Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/16/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon October 16, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Action: Consideration of Resolutions Regarding November 7, 2000, Statewide Ballot Measures Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to adopt resolutions regarding the November 2000 general election. Mr. Meisner spoke in favor of the motion, noting it addressed measures 92 and 98, both of which would penalize unions and represented workers as well as have a significant impact on the charities in Oregon that relied on payroll deductions. The motion carried unanimously, 5:0 ( Mr. Pap~ and Ms. Nathanson not having arrived at the meeting). Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Ms. Bettman asked that the council meet on November 20 rather than November 22, which was the day before Thanksgiving. There was general consensus to reschedule the November 22 meeting as requested by Ms. Bettman. Ms. Taylor reported that there were two applicants for the City position on the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority Board, and both were unable to meet when the board usually met. Mayor Torrey noted that earlier that day he had asked staff to confirm with the applicants they could not meet on the board's regularly scheduled meeting date. He also noted that one individual applied one week late, and urged the council to begin the process over again to resolve inconsistencies in when applications could and could not be submitted. There was no objection from the council. B.Work Session: April 2000 Draft Land Use Code MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Mayor Torrey reported to the council that he had asked staff to provide him with a time line for completion of the Land Use Code Update (LUCU). He asked that all councilors be provided with that information when it was available. The council was joined by Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer, Planning Director Jan Childs, Project Manager Teresa Bishow, and City Attorney Emily Jerome for the agenda item. Mike McKerrow and Jerry Jacobson of Planning and Development Department and Ruth Oberdahl of the Eugene Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department were also present to answer questions. Ms. Bishow reviewed policy issues related to the Efficiency of Review theme. 1. Does the draft code create more efficient procedures for processing land use applications while retaining opportunities for effective citizen participation? 2. Does the draft code create alternative review opportunities to provide choice for developers to design projects to comply fully with clear standards, comply with standards and associated adjustments (adjustment review path), or comply with discretionary criteria that offers a high degree of design flexibility? 3. Does the draft code adequately include Metro Plan and refinement plan policies? Ms. Bishow noted the distribution of a list of sample motions for the meeting, clarifying that some were carried forward from previous meetings while others were new. Ms. Childs reviewed items in the council meeting packet that staff believed could be considered by the council in a consent calendar [consent item motion 6(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i))]. Mayor Torrey asked if the items identified by Ms. Childs had a constituency that would be concerned to see them addressed in a consent calendar vote. Ms. Childs believed those testifying regarding the items would not object. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to: 1) amend Section 9.8440 to add consistency with the policies of Section 9.9900 Adopted Plan Policies in the approval criteria for site reviews; 2) amend the code to include the boundaries for all refinement plans referenced in the code; 3) amend Section 9.8430(4) to remove the exemption for single-family needed housing; 4) amend Section 9.7065 to delete the following: "Any additional rule of procedure established by the hearings body and not required by federal or State law or the City Charter may be amended or suspended at any hearing by a majority vote of those members of the hearings body present and voting"; 5) amend Table 9.8010 to add any adopted refinement plans that were accidentally left off the list and amend section 9.9900 to add all policies from the Metro Plan and refinement plans related to land use; 6) amend Section 9.0500 to include the phrase "Limited Land Use Decision"; 7) amend Section 9.8760 to clarify that all variances are processed according to a Type II application; 8) amend Section 9.8865(5) to increase the time land needs to be preserved from 25 to 50 years; 9) amend Section 9.8320 to add the following two PUD criteria: "1) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 2 Work Session The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, including such impacts as traffic, noise, stormwater runoff, and environmental quality; and 2) The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and harmonimous with adjacent and nearby land uses." The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 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) direct the Planning Commission to investigate design review and an alternative path review process as a future work program item. Direct the Planning Commission to recommend a range of options for an alternative path and additional design review; and b) evaluate alternative ways to notify and involve neighborhood groups of pending land use applications prior to the formal submission of the application. Mr. Kelly noted that the concept in part b of the motion came from an e-mail message from Jon Belcher of the Planning Commission, and was modeled on a program in Albany that was designed to involve neighborhood groups in development proposals with the goal of increased cooperation and reduced adversarial situations. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Efficiency of Review--Policy Motions Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to amend Section 9.8215(4) to add consistency with the policies of Section 9.9900 Adopted Plan Policies in the approval criteria for "major" partitions. Mr. Kelly said that the item was similar to the first element in the consent motion, calling for consistency with adopted plan policies in major partitions. He added that the term "major partitions" was not in the draft code, but the concept was included. The motion would direct staff to continue to do work it was doing now. Ms. Nathanson acknowledged the motion would require staff to do what it was it currently doing, but given the code included new, more clear standards, the motion seemed to be adding to what the council was trying to achieve. Where the council could find efficiencies, such as clear standards, it should take that approach, as opposed to relying on more labor-intensive staff processes. She was satisfied with the Planning Commission's recommendation in this area. If the code contained clear standards, the motion was not needed. Mr. Rayor clarified that the motion addressed subdivisions with partitions in areas covered by refinement plans. He said that it seemed like even a partition below the threshold should be covered by the applicable refinement plan. However, Mr. Rayor acknowledged that there could be one single nonconforming lot, calling into question for him the appropriate threshold. Mr. Jacobson reported that the City received two or three applications annually for major partitions, usually for sites in industrially and commercially zoned areas. It did not generally "pencil out" to create a street for three or less lots on residentially zoned land. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Pap~ voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to ensure that consistency with refinement plan policies that are "clear and objective" in nature be required for approvals that follow the "needed housing" path. Mr. Kelly explained that he believed some of the refinement plan policies were clear and objective, and he trusted to staff's discretion to make that determination, and identify which policies were needed for the needed housing path. Mr. Rayor determined from Ms. Childs that the needed housing path was applicable to all residential zones. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the applicability sections of various land use applications, such as site review, to require any grading, fill, or building permits to be based on an approved land use application. Mr. Kelly said that there had been confusion in the past over what activities could occur on a property with site review overlay before a site plan was submitted. He said that the text in the motion was suggested by staff to clarify that if a property was subject to site review, all planning must be up-front. Ms. Bishow recommended further council discussion of the policy issues involved. The Planning Commission had recommended a trigger for when certain land use applications would be required. For instance, with regard to site review, the commission recommended allowing an existing building with a site review overlay to expand to up to 20 percent of its square footage before the site review process was triggered. She said that Mr. Kelly's motion would maintain the current practice that required an approved site review plan prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Kelly said that it was not his intent to preclude the 20 percent expansion provision recommended by the commission. Rather, he had been attempting to clarify that new development of vacant sites included activities such as grading and fill, not just construction. He invited alternative text from staff. Ms. Childs suggested that if the council agreed that the motion only applied to new development of vacant sites, staff could develop the appropriate text. Mr. Kelly agreed, and amended his motion to indicate that it would only apply to new development sites. Mr. Meisner accepted the amendment. Mr. Pap~ asked what would happen in the case of redevelopment sites. Ms. Bishow responded that site review would be triggered in all cases if a building was completely demolished. Remodeling inside the building or expansion up to 20 percent of the existing square footage would not trigger site review. Mr. Rayor determined from Ms. Bishow that the motion could preclude site grading, fill, or expansion of 20 percent or more prior to approval of the site review plan. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend Section 9.9900s, Adjustment Review Type, to clarify that "minor adjustments" to clear and objective standards could be reviewed by the Planning Director. In cases where there were "significant adjustments" being requested, the Planning Commission would make a decision following a public hearing. Amend the code also to include new draft criteria for the Planning Commission to consider while reviewing plans for compliance with key design elements. Speaking to the motion, Ms. Bettman said that the adjustments review process came up late in the update process and had not received much public scrutiny. It essentially was an alternative path. Ms. Bettman said that the "Gang of Four" (Chamber of Commerce, Friends of Eugene, Lane County Homebuilders Association, and the Neighborhood Leaders Council) had generally agreed that the alternative path was a good idea but it should be postponed to give people time to provide input, and the issues worked through after the code was completed. She believed the community would need a process with public input to address unexpected problems that arose during the implementation of the new code, and for that reason requested that staff develop the text in the motion. Ms. Bettman noted that there were already criteria in the adjustment review process that could be consolidated into one list for use by the commission. Mr. Kelly said that he supported the motion because involving the commission in such decisions would be an educational experience and good practice for the future as he believed the commission would be the initial public input focus for any changes to the code. Mr. Meisner asked staff to estimate how much added work the motion would create for the commission. Ms. Childs anticipated a significant number of additional commission meetings would be required. Ms. Childs pointed out that the council would have to serve as the appeal body if the commission was the first point of review. If the original decision originated with the Planning Director, the commission could serve as the appeal body. She said that approving the motion would increase the work load of both the commission and council. Mr. Rayor agreed with the underlying principle in the motion. He suggested a minor adjustment would be a Type II application and the major adjustment would be a Type III application, which required a quasi-judicial proceeding. He did not think that increasing the commission's work load for the sake of education was a good practice. Mr. Farmer believed that having the commission play a role in such proceedings could be valuable because the commission could apply a broader set of planning principles to actual development proposals. In his previous experience, the decision of a planning commission was final, and any further appeals had to be heard by the courts. There had never been any court appeals during that time because issues were worked out at the planning commission in a public forum. The administrative process could have broad public notice. Mr. Rayor liked the approach suggested by Mr. Farmer as it generally followed the Type II permit application process. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pap8 indicated he would be interested in hearing the commission's reaction to the proposal. Ms. Bettman said another option was for the commission to act as a design review board and process alternative path requests. She believed that it was important for the City to try new techniques in the code update. Ms. Childs thought there would be some value to the approach suggested by Mr. Farmer because the adjustment review process was new to the code. She did not want to lose the element of Ms. Bettman's motion related to minor adjustments to clear and objective standards, noting that could be accomplished under a Type 1 procedure, a streamlining process that could offset to some degree the additional workload placed on the commission. Mr. Kelly clarified that the motion under consideration was specific to the council as the appeal body, and asked if Ms. Bettman was willing to make the commission the appeal body. Ms. Bettman indicated it was her intent that Type III appeals would go to the commission. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Farmer clarified that his recommendation was specific to major adjustments, and he believed it could be implemented under current Oregon law. City Attorney Emily Jerome provided background on the adjustments review process, emphasizing that a subjective process required a public hearing. That could occur upon appeal. The least intense way of providing an opportunity for public input was using the administrative procedure allowed by State law that allowed for a public hearing on written request. Mr. Kelly inquired as to whether Oregon law required an appeal to the council, or could the council establish a process wherein decisions were final at the local level. Ms. Jerome responded that she believed the City could employ what she characterized as an "end-all, be-all" approach as long as it provided an opportunity for a hearing before the commission. Appeals of the commission's decisions would go directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Mr. Farmer described a consent calendar approach to land use decisions used in another jurisdiction and suggested it could be adapted to local conditions. Responding to a question from Ms. Childs, Ms. Jerome said that she did not believe that a minor adjustment that was ten percent of the standard could be a Type I application. She reiterated that the level of subjectivity triggered the public involvement requirement. Ms. Childs said it did not appear the City could have a clear and objective process for varying its clear and objective standards. Ms. Jerome said that it would require some revisions to the code text to achieve such a process; for example, she pointed out that in many cases the reason for granting an adjustment was consistency with the purpose of the standard, which would not work. Mr. Rayor said he would have preferred that the motion be written in terms of the application types in the code. He questioned whether the City could establish an adjustment that was, for example, ten percent of a street frontage or ten percent of a tree preservation requirement. Mr. Rayor said it appeared that Type II applications such as that envisioned in the motion were already addressed by the code and included the right of appeal. He asked Ms. Bettman what value the motion added to the code. Ms. Bettman responded that she had problems with the adjustment review process because it was very discretionary and it would be implemented under the condition of a new code. She thought the motion gave the City an opportunity to do MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 6 Work Session something different on a trial basis, as the adjustment review process would only be in place until the City created a new alternative path, or design review process. Ms. Bettman also thought the adjustment review process would be improved by the motion because the criteria were so discretionary. In addition, the commission would have the benefit of new consolidated criteria, as well as benefitting from the experience that the process gave it when considering changes needed to the update. Mr. Pap8 said he did not object to trying something new, but he wanted to ensure that appeals were not initially directed to the LUBA, and that the council did not have to hear the initial appeal. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Childs interpreted the motion as calling for an initial hearing by the Planning Commission with no opportunity for appeal at the local level. She said it appeared there was some council support for processing significant adjustments as a Type II application with appeal to the Planning Commission. Mr. Meisner was not interested in a consent calendar approach, anticipating that there would be few consent items that were not pulled for further discussion. He was concerned about adding to the work load of the commission. He was willing to let the Planning Director to make the initial decision about significant adjustments. He liked the concept of new draft criteria regardless of who made the decision. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Pap8 about the council as the appeal body. He was not sure he supported the commission as the appeal body. Mr. Meisner could not support the motion at this point as he supported only the concept of the criteria. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to amend the motion by deleting sentence 2 and replacing it with the following sentence: "In cases where there were significant adjustments requested, those would be handled as a Type II decision, except that the appeal body would be the Planning Commission." Mr. Kelly explained he retained the first sentence in the original motion because he thought there was no reason clear and objective minor adjustments could not be made by the Planning Director. Mr. Rayor thought the amendment somewhat of an improvement. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Kelly acknowledged that the effect of the amendment would be a somewhat streamlined process and might not result in as extensive a level of public input as Ms. Bettman hoped for. Mr. Rayor indicated he was unsure of his position on the motion and amendment, reiterating his disappointment that staff had not crafted a motion that was more direct and which amended the table in the code regarding to the decision paths for applications. He was leaning toward opposition because the current text provided for notice and appeal no matter what type of adjustment was involved. Ms. Jerome suggested that if the council was directing staff to revisit the adjustment review criteria and create some clear and objective criteria to adjust the clear and objective standards, it should put the item on a future work program. She said that in this instance, staff was attempting to give itself an opportunity to find out what kinds of issues arise that persuade decision makers to grant adjustments in different cases. As those issues come up, they would be noted and incorporated into the criteria. Ms. Jerome said as she understood the amended motion, minor MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 7 Work Session adjustments would be decided by the Planning Director and appealed to the Hearings Official. The table would be adjusted accordingly. In the case of a major adjustment, the appeal would go to the Planning Commission. Ms. Jerome recommended the following motion text: To direct the City Manager to amend Section 9.9900s Adjustment Review to clarify that 'minor adjustments "to clear and objective standards shaft be reviewed by the Planning Director with an appeal to the Hearings Official (Type II procedure). In cases where there are "significant adjustments"being requested, the initial decision shaft be made by the Planning Director with an appeal to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shaft make a decision foflowing a public hearing. Amend the code to also include new draft criteria for the Planning Commission to consider while reviewing plans for compliance with key design elements. Mr. Kelly withdrew his amendment. Mr. Pap8 withdrew his second to the amendment. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to amend the motion as stated by Ms. Jerome. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend Section 9.8325(7)(i) Tentative PUD Approval Criteria--Needed Housing to require that new dwellings be within a four-minute response time for emergency medical services. Ms. Bettman believed that the proposed five-minute response time in the criteria should be reduced to four minutes, which was the response time within emergency medical services could make a difference in saving a life. She said that Matt Shuler of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS) Department was supportive of the change. Ms. Nathanson asked if the motion was about emergency services or about housing. She said that a four-minute response time was the City's objective, but there were still places in the city that do not receive a four-minute response time. Some of those areas were on the geographic perimeter, and other sites were in hard-to-reach locations in the hills. Ms. Nathanson asked if the motion was to preclude housing that could not be responded to in four minutes, or would it be used as an argument to fund new fire facilities. She questioned whether codifying such a standard opened the City to any new degree of liability. Mr. Farmer acknowledged gaps in the City's four-minute emergency medical response time. He said that he would want to investigate whether decreasing the response time in the criteria would create a situation where needed housing was not covered by the four-minute coverage, and if that would create nonconforming use for certain needed housing in the areas without four-minute coverage. Mr. Farmer added he understood the City currently enjoyed five-minute response time over the entire community. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 8 Work Session Ruth Obadal of FEMS showed the council a map that indicated the areas in Eugene not receiving a four-minute emergency response. Ms. Jerome said that the criterion would likely be addressed in the review process through a referral to FEMS staff, who would determine whether a proposed development could be served within four minutes. She said that it was very important that the map was accurate and denials be based on precise information. Ms. Childs clarified that the motion only applied to the needed housing track, which included clear and objective standards. Mr. Kelly underscored Ms. Childs's comments, pointing out that needed housing was a discretionary path that a developer need not follow. He felt it made sense that the clear and objective standard for emergency services response should be the City's clear and objective goal. Mr. Kelly said that if it were the only development option available he would not be comfortable with the motion. Ms. Childs stated that it was fair to say that approving the motion would remove all the areas marked in white on the map from being eligible for the needed housing path. Mr. Meisner believed the motion was about both housing and fire service. He questioned whether the City had done as good a job as possible of matching the extension of urban services with where development occurred. He said if the standard was four minutes it made sense to adjust the criterion. Mr. Meisner wanted the phrase "the orderly provision of urban services," as used in local planning documents, to mean something. Mr. Pap~ was concerned about taking the areas not receiving a four-minute response time from eligibility for the needed housing path, pointing out that there were already housing in those areas and the motion would establish two development paths, which created an issue of fairness for him. Ms. Taylor said that she considered the motion a step toward "putting the buildings where we have the services," which made sense to her. She said the City should continue to strive for a four-minute response time in all areas. Ms. Bettman said that all the issues discussed by the council were probably in the mind of the person who drafted the needed housing criteria. She did not understand why the criterion included a five-minute response time when the City had a four-minute response standard. She had considered the issue from a medical point of view, and what type of response was needed to prevent brain death. Ms. Obadal noted that the five-minute response time was the standard used in the department's bench marking. She said that the standard was based on a variety of components and included the time it took from dispatch to arrival, which accounted for the one-minute difference. Ms. Nathanson was somewhat supportive of the motion. She suggested to Ms. Bettman that the five-minute response time was likely based in part on the department's bench marking standard and on the understanding that there were areas of the city that could not be reached in four minutes. She believed that the motion could preclude infill opportunities in certain areas, but MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 9 Work Session acknowledged that development would still be possible through the discretionary development process. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Jacobson said that in cases of a planned unit development that went through the discretionary process and did not meet the four-minute standard, FEMS staff would probably suggest other fire protection methods, such as sprinklers. Mr. Jacobson said that such a development might or might not be approved because of the discretionary nature of the criteria. Mr. Rayor supported the motion. He said that if the City was going to have a needed housing path, it was reasonable to stipulate that development was related to the organization's capacity to provide the services. Ms. Obadal suggested a definition of response time was needed in the code so that it was clear that dispatch and preparation were not being discussed, just departure from the station and arrival at the scene of the emergency. Ms. Nathanson asked if staff was stipulating the use of fire-retardant roofing materials and sprinklers for planned unit developments in difficult-to-reach places in the south hills. Mr. Jacobson said no. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend Section 9.8529(7) Subdivision Tentative Approval Criteria-Needed Housing to require that new dwellings be within a four-minute response time for emergency medical services. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Housing Density/Appearance--Consent Item Motions Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to place the following issue on a list of potential future work program items: 1. Evaluate Land Use Code or Eugene Zoning Map changes to limit conversion of residential buildings to nonresidential uses in the areas surrounding downtown. Mr. Meisner explained that the council goals work plan included an item, "evaluate strategies to limit the conversion of residential buildings to commercial use" under the "Foster Affordable Housing" action priority. Because of the code update, work on the item was deferred, and staff recommended that it be expressly added to the list of potential work program items. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Housing Density/Appearance-- Policy Item Motions Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to set a maximum lot size for R-1 at 13,500 square feet, with some flexibility for topographically constrained lands. Allow an exception to MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 10 Work Session the maximum lot size if the subdivision achieves an overall density of 12 units per acre. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Jacobson recollected that the commission and council had discussed maximum lot sizes about six years ago. He said that the commission agreed one problem with establishing a maximum were those cases where, for example, an owner of a large lot formerly in farm house wanted to partition the lot, retain the residence, and sell the remainder to a developer. The lot would not meet the suggested standard. He said that the council could direct staff to develop a list of exceptions. Mr. Jacobson added that the City was no longer seeing large lot development because of the heavier demand for land. When large lots were proposed, they were generally proposed because of topographic conditions. He noted that people could vacate property lines and combined two lots to create a larger lot. Ms. Childs said that the City had received applications for and denied large-lot planned unit developments because the topography precluded even two units per acre on a site. She believed that any maximum lot size established would need fairly detailed exceptions to address some of the issues that might arise. Mr. Rayor suggested that in the case referred to by Mr. Jacobson, development could be conditioned on making the largest lot a future phase of a subdivision. Mr. Meisner recollected that the commission, which he been a member of, had a policy discussion of the issues involved and did not discuss the technicalities mentioned by Mr. Jacobson. He said that the council at that time had directed the commission to consider some "stop-gap" measures related to minimum densities in the residential zones. The commission recommended minimum densities for the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones, which were later adopted by the council. The commission had discussed what changes it could make to the R-1 and RA zones to achieve the density goal in the Metro Plan, and decided against recommending a minimum density. Commissioners agreed that, even if the council adopted a maximum lot size, it did not want to prohibit people from, for example, combining lots. Mr. Meisner said that the only way to achieve the density goal in the single-family zones was by establishing a maximum lot size. He thought the maximum suggested would result in a much larger lot than was currently being developed. Mr. Meisner supported clear exceptions standards. Mr. Kelly said that he and Ms. Bettman, in discussing the concepts behind the motion, had discussed the need for flexibility for topographically constrained land, much of which was unbuildable. He said that the motion was intended to give staff direction that the suggested lot size was a reasonable maximum for R-1 zones. He pointed out that the council would have an opportunity to review the exceptions staff developed. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly and said that the motion provided the flexibility that Mr. Kelly referred to. She said that she was trying to avoid creating code language but did not want to see the code so broadly worded that it subverted the intent of establishing a maximum lot size. Ms. Nathanson asked if the code could be written to provide flexibility for the presence on a lot of streams and other natural resources such as a large stand of trees. She thought it would be a good idea to include such considerations as exceptions. She questioned the overall density exception, thinking it might be too high. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 11 Work Session Responding to Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bettman said that if a portion of a site was not buildable because of a natural resource, that would need to be taken into consideration. However, she pointed out that would already be taken into account in the case of a subdivision or planned unit development. Ms. Taylor asked if adoption of the motion meant a homeowner could not buy the lot next to their property and add it to their property. Ms. Bishow said the code would not affect ownership. If the property owner bought the lot next door and subsequently requested removal of the lot line to create a nonconforming lot, that lot line removal application would be denied. The owner could own the property and use it but it could not be taken out of the residential lands inventory as a separate legal lot. Mr. Pap8 asked if the owner of an existing house on a lot exceeding the maximum had a house that burned down would be allowed to rebuild. Ms. Bishow said yes. Mr. Pap8 cited the situation Mr. Jacobson referred to earlier and asked if the owner would be allowed to retain an acre of a three-acre parcel where the remaining two acres were to be developed at higher densities. Ms. Bishow said no. The owner would be required to plat the property and could choose to retain ownership of the remaining lots until they could be sold. In practice, the owner could retain a large area but legally, at the time of subdivision, the land would be platted and future lots established for infill development. Mr. Jacobson said that if the property owner developed a conceptual plan showing how the property would be divided in the future, the property could receive an exception. Mr. Rayor liked the concept, also noting that on occasion, large lots were affected by conservation easements. Mr. Pap8 asked if a lot that exceeded the suggested maximum could be annexed without penalty. Ms. Bishow said yes. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to delete the phrase "some flexibility for" and insert "for circumstances such as topographically constrained lands, conservation easements, and partitions for the use of putting some land into development," and to require the developer to submit a conceptual buildout plan. Ms. Bettman indicated opposition to the amendment if it meant the creation of one- and two-acre lots. Mr. Rayor asked staff to enlarge on the list of circumstances when it developed the code text. Mr. Kelly believed the amendment was unneeded because the council was not drafting the code but instead providing broad direction to staff. However, he would vote for the amendment in the interest of moving forward. Ms. Bettman thought Mr. Rayor's concern was already addressed in the final sentence of the motion. A property owner who wished to retain a single acre of a three-acre property could do so by developing the remaining two acres in a way that achieved the density of 12 units per acre. Mr. Meisner concurred. He added that he would not be comfortable with a code that allowed a property owner to develop a five-acre property in such a manner that they retained four acres in a single development site and developed the fifth acre at a high density. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 12 Work Session Mr. Rayor said that his amendment was intended to capture the intent of the council. He pointed out that councilors could move to strike any exceptions proposed by staff. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bishow said that 12 units per acre was the maximum density allowed, and she said an approach where the maximum and minimum were the same could create some interesting design problems. If the council wanted to occasionally tradeoff density for a large lot, she would recommend a different number. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by changing the overall density from 12 units to 9 units per acre. Mr. Rayor pointed out that the maximum for the R-1 zone was 14 units per acre, and he thought it might be impossible to get 12 units per acre given that figure was a net density and streets were not included. He thought it reasonable to have a single maximum, and he considered 9 units per acre to be fairly dense. Ms. Bettman said that every time the council talked about how density affected neighborhoods, councilors suggested that if the city did not densify the urban growth boundary would need to be expanded. She suggested that the other side of the equation was the maximum lot size. She believed that decreasing the density figure, added to the exceptions that would be included in the code, reduced the effectiveness of the proposed approach. Mr. Meisner thought the amendment was reasonable. He observed that whenever the council made an effort to stiffen City requirements, there was resistance on an case-by-case basis, and recommended that the council be conscious about the exceptions it approved and consider how they impacted the City's density goals and maintaining the urban growth boundary. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Due to the lack of time, the council deferred the remainder of the agenda to a later date. In terms of staff follow-up, Ms. Nathanson referred to motion 5, related to asset mapping, and asked if that was connected to other studies being conducted by the Planning and Development Department. She also indicated she would need more background on motions 6 and 7. Mr. Meisner noted that a substitute motion 4 would be considered at the next meeting. Mr. Kelly asked that Ms. Bettman's withdrawn motion 3 be amended to call for a future work program item related to single-family design standards and be added to the list of motions for future consideration. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 13 Work Session Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 14 Work Session