanson's safety concerns but commented that every square foot of the campus should not be a high ambient light area because it did border on residential areas. He added that he could understand high activity area lighting for portions of the University campus. Mr. Farr was in favor of the motion. He said that he would trust the discretion of the operators of the facilities to know which areas needed higher light. He remarked that it did not make economic sense to put up more lighting than was necessary. Mr. Kelly said that he would support a more narrowly crafted motion. He reiterated Mr. Meisner's concerns and would not support a blanket change from Iow ambient to high ambient lighting for schools and colleges. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding what existing rules there were for preventing light pollution on to adjacent properties, Ms. Bishow said that the current code reacted to development on a complaint basis to ensure that glare was not caused on adjoining properties. She added that it was difficult to enforce lighting standards and that there was no review of building plans for lighting fixtures. Mr. Farmer said that it was very easy in the planning process to see if lighting did or did not meet the code requirements. He went on, however, to say that it was very difficult to do "after the fact enforcement." Mr. Rayor said he would vote against the motion because of the way it was worded. He suggested adding language to the motion to specify high activity corridors. Ms. Taylor commented that too much light could be a nuisance and said that she would vote against the motion. Ms. Childs commented that there was a clear need for a light provision in public land zones. She said that staff would come back with a proposal for how to address lighting in those areas. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 6 Work Session With the permission of the second, the motion was withdrawn. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to allow decorative lighting that did not cause glare. Ms. Nathanson displayed a picture of an entrance way light fixture that would not be allowed under the code even though it did not produce a harsh glare. She thought that the draft code provision seemed unnecessary. She raised concern over prescribing certain kinds of lighting instead of proscribing compliance with objectives and allowing designers to meet the objectives. Mr. Farmer said that there were many decorative lights that caused glare. He commented that decorative lighting could be achieved in a variety of styles that did not cause glare and would be allowed under the code. Mr. Kelly said that the code did not prevent existing fixtures from continuing to function, but would limit some architectural options. He said that he would not support such a broadly phrased motion. Mr. Meisner said that there was nothing to prevent good technology being put in old fixtures. He added that he did not want light pollution just because someone called it decorative. Mr. Farmer suggested a more finely tuned document be created by staff for council approval. He said, for example, changing the requirement of "full cut off" to simply "cut off" would allow a small amount of ambient light but would prevent glare. With the permission of the second, the motion was withdrawn. Ms. Nathanson said that her perception was that any light that was pointed up to illuminate a wall or a statue was prohibited outright. She said that the regulations were too restrictive. Ms. Bishow said that Subsection 13 of the lighting standards in the draft code allowed the Planning Director to have building facades, statues, and other objects illuminated in such a way that light was directed downward. She said that it was a policy choice to what degree light should be allowed to be directed upward when it was not addressing a safety issue. Mr. Rayor suggested adding a subsection to the lighting standards that would allow exceptions for historic landmarks. In response to a comment from Ms. Nathanson regarding the possible upward illumination of signs and statues, Mr. Farmer said that the shielding requirement mandated that signs be lit by shielded lights that were oriented from the top downward. He noted that other kinds of displays were only required to shield lighting so that light was not cast on to adjacent streets or properties. Mayor Torrey noted, for the record, that he had not spoken at all to the subject of lighting standards. He recused himself from the balance of the particular discussion because of a conflict of interest and called on Ms. Taylor to facilitate in his place. Mr. Rayor noted that there were lighting exceptions already existing for flags. He suggested adding statues and historic buildings to that exception list. He stressed that granted exceptions should add to the cultural resources of the City. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bishow raised concern that if statues were added to the list of exceptions it would be difficult to distinguish which objects were "statues" and thus would be granted an exception. Mr. Meisner stressed the importance of setting a clear goal for the discussion. He opined that the goal was to avoid light pollution as much as possible. He said that he would not support a motion, if it was made, because it was too broad. He suggested a possible exemption for acknowledged monuments. Mr. Kelly said that he would not support a broad exemption such as the one Mr. Rayor was proposing. He said that he was prepared to lose some architectural flexibility to meet the objective of eliminating light pollution. He said that he was comfortable with the flexibility that was currently in the draft code. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly's comments. The council moved on to a discussion of possible motions dealing with alternative modes of transportation and parking. Mayor Torrey returned to the meeting. Mr. Kelly noted that there was a minimum and a maximum level of parking allowed for facilities and that the maximum was 125 percent of the minimum. He went on to show that the draft code set a minimum for some facilities as zero and that 125 percent of zero was still zero. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to provide an adequate amount of motor vehicle parking for those uses with a minimum number of space of zero in Table 9.6410. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding how the code would be amended, Ms. Bishow said that staff would try to determine, in advance, the amount of required parking for certain uses. She noted that some uses required no parking and was reluctant to require a paved parking area when one was not needed. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Kelly raised the point that, as well as having a maximum number of parking spaces allowed, there should also be a maximum amount of land area taken by a development site for surface parking. He said that he would trust to staff discretion for the maximum acreage number. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to set a maximum land area that can be used for surface parking on a single development site. Ms. Childs recommended that the item be added to the future work program list. With the permission of his second, Mr. Kelly changed his motion to add the item to the work program list. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He stressed the importance of an efficient use of land resources. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Nathanson commented that grocery stores appeared to have wider parking spaces because of the amount of loading of vehicles. She suggested that differences in activity at a facility should influence the amount of space a facility was allowed. Ms. Bettman commented that surface parking lots were the least efficient use of land within the urban growth boundary. She said that the more land used in surface area parking the less land was available for development and future tax revenue. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the process for the future work plan items, Ms. Childs said that the council would be able to direct staff in regard to the timing of work plan items. She said that clusters of potential amendments could be handled together and would go through the Planning Commission, be the subject of a public hearing, and be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Fart would not support the motion. He noted that there were types of businesses that did not lend themselves to parking structures. As an example, he cited Jerry's Building Materials. He urged the council to remember that not all facilities had the same needs. The motion passed, 5:2, with Mr. Fart and Ms. Nathanson in opposition. Mr. Kelly said that his next motion was in response to public comment that 18 inches in width for bicycle parking spaces would be a more efficient use of space than the existing 24 inches being requested. Urban Design Planner Patricia Thomas provided a drawing of a bike rack used outside Gerlinger Hall at the University of Oregon. Ms. Bishow noted that she and Diane Bishop, the City's Alternative Modes Coordinator, spent time observing the bicycle racks on campus. If the rack was a design where the wheel of a bike was put into a slot, then 18 inches was not wide enough and staff could not recommend a unilateral reduction in the required minimum width. She went on to say, however, that if a facility used the design of the hoop rack installed by Gerlinger Hall with 24 inch clearance on the ends then the 18 inch width per space would be a good design. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to allow bike parking spaces to meet a minimum required spacing of 18 inches when using a hoop rack according to Figure 9.xxx (distributed to the council). Mr. Meisner stressed that the rack needed to be placed sufficiently far from the building to allow efficient bike parking. Ms. Bishow said that she would ensure code language for distance from the building would be included. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Council discussion moved on to proposed motions for future work program items. Ms. Bettman commented that there should be a distinction between developed and undeveloped parks. She noted that there was currently a list of permitted uses in parks in general with no distinction for those intended for long-term use as open space. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to add, as a future work program, to create separate park zoning for natural open space and developed park land, including a review and adjustment of permitted and conditional uses consistent with each zone. Ms. Bishow said that the Natural Resource zone could be used for parks planned for open space. Other park areas could be zoned the new Park and Open Space zone. She raised concern over adding another zone in the code, and suggested that, if necessary, the purpose of the Natural Resource zone could be expanded. Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He commented that natural resource zoning would accomplish the goals that were desired for undeveloped parks. Mr. Fart was against the motion. He said that the motion was already covered with zoning currently in place. Ms. Nathanson supported the concept of distinguishing between developed and undeveloped park lands. She opined that mechanisms were already in place to make those distinctions. Ms. Bettman believed that the natural resource zone was too restrictive in some cases for park land. Mr. Meisner raised concern that there were many areas that did not fit the definition of a natural resource zone but were also not developed parks. He supported the motion because it took those areas into consideration. The motion passed, 6:1, with Mr. Farr voting in opposition. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to add as a future work program item to bring back a solar access green points program that balances intensification of use with continued solar access as a natural amenity and sustainable energy source. Mr. Rayor said that there had been a lot of discussion from the Eugene Water & Electric Board about maintaining the solar ordinance. He commented that there was a clash between density, tree protection and the solar ordinance. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by maintaining the solar access provisions until such time as a solar access green points program had been adopted. Mr. Kelly was against the amendment. He said that he did not feel comfortable going back to existing code. He did not support the amendment but did support the main motion. Mr. Meisner did not support the amendment. He was not sure that the present solar provisions could be worked into the new code. He said that there were competing goals. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to table the motion. The motion passed, 5:2, with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 10 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 11 Work Session