Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/22/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall June 22, 1998 6p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Fart, Ken Tollenaar, Nancy Nathanson, Tim Laue, Scott Meisner, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Laurie Swanson Gribskov. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Art Farley, John Van Landingham, Adell McMillan, Ellen Wojahn, Anne Marie Levis. I. CITY COUNCIL DINNER WORK SESSION A. Work Session: City Council and Planning Commission Annual Joint Meeting The members of the Eugene Planning Commission joined the City Council for a discussion of the commission's fiscal year 1999 work program. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the City Council to order. Planning Commission President Art Farley called the meeting of the commission to order. Mr. Farley reviewed the commission's major work accomplishments in fiscal year 1998. Mr. Farley described the Planning Commission's work program for upcoming fiscal year 1999. Ms. Wojahn arrived at the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Mr. Barrel observed that some would not consider some of the commission's work efforts to be accomplishments. He cited the commission's decision to rezone property adjacent to Costco from Industrial to Commercial for the purpose of parking lot expansion, and said that the decision "begged the issue" about what the community intended to do about growth management and the use of limited land for surface parking. He said that Costco had indicated it built structured parking where appropriate, but the cost of land in Eugene and the ability to rezone the property had led it to build a surface lot. He suggested the Land Use Code Update provided Eugene with an opportunity to do things differently and accomplish some of the goals of the Growth Management Study, such as preserving the urban growth boundary and creating a more compact growth form. Mr. Barrel thanked Mayor Torrey for his decision to ask different elements of the community to review the Land Use Code Update. He also thanked the councilors who were nearing the end of their terms for their service to the community. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1998 Page 1 6p.m. Ms. McMillan said that it was "delightful" for the commission to finish its role in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan amendments process, and the entire commission had been pleased by the council's adoption of the Growth Management Study policies, which would help guide the commission in its review of the Land Use Code Update. Ms. McMillan thanked the council for adopting the site review overlay district at the Westec site. Ms. McMillan said she looked forward to the commission's review of Land Use Code Update, and noted her long-time interest in developing design standards. As a member of the Historic Review Board, she looked forward to the establishment of two new historic districts by the end of 1998. Ms. Nathanson asked the commissioners if there had been a work program item they were assigned that they considered inappropriate or would have preferred not to have done, and if there had been a work program item they would have liked to have accomplished. In response to the first part of Ms. Nathanson's question, Mr. Van Landingham said that there had been no such items in the last year, but he reminded the council of the "stop gap" measures it had developed prior to the inception of the Growth Management Study. He said that while the commission learned a great deal through that process, it had delayed the Growth Management Study for at least one year, which he found frustrating. In response to the second part of the question, Mr. Van Landingham said he would like an opportunity for the Planning Commision to play a role regarding the urban levels of development outside the city limits. He anticipated further subdivision development in the rural area, and said that the commission did not currently have the power to engage in a dialogue about the issue with the County. In response to Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farley concurred with Mr. Van Landingham's latter remarks, noting the recent development proposal off Dillard Road approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and adding that the City not asked in a formal way to provide comment on the rezoning proposal in spite of its impact on Eugene. He said that the result of the proposal would essentially be five-acre home sites directly south of the city. Mr. Farley believed that such development should be carefully tracked. Also in response to Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Wojahn said that the Capital Improvement Program was a "stretch" for the commission because of the financial and political nature of the document. She said that it was difficult for the commission to make a difference in the process, and it did not really know where to start. Ms. Wojahn said that the commission had to be "brought up to speed" on urban renewal and it appreciated the opportunity to share its thoughts with the council even though the council chose a different approach than that recommended by the commission. Ms. Taylor noted her concerns about the Dillard Road development. She thought it unfortunate that the City was not notified about the proposal or invited to comment. What comment staff had offered she termed unfortunate. Ms. Taylor said she considered the Costco parking lot expansion proposal a violation of the council's recently adopted Growth Management Study policies. Ms. Swanson Gribskov thanked the commission for its support to her personally and to the community in general. Mr. Meisner recalled that the council, on adoption of the 19 Growth Management Study policies, agreed that the policies were not guidelines or criteria governing any specific land use decision. However, by virtue of the extensive public input into the study, the council created enormous MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1998 Page 2 6p.m. public expectations. Mr. Meisner believed that most councilors viewed the Land Use Code Update as the major vehicle for implementation of the study. He recommended that that as the commission reviewed the update, it review of the document on a section-by-section basis to ensure consistency with the Growth Management Study policies. Mr. Meisner said that it was necessary to demonstrate to the public how the update supported those policies. Mr. Tollenaar commended the commission for its work over the past year. He said that the commission had established an impressive record of accomplishments. Regarding the Capital Improvement Program, Mr. Tollenaar concurred with Ms. Wojahn about the difficulty of the review and said that the Capital Improvement Program was not well-integrated with other City plans and policies. He endorsed Mr. Barrel's remarks regarding the mayor's decision to refer the Land Use Code Update to the four different citizen organizations. However, he expressed concern that the City was committed to the development of clear and objective design standards and it was unlikely that the four groups would be able to reach agreement on such standards. He expressed concern about the alternative path proposal at this point, as it decentralized real decision-making authority to the neighborhood level and he was unsure that the neighborhood organization structure was prepared to assume that responsibility at this time. Mr. Tollenaar said that citywide and regional interests needed to be protected in land use decision making, and he did not think those interests would be protected by turning the decision process over to the neighborhoods. Mr. Lee arrived at the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Meisner asked if the City Council's Intergovernmental Relations Committee consulted with the commission prior to each legislative session. Ms. Nathanson said no. Mr. Meisner supported such consultation, saying the commission was a valuable resource. Ms. Nathanson flagged the issue for staff consideration. Ms. Levis said that her first year on the commission had been great and she looked forward to the remainder of her term. She said that she had learned a great deal in the first year. Ms. Levis said that key events over the last year include the public hearings the commission held on the Local Arterial and Collector Street Plan and the Land Use Code Update. She said that as the commission considered several planning efforts in the upcoming year it was important to keep in mind the importance of neighborhoods to residents. Ms. Levis noted the complexity of the Land Use Code Update review and stressed the impact of the update on the community in the future and the need for meaningful public involvement. Ms. Nathanson anticipated the alternative path concept would be a very controversial issue for the community. She cited concerns about the cost and time needed for the process, its equity, and the potential for project delay. She asked how the proposal related to the current revenue and taxation environment of "pay for what you get." Ms. Nathanson questioned whether it was in the community's best interest to see ideas come forth that were what she termed "as good as or better." While she liked the idea of being able to accommodate creative solutions, she believed the process of developing the alternative path concept would be difficult. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about discussion of establishig design review, acknowledging that there was some interest in the community for very local citizen design review of every new project proposed in Eugene. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1998 Page 3 6p.m. Ms. Nathanson referred to a recent article in The Willamette Weekly regarding neighborhood organizations in Portland. The article indicated that neighborhood groups had initially been created with federal dollars. The funding helped neighborhood groups become involved with redevelopment proposals and large community improvement projects. Ms. Nathanson said that focus of the groups had changed over time; now the dynamic was in stopping or slowing legally allowable projects rather than contributing in a positive manner toward their successs. For that reason, she was concerned about how the alternative path concept or design review might work. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the City establish a pilot project that directed certain types of projects to the alternative path. Mr. Farley said that the commission shared many of Ms. Nathanson's concerns. At this point, he did not anticipate that the Land Use Code Update forwarded by the commission to the council would include a completely developed alternative path, but instead proposals for how to move in that direction. Those proposals could include a proposal for a pilot program. He said that while there was interest in the concept in the community, the concept was not fully formed and the cost and timing of the process was not known. Mr. Farr termed the work load of the commission "awe-inspiring." He asked each commissioner to indicate the councilor who represented their ward. Commissioners complied; Mr. Van Landingham was represented by Mr. Meisner; Mr. Bartel was represented by Ms. Taylor; Ms. Levis was represented by Ms. Taylor; Ms. McMillan was represented by Mr. Laue; and Ms. Wojahn was represented by Mr. Lee. Mr. Farr referred to the upcoming Bethel Scoping Study and said it was very important to the Bethel area and Bethel citizens were excited. He noted what he termed the "lopsided" geographic representation on commission, although he emphasized his support for all the current commissioners. He asked the commissioners bear in mind the lack of representation on the commission from the Bethel area and from west Eugene in general. Mr. Farr said that the City needed to find a new way to "get the word out" about vacancies on City advisory boards and commissions and about opportunities for public input. He said that the Planning Commission could assist the council in that task. Mr. Torrey referred to the proposed Dillard Road development and asked if the City's representatives on the Joint Planning Commissions Committee had discussed the issue with their colleagues on the committee. In response, Ms. McMillan said that such issues had never come before the committee, which was more focused on citizen involvement for the three jurisdictions' joint planning efforts. Ms. Childs concurred. She said that the Dillard Road proposal was located outside the City's urban growth boundary, and suggested the subject of the interface between jurisdictional boundaries could be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee for further discussion. She added that the Metropolitan Plan did not provide a review role for cities for development proposals outside their plan boundaries. Mr. Tollenaar noted his own membership on the Joint Planning Commissions Committee and said he was disappointed that the committee never discussed such issues. Instead, it was a surrogate for citizen participation. He regretted the lack of a metrowide forum for planning issues. Mr. Tollenaar asked Ms. Childs to explain proposed changes in the work program for the Land Use Code Update, particularly those placing the update in a larger context. Ms. Childs said that MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1998 Page 4 6p.m. the commission updated the work program to refer to work currently underway rather than projects that no longer existed. Mr. Tollenaar said that the changes seemed to go beyond an update of nomenclature by suggesting that the land use regulatory program was part of a larger overall regulatory system. He asked what other regulations existed of which the Land Use Code was a part and how the code related to other regulatory systems, such as building regulations or business licensing. Ms. Childs responded that the text was more focused on the day-to-day relationship between Chapter 9, which related to land use and zoning basis, and other chapters, such as those related to engineering standards. She said the City did not include everything related to development requirements in Chapter 9. Mr. Croteau reminded the council that its Growth Management Study policies included a policy regarding the need to control urban sprawl outside of cities. He said that staff had discussed the Growth Management Study with the smaller adjacent cities, and learned that no matter the size all such communities were concerned about growth management and public facility planning. Mr. Croteau suggested that a proper forum for raising issues related to the topic of growth would the Lane Council of Governments Board, which was a planning forum that includes representatives of special districts, small cities, and public utility providers in Lane County. Mr. Farr asked if it was staff's perception that the small Lane County cities were encouraging growth. Mr. Croteau said that some communities, such as Oakridge and Westfir, were trying to revive their economies after the loss of timber-related jobs. Other communities, such as Elmira, were attempting to address pent-up demand for housing in their areas, and were having problems providing the needed infrastructure; for example, Veneta had instituted a sewer moratorium. He did not believe those communities were actually encouraging growth. Mr. Farr believed that as Eugene attempted to control its growth, people would be driven to another community to live. He did not want to create urban sprawl or force growth on other communities. Regarding the Bethel Scoping Study, Mr. Farr asked if staff had considered how to get Bethel representatives to join the commission for that effort. Mr. Bowers anticipated that the City would hold one-on-one meetings with local Bethel leaders regarding the concept and ask them for suggestions as to who they wanted to see involved. Mr. Farr said that given the lack of direct commission representation from the Bethel area, staff would need to make a special effort to solicit input. Ms. Childs differentiated the scoping study from a refinement or neighborhood plan, and said that a minimum the commission would receive status reports and updates on the scoping study in a manner similar to the West University Scoping Study, but she did not know at this point if the commission would actually deliberate about the study. Regarding the issue of pushing growth outside the urban growth boundary, Mr. Meisner recollected that the commission, during the Growth Management Study, had carried on discussions with the small communities. He believed that those communities were somewhat open to further development but were very concerned about how that development occurred. He did not believe that any of those communities were interested in becoming bedroom communities for Eugene to accommodate sprawl. Mr. Meisner said that the Dillard Road development did not involve development within a urban growth boundary of a smaller community, but development on county land. He advocated for a discussion with the Board of County Commissioners on how development occurred on what he termed "transitional lands." He asked the commission to give the council some ideas on how to address the topic with the board. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1998 Page 5 6p.m. Ms. Swanson Gribskov suggested the commission consider holding meetings in the Bethel area when the scoping study was discussed. Regarding the issue of public outreach, Mr. Torrey pointed out that most residents in Eugene do not belong to a neighborhood group. He believed that most areas, such as Bethel, functioned around a school. He asked the commission to keep in mind ways to get residents not active in neighborhood groups to communicate their concerns to the City. Mr. Tollenaar suggested that if the council decided to delegate land use decisions to the neighborhood level through such a tool as the alternative path concept, that decision should be tied to a certification process of some sorts that established minimum standards of the capability and capacity of the neighborhood organization. Mr. Farr move, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to approve the Planning Commission work program. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Torrey thanked the commission for its effort. Mr. Torrey referred the council to the materials distributed prior to the meeting relating to the council's ground rules adopted in December 1997 relative to the public forum and public hearings. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager Pro tern (Recorded by Kimberly Young) R:~1998~Adm Services~CIS~Councfl~cc980622ml. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1998 Page 6 6p.m.