Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/09/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 9, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: MINOR CODE AMENDMENTS Planner Alissa Hansen gave the staff presentation, noting the council’s scheduled adoption of the minor code amendments on July 14, 2008. She recalled that the council held a public hearing regarding the amendments on June 16 and much of the testimony was directed at item 5, building height transitions in the south university area, and item 7, required parking for multi-family developments in the South and West University Neighborhood areas. Testimony was divided on those topics, but testimony on the remaining 16 topics was generally supportive. Ms. Hansen indicated that two ordinances, Ordinance A and Ordinance B, were created; Ordinance A encompassed the Planning Commission’s recommendations for the 16 amend- ments, except items 5 and 7, and Ordinance B included item 5 as revised by the neighborhood (Attachment A), and text directing items 5 and 7 to the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) project for further considera- tion. Ms. Hansen introduced ICS Project Manager Terry Harding, who reviewed a timeline for processing items 5 and 7. Mayor Piercy determined from City Attorney Emily Jerome that the reference to the referral to the ICS project as a sunset provision for Ordinance B meant that the council could direct staff to examine those issues through that project and then repeal the provisions adopted before the project was completed. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Clark observed that Eugene could expect 80,000 more people to arrive before he reached retirement age. That raised the question of how and where Eugene grew and where density should be directed, and he found it a pertinent question. For that reason, he favored referring items 5 and 7 to the ICS project for a broad-scale examination of the ramifications involved. For example, he wanted to know how much land in Eugene was zoned R-4 and what percentage was not yet built or under-used, and where it was. He said he understood the issue raised by the South University area regarding transitions between low-density and high- density residential, he continued to believe that the area surrounding the university was one of the best locations for R-4 because of the market that existed for such densities in the area with the least impact on the rest of the community. He wanted to see recommendations regarding such issues from the ICS project, as well as recommendations on how to mitigate the impact of such zoning. Mr. Clark was unsure he wanted MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2008 Page 1 Work Session to approach the issue one neighborhood at a time because it did not seem fair. Ms. Taylor saw no reason to delay adoption of Ordinance B or to refer any elements to the ICS project as the people most affected were accepting of the ordinance. She thought there was some urgency as she thought it important to protect established neighborhoods. She maintained that the neighborhood in question had historic significance in that it “came very close” to being named a historic district. She thought the council should respect the neighbors’ needs and concerns and preclude the center of town from becoming all rental units. Such a trend changed the character of people’s homes and neighborhood. She said that if the council chose to, it could always repeal the ordinance. Mr. Zelenka also wanted to move Ordinance B and items 5 and 7 forward because the neighbors approved. However, he acknowledged the politics of the situation and indicated acceptance of the staff recommenda- tion. He expressed concern that the ICS project could go on for some time but meanwhile, “a lot of things could happen to that neighborhood to affect livability” dramatically. Mr. Zelenka maintained that even if the height restrictions were in place in south Eugene, the entire population of Cottage Grove could fit into the area. Mr. Zelenka maintained that the area in the South University Neighborhood was unique in that R-4 zoning was directly adjacent to R-1 zoning. He said “that should not have been allowed to happen” in the context of good planning. However, he acknowledged that density was still needed in the area and that it was an appropriate place for such housing. Speaking to the parking restrictions, he pointed out that the restrictions were specific to the area in question and the parking requirements that had been adopted by the City were intended for one- to two-bedroom units rather than the multiple-bedroom units contemplated in the South University area. He said that 73 percent of University students had automobiles and the issue was what to do with them if parking was not provided. Ms. Bettman said the timelines were not set in stone and the council had been talking about infill standards for some time. She did not think tying the standards in the neighborhood to the timeline reviewed by Ms. Harding made sense, and she was prepared to move forward with all the minor code amendments. She believed the issues involved had escalated because it was “so profitable” to build student housing near the University because the University failed to provide adequate housing for its students. She said the council had always discussed balancing development with neighborhood compatibility and she thought the amendments were a compromise to get to that balance. Ms. Bettman maintained that the community was “cramming” densities which were too high into already established neighborhoods because it was profitable to do so, and building at extremely how densities everywhere else. The City had identified nodes but had not identified a maximum density that worked to achieve the community’s goals. She averred that Springfield was building out at half the allowable density. She did not think Eugene needed to cram density into the South University area when it was not even looking for modest or reasonable densities elsewhere inside the urban growth boundary. Ms. Bettman raised the issue of changing residential zones to commercial zones as another issue. Ms. Ortiz said she would be curious to hear the reaction of councilors who had just spoken to the comments the council had received from CALC regarding the effect of less densification. She did not know if the comments were true and did not have a crystal ball. She had some concerns about Ordinance B but was willing to refer the item regarding the transitions between zones to the ICS project. She had more concerns about the impact of the amendment related to parking given the possible long-lasting ramifications of that MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2008 Page 2 Work Session change. She pointed out that the departure of the hospital from the neighborhood would free up more parking, and hospital employees would be required to pay money for parking whether they drove or not, which was a disincentive for parking on the street and an incentive for parking in the parking structures. She said that she perceived a decline in driving in her neighborhood because of the cost of gas and did not anticipate much change in that regard. Ms. Ortiz wanted more input into the issue of transitions between zones and thought there needed to be more “give and take” in regard to the subject to accommodate development. Mr. Pryor believed the issues before the council were complicated. He had received much good input and could see the logic of all arguments. He did not think that the ultimate solution would make everyone happy because some of the values involved were incompatible. He said that while the council may have been discussing the issue for some time he was not a member when that occurred and was sorry the conversation had to occur again. For those reasons, he supported the referral to the ICS project. Mr. Pryor acknowl- edged concerns that development proposals with a neighborhood impact could arise in the interim. He did not know if those concerns were valid. He had been intrigued by the concept of a sunset because it would allow the council to change approaches if necessary. He acknowledged that the council could repeal an ordinance but said in his experience, that was difficult to accomplish and preferred to renew an ordinance as opposed to repealing an ordinance. Mr. Pryor suggested the two items of concern might have been less controversial if processed through the ICS project, and expressed interest in investigating any legitimate concern about development that might negatively impact the neighborhood in the interim. Ms. Solomon agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. She did not think the council had the data to know if the proposal for items 5 and 7 were the right ones. She believed that for the council to act in a transparent method, the items should be referred to the ICS project for more comprehensive discussion. She thought any changes the council made should benefit the entire community rather than specific neighborhoods, and thought the council was setting a dangerous precedent by singling out individual neighborhoods for benefit. She thought such actions also amplified the City’s reputation as being unreliable to work with. Ms. Solomon commended the work of the ICS Task Team. Mr. Poling said he had walked the neighborhood and gotten a good sense of what the concerns felt by the neighbors were. He expressed support for the positions taken by Mr. Pryor, particularly in regard to the sunset provision and the referral to the ICS project. Mr. Clark also agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor and with Ms. Ortiz’s remarks regarding parking. He did not think the council should consider that issue in a vacuum. He was concerned that the council’s actions could make infill development uneconomical to build in the South University area. He did not think the issues involved were minor and wanted to take a broader perspective to see how the entire city, not just a small part of south Eugene, was affected. Mr. Clark referred to item 8 related to stormwater and indicated that he could support that item if the element related to the inclusion of the manual in the code was referred to the ICS project. Mr. Zelenka emphasized his concern about his neighborhood’s livability. He said that profitability was important but “livability was king.” He emphasized the limited impact from the limited area to which the new parking requirements would be applied, and noted the automatic 25 percent reduction allowed by the code. He said “I doubt seriously” that there would be a halt to development in the neighborhoods in MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2008 Page 3 Work Session question, averring that they were “just primed, ready to go” and that there were “people lined up” to do the developments. Mr. Zelenka maintained that the council needed to prevent “really bad impacts” from happening while the ICS project was in process, which was why he thought the ordinances should be passed now and repealed later if the ICS project came up with something better. Mr. Zelenka believed the area would continue to be dense. Mr. Zelenka said that automobiles shopping for a spot, particularly in the west University area, had a dramatic impact on livability and should also be considered in the decision before the council. Mr. Zelenka noted the gap between the required parking for the proposed seven-story apartment house and the amount that would be required if the amendment passed, and said the revision would still result in a spill- over effect. He said the number of cars in the neighborhood was a big problem. Mr. Zelenka said he was “totally with people who think we should stop building more stuff for cars” but the reality of the automo- biles “smacked” into the livability of the neighborhoods. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Hansen explained the proposed code provision for fences on collector streets (item 8), and Ms. Ortiz indicated satisfaction with that provision. Ms. Bettman said she was hearing opposition to the proposed regulations from the “very same councilors” who supported the downtown code amendments. She considered them mirror images of each other. Ms. Bettman responded to the issue raised by Ms. Ortiz regarding the human services providers. She said the letter the council received from CALC was interesting but did not contain much information. She had “immediately” written back to the executive director about the basis for the conclusions that the code amendments would affect the availability of low-income housing and she had received no answer. Ms. Bettman averred that many nonprofits were recruited to take positions on issues that may or may not be part of their mission. She said the letter had not mentioned the downtown code amendments. Ms. Bettman suggested that CALC, like many nonprofit agencies, had been influenced by a wealthy contributor to take the position it had and regretted the letter was sent because she did not think its conclusions were substanti- ated. Mr. Zelenka expressed support for item 8. Speaking to item 3, the residential density calculations, he requested examples of what a 13,500 square foot development would look like. He said he would be “okay” with the roundup as long as it was not adjacent to R-1 zoning. Speaking to item 14, which was intended to provide for neighborhood input into development, Mr. Zelenka objected that it only applied to subdivisions of more than seven lots and wanted information about how many such developments there were. He preferred that the provision apply to all developments, no matter the size, so that developers had to go to the neighborhood association and talk to them about the proposal. He called for the inclusion of a remedy in case a developer failed to make a meeting notice. Speaking to item 16, related to site review, Mr. Zelenka objected to the fact that there was no way to retroactively impose site review after planned unit development approval if, in the period between approval and development, the City “had better science.” He wanted to impose the site review requirement if the developer had not developed the property within a two-year period. Mr. Poling clarified he was not opposed to items 5 and 7 but wanted to ensure that what was done was correct, which was why he preferred to direct those items to the ICS project with an opportunity to correct any unintended consequences. Mr. Poling determined from Ms. Hansen that the council would have an opportunity to consider revisions to MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2008 Page 4 Work Session item 1. B. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 192.660(2)(f), the City Council met in executive session. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kim Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2008 Page 5 Work Session