Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: June 11, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the February 22, 2007, Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing. ATTACHMENTS A. February 22, 2007, Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070611\S0706112A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Joint Elected Officials DATE OF MEETING: February 22, 2007 TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 5/22 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording Returned to Staff ________ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Joint Elected Officials Eugene City Council/Lane Board of County Commissioners Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall February 22, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Faye Stewart, Bobby Green, Bill Dwyer, Peter Sorenson, Bill Fleener. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy opened the public hearing of the Eugene City Council. Commissioner Stewart opened the public hearing of the Lane Board of County Commissioners. A. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan Land Use Diagram; Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Pursuant to Section 9.7750(4) of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effec- tive Date (Huntington Crossing) Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public hearing. She called for conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Councilor Poling indicated that in addition to the e-mail he received on February 17 from Judith Van, he also received a telephone call from her reiterating the information in the e-mail sent to all the elected officials. City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Lydia McKinney of the Planning and Development Department, who provided the staff report. Ms. McKinney reviewed the request to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) Land Use Diagram and Willakenzie Plan, and noted the property’s location within the urban growth boundary (UGB) but outside the city limits. She further noted current development on the property and the request to redesignate the property from Campus Industrial to Medium-Density Residential (MDR); the property was currently zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential. Ms. McKinney said notice of the proposal was done in accordance with Eugene Code requirements. She reported that Ms. Van sent a letter expressing concern that her testimony would not be heard, but that was a result of misreading the notice. Her testimony was part of the public record before the elected officials. Ms. McKinney entered testimony received earlier that day from Charles Biggs into the record and provided copies to the elected officials. Ms. McKinney said the Lane County and Eugene planning commissions held a public hearing on the item on October 24, 2006, and heard only from the applicant. No testimony outside that of Ms. Van’s was received. Both commissions unanimously recommended approval of the request. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2007 Page 1 Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing Ms. McKinney noted the applicable criteria for the application and indicated staff had been able to make positive findings for all criteria. Ms. McKinney reported that if the two bodies chose to deliberate separately, that the council was tentatively scheduled to take action on March 12 and the board had a third reading scheduled March 21 and could chose to take action that night. Ms. Bettman asked staff to distribute the excerpts from the City Code describing the allowable uses in a mixed-use residential area if the amendment passed. She determined from Ms. McKinney that there was no actual development proposal being considered at this time and that only the change in the Metro Plan from Campus Industrial to MDR was under consideration. She asked if there was a minimum and maximum density in the MDR zone, and what commercial uses were allowed in that zone. Ms. McKinney said the minimum density was 10 units per acre, the maximum was 28 units per unit and commercial uses were only permitted in an R-2 zone if they went through the planned unit development (PUD) process, and the developer must demonstrate those uses would serve the PUD. Ms. Bettman asked staff if Chase Gardens had been a PUD. Ms. McKinney indicated that information could be new evidence not already in the record. She said she could follow up for the next meeting. Ms. Bettman asked if what councilors had to say did not go on the record. Ms. McKinney responded that the question was on the record, but the provision of the information could be evidence not in the record. Ms. Bettman said this was her first opportunity to weigh in on the issue, “that’s a question.” Ms. Bettman said there was no master plan and the applicant indicated intent to seek a PUD. The applicant estimated there would be 4,000 square feet of commercial property but there was no requirement that they do more or less. That would be up to the final PUD. Ms. Bettman referred to the findings and the traffic impact analysis (TIA), which was based on the assumption that the property would be MDR in spite of the fact that the applicant had indicated an intent to develop part of the property commercially. Ms. McKinney said the TIA was based on the amount of commercial and residential planned in the development. Staff was evaluating the proposal based on the request for a plan amendment. Ms. Bettman suggested that the applicant could seek to build more commercial in the future after the plan amendment was granted. If the applicant decided to build 25,000 square feet of commercial, that could be approved through the PUD process, regardless of the plan amendment evaluation. Ms. Mckinney indicated that would not be possible, as the base zone would be MDR and commercial would only be allowed to serve the residential use. The findings also assumed MDR at certain levels. Ms. McKinney said with regard to the TIA, any development that generated more than 100 peak trips would require another TIA at the time of development. If the proposal exceeded that requirement, a TIA would be required as part of the proposal. Ms. Bettman asked if the City could require a master plan as part of the amendment process. City Attorney Emily Jerome said any condition imposed must be based on the applicant’s otherwise failure to meet a particular criterion. If there was a criterion the applicant could only meet with a master plan, the City could potentially do so. The City’s past practice was to deny such applications because such changes and triggers were hard to track over time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2007 Page 2 Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing Ms. Bettman stated that the proposal was a “cart before the horse” situation where what the City assumed would be developed and what could be developed were very different and the council would have no control over it. Mayor Piercy opened public testimony. Larry Reed , Principal with JRH Land Use Planning Company, represented Old Coburg Road LLC, the applicant. He was accompanied by Steve Ward, representing Old Coburg Road LLC. Mr. Reed spoke to Ms. Bettman’s questions, saying he took his professional responsibilities seriously and asked his clients to allow him to meet with adjacent property owners. He held several meetings with adjacent land owners to discuss the proposal. He also held an open house and invited all residential and commercial property owners to that event to discuss the vision for the property and to solicit input. He met with the Board of Directors of the Crescent Meadows Home Owners association prior to writing the application. Mr. Reed said that the application discussed a PUD because the City placed a PUD overlay on the property. Both he and the property owners were skeptical about the viability of any commercial uses on the property, but because the property was a PUD and it was to be on the third of fourth phase of the EmX system, they decided it would be short-sighted not to include some limited commercial, such as a coffee shop, on the property. Mr. Reed responded to Mr. Biggs’ e-mail. He said the application record started when the application was deemed complete by the City, which was about the third week of August 2006. The notice was sent to surrounding property owners and interested parties the first week of October and it provided information on where the application could be reviewed and how to give testimony. Mr. Reed pointed out that Mr. Biggs had September and October to review the application and offer written testimony, but he did not. He had until the October 24 planning commissions hearing to consider and perfect his comments. An early February notice of the hearing before the elected officials had clearly indicated when materials should be submitted. In addition, Mr. Biggs did not have the courtesy to appear tonight. Mr. Reed said he apparently wanted time to review the record to find some issue he wished to raise in the next seven days. Mr. Reed said because the meeting was not an evidentiary hearing, under Oregon land use law the elected officials were not required to leave the record open. Prior to deciding whether to extend that courtesy to Mr. Biggs, he suggested the elected officials consider the following questions about Mr. Biggs’ standing: Was he an adjoining or close property owner? Did he somehow fail to receive notice? Was he a representative of a neighborhood organization or home owners association? And what were his reasons for the eleventh hour delay? If the elected officials decided Mr. Biggs had standing, Mr. Reed had no objection to a short delay of three or four days, but he did not think seven was necessary. He would need only a few days to respond. Mr. Reed did not want the City to have to spend more money on additional notice and wanted his client to have some certainty. He invited questions. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, supported Mr. Biggs’ request to leave the record open as he thought any questions Mr. Biggs had would be good ones and it was “not too much to ask.” He suggested there was “stealth hospital zoning” being proposed. He thought zoning something in anticipation of an EmX corridor was like “waiting for Peter Pan to arrive.” Mayor Piercy called for rebuttal testimony. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2007 Page 3 Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing Mr. Reed clarified the applicant was not counting on EmX; he anticipated regular bus service would pass by the site when the Chad Street extension was completed in 2008. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She determined there was no objection to closing the record. Commissioner Stewart closed the public hearing. Mr. Sorenson, seconded by Mr. Fleener, moved that the Board of County Commissioners consider the item on March 21. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman wanted to know why the parcel was not included in the Industrial Lands Inventory. Ms. McKinney said it was developed with residential uses and parcels under a certain size were not included in the inventory. Ms. Bettman asked if there was no demand for a six- or seven-acre industrially zoned parcel. Ms. McKinney said that Campus Industrial land tended to be in larger parcels. She did not know about demand for such parcels. Ms. Bettman asked what plan the applicant presented to the neighborhood. Ms. McKinney said she was not there and could not answer the question. Ms. Jerome indicated she would review the record and return with a response. Ms. Bettman asked the extent of commercial development that would be allowed if the site were a mixed-use development. She also asked for information about the projected density of the proposed residential development. Ms. Bettman said the applicant mentioned internal consistency with the Metro Plan as a rationale and cited plan Policy A.11 in support of that. The policy mentioned high-density residential and on page 688 Mr. Reed referred to the development as high-density residential. She found that inconsistent with a request for MDR and requested reconciliation of those statements. Ms. Bettman asked if there was anything in the PUD process or the redesignation request that would prevent the appearance of a commercial strip mall. Ms. McKinney said the designation would not permit a strip mall. Ms. Bettman asked if such a development could not include a strip mall with housing behind it. Ms. McKinney reiterated that the City’s PUD criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate the commercial uses would serve the residents of the PUD. She did not see how staff could make positive findings under the criteria to support a strip mall along Old Coburg Road for a parcel only seven acres in size. Ms. Bettman asked the threshold for commercial that would be allowed if, for example, the property was developed at ten units per acre. Ms. McKinney said that was subjective and there was no specific threshold. She emphasized that MDR zones typically did not permit commercial and the City saw very few PUD proposals with a commercial component. The requirement to show the commercial use served the resident of the PUD limited the potential for strip mall development. Ms. Bettman asked if the City could guarantee that the property was developed with MDR only. She wanted to have that information if possible. Mr. Dwyer noted the changing zoning on the property and asserted that the people who previously lived on the property when it was zoned Campus Industrial were unable to develop it residentially. He asked why he should allow that to happen now. Ms. McKinney said the City was responding to the property owner’s MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2007 Page 4 Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing request and would respond to any property owner in the same way. Mr. Dwyer stated “it’s discretionary; I’m not compelled to respond.” Ms. Taylor asked why the owner would not want to change the designation now if there were no immediate plans for development. Ms. McKinney said that the plan amendment was required before the owner could submit a PUD application. Ms. Taylor asked if staff had any reason to believe an application would be submitted soon. Ms. McKinney said the applicant had indicated that intent. Ms. Taylor thought it regrettable the former residents of the property had moved away because they could not have houses on the site. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council at 6:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2007 Page 5 Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing