Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/14/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall October 14, 1998 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Farr, Ken Tollenaar, Nancy Nathanson, Tim Laue, Scott Meisner, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor,. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Laurie Swanson Gribskov. Mayor James D. Torrey called the council to order. Mayor Torrey requested that a meeting be scheduled with the 4J School District board regarding the siting of the proposed community stadium and playing fields and the various implications inherent in the decision. The council agreed. Mr. Johnson said he would arrange the meeting, and commented that the fields were designated as football, soccer, and community fields. Mayor Torrey announced that he had to leave to attend another commitment and left the meeting. Council President Fart assumed the chair. 1. CITY COUNCIL LUNCH WORK SESSION A. Items from Mayor, City Council, City Manager Mr. Tollenaar asked for an update on the memorandum or joint work session request on the status of urban transition. He asked for a status report also on the River Road/Santa Clara sewer situation in light of the recent court ruling. Ms. Nathanson had no items. Mr. Meisner stated that he, the mayor, and several of the councilors had attended the Sheldon Fire Station dedication, and he congratulated Fire Department staff on the event. He asked that the airport services issue be placed on the agenda before the end of the calendar year. Mr. Lee referred to his memorandum to the council regarding a request for staff time for a Human Rights Commission (HRC) project. Using the Citizen Involvement Committee process of cognitive mapping as an example, he said the HRC wanted to identify the common goals and vision by constructing a map of the thinking behind citizen involvement. This request needed approval by the full council since the staff time required would exceed the two-hour rule. Mr. Lee said he and Mr. Fart had requested the use of Contingency Fund to help offset the cost of placing portable toilets in the industrial areas and asked about a maximum amount. City Manager Johnson noted that amount would probably not exceed $8,000. He suggested Mr. Lee MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1998 Page 1 11:30 a.m. ask for the approval of the council to use the funds as an incentive for commercial/industrial landowners to provide sites for the remaining homeless campers. The City would act as a partner in this attempt to solve the problem. The money would be spent for rental fees for portable toilet. Mr. Johnson noted that if the council had no concerns, the request could be processed as part of the supplemental budget. Mr. Laue asked for staff to look at traffic problems in the area of the new post office at 33rd Avenue and Willamette Street. He commented on the Sheldon Fire Station opening, and noted that when he came to the council four years ago there was no fire service in that area. Ms. Taylor voiced a concern about having council meetings at sites other than City Hall due to safety, access, and transportation issues. She objected to the length of the breaks in the proposed 1999 council calendar, and said the schedule should be decided by the new council. Ms. Taylor asked the council to take a stand on the building on forest lands issue being heard by the Lane County Board of Commissioners, or for the members to attend as individuals. The next point she made was that Farmers Market needed more space, which the council should approve since the market contributed to bringing people downtown. She said speeding had been an ongoing problem in her neighborhood. Lastly, she had a concern about recreation opportunities and wanted to discuss a business income tax or a tax on high-income individuals to cover those costs other than using property taxes. Mr. Lee congratulated Alan Pittman of The Eugene Weekly on his new baby girl. Mr. Fart responded to an editorial in The Register-Guard entitled "Council Turns its Back on Trees." He stressed that the statement was incorrect and that the council had not and would not do so. He said the aerial view of Eugene showed that there were many trees in Eugene, and the councilors' individual records on maintaining the urban forest was very clear. Mr. Johnson distributed the City Voter's Pamphlet. He asked for the council's direction regarding Ms. Taylor's concern about outside meeting locations. He said the intent had been to hold the Budget Committee meeting in the community, particularly in northwest Eugene. Mr. Fart said there had been prior council discussions about having council meetings in the community, and he understood that the logistics needed to be a consideration. The Petersen Barn location has a bus stop in the parking lot, and he felt meetings should be held in the community. Ms. Nathanson said it was beneficial to have occasional meetings in the community or in the alternative to schedule public information forums to communicate with and get input from citizens. She said it was important that the councilors be aware of what was going on in the entire community. Mr. Meisner agreed that it was valuable to be in the community occasionally, but items with a citywide focus like the budget hearings should be held at City Hall, and topics that were more neighborhood-specific could be in the respective area. He agreed that it was important for the councilors to be in all areas of the city, but citizens should know where to find the council. He stressed that all meetings should be broadcast. In response to Mr. Lee's questions, Mr. Johnson said the Petersen Barn meeting had been advertised, and he was not aware of any complaints. Ms. Taylor said some of her constituents had objected. Mr. Johnson suggested making this a process issue for the new city council, and continue meeting at City Hall. Ms. Taylor said she would like to schedule informational meetings with residents for exchanges of ideas. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1998 Page 2 11:30 a.m. Mr. Johnson noted that the City was continuing its partnership in the Public Safety Coordinating Council, and the County had asked for funds for the public information campaign. He said a request would be in the supplemental budget request coming before the council. B. Work Session: Land Use Code Update Planning Commission Chair Bob Conrad stated that the Planning Commission had brought three items to the council. The first was a request for an extension of the time frame for completing the Land Use Code Update (LUCU), the second item was a response to the council's request considering whether to "fast track" a particular item, and the third was a check-in on the goals and guidelines for the LUCU. Mr. Conrad outlined the modifications the commission had made to two existing project objectives and guidelines as a response to citizen comments, and discussion by the commissioners. An eleventh objective was added to make the cost consideration of the code update more explicit. Mr. Tollenaar expressed a concern that the wording of objective 11 was ambiguous, and made a suggestion for a verbiage change to include long-term impacts. He used site review as an example of short-term costs versus long-term impacts. Mr. Conrad said he had no objection to the change in the wording. Ms. Taylor stated that she wanted to eliminate objective 11, and approach the issues based on what was needed, not on cost. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Tollenaar that the wording should be explicit, and noted there was no mention of costs or the benefits of the proposed changes. He supported the motion. Ms. Nathanson noted that LUCU had listed all the things being enhanced, improved or fixed, and this had been included in the public discussion. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to update the project objectives and establish guiding principles that reflect adopted Growth Management Policies as proposed in the attachment to the agenda and with the further amendment on objective 11, adding the words "and both immediate and consequential" after the word "private." Mr. Laue had a question about the word "consequential." He also wanted to have public benefit mentioned in Objective 11. Ms. Nathanson asked if Planning staff could craft some wording for the motion. Mr. Tollenarr withdrew the motion and Ms. Nathanson withdrew her second. Mr. Lee suggested having a reception with the groups who had commented on LUCU. Mr. Conrad said there were over 30 groups, and he would cover this during the discussion on scheduling. Mr. Conrad said the second item was a request for an extension of the Planning Commission's code update schedule. He gave some background on the update process, and said it had been behind schedule almost from the beginning. The commission had completed about a third of the code review, staff had taken comments for the commission and, in many cases, prepared revised MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1998 Page 3 11:30 a.m. code text. Public comments were being taken at the commission's work sessions, plus written comments were still being received. Mr. Conrad said the interrelatedness of the code sections had slowed down the pace of the review which was part of the reason for the request. The commission has also made substantial changes to the code which had been time-consuming. Mr. Conrad said three of the four groups who commented on LUCU have voiced their support for the process and the extension. The commission has had a heavy workload with the Arterial Street Collector Plan, the TransPlan update, appeal hearings, and the Residential Land Study, plus regular business. He said all these reasons were part of the request for an extension. Mr. Meisner stressed the importance of sequencing in the review. The council had acknowledged that the Lane Use Code was the implementation tool for the growth management policies. He said he would approve the extension, but wanted to preserve the option of fast tracking some items. He discussed site review and legal notice. Ms. Nathanson noted that some permitting activities were very objective, while some were more subjective or discretionary. The community and the council issues had changed since the code was enacted 30 years ago, so the question was when judgement or discretion was allowed, would current values and concerns be addressed or would the code as written prevail. City Attorney Glenn Klein said if the area was one with discretionary authority, his office would advise staff that any action within the range of discretion that the council had granted was legal. Staff might impose different conditions today then it did several years ago, yet both were within the range of acceptable conditions. He said this was a policy question that the Planning Commission could change. Ms. Childs stated that discretionary land use decisions usually required a public hearing and action by a hearings official. Each case must follow the same approval criteria, but the facts were different which would be why the review of appropriate conditions changed over time. Ms. Nathanson commented that because overarching growth management policies had been adopted, she would anticipate that their implementation was proceeding. Mr. Conrad said the commission had tried to do that in the hearings. Public comments had supported prescriptive rules with some flexibility and public review, and the commission had been trying to go in that direction. Mr. Laue supported an extension, particularly in light of the volume of material to be reviewed and updated. He said he was not particularly concerned about development pressure in the next few months. Ms. Taylor said opportunities were being lost each day the code was not implemented. She said fast tracking should be considered if an extension was given. She wanted to have all the items proposed for fast tracking reviewed, especially the establishment of a maximum lot size for Iow- density residential lots. Mr. Fart said more time was appropriate, and he was reluctant to turn down the request to not fast track because it might be confusing to review sections out of order. Mr. Meisner said the MINUTES-Eugene City Council October 14, 1998 Page 4 11:30 a.m. extensions to date have put this update almost four years beyond the original deadline. He does not want to see another extension request, and wanted the fast track option to remain open. Mr. Lee stated this was a reasonable request for a time consuming project. In response to Mr. Lee's question on fast track, Mr. Conrad said that would be discussed separately. In response to Mr. Tollenaar's question, Ms. Bishow explained the State program that provided technical code assistance to jurisdictions that are interested in updating their codes. The City's GMS principles were in line with State principles and by extending the time line the City could receive professional technical code assistance. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to approve the changes to the project schedule as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was adopted unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to amend Objective 11 by substituting the following language: in light of public benefits to be achieved consider costs, both public and private, and both short-term and consequential in proposed changes to the Land Use Code. Ms. Taylor voiced her objection to using the word "consequential." Mr. Tollenaar said the intent was to consider costs, yet not limit that consideration to the immediate impacts, but look beyond to impacts in the community. After discussion by the members, Mr. Farr recommended the members move on to the next item, and that unless there was an objection, the amendment and the motion were withdrawn. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to continue review of the draft code as a whole and not put any Land Use Code amendments on a "fast track." For the record, Ms. Bishow distributed an e-mail from Barry Davis supporting fast tracking of the 19-Lot Rule. Mr. Conrad noted that the commission had made prior decisions not to fast track but because of repeated requests had tried to come up with a frame work to evaluate fast tracking. He said that Mr. Van Landingham mentioned that four of the proposed code amendments were fast tracked before and the results were not effective and had extended the process. Mr. Klein stated that adopting the motion would not preclude the council putting something on a fast track at a future date. Mr. Meisner said his goal for the council was to be able to preserve the option of fast tracking. The council does want the commission to look at maximum lot size, not as a mandate, but to maintain the fast track option. Mr. Conrad said the commission recognized the concerns of the council. The code was so interrelated that the commission had been concerned about taking one section out for consideration and having the whole code unravel. Mr. Farr said he shared the concerns of both, but based on the City Attorney's position the council retained the right to request fast track for an item. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1998 Page 5 11:30 a.m. Ms. Nathanson recommended that the notice issue be reviewed since it was based on budget considerations, not on planning procedures. In response to Ms. Taylor's question, Mr. Fart stated that two councilors could bring a fast track issue to the council for discussion. Mr. Conrad explained that, during the Residential Lands Study, the commission looked at the number and size of lots created between 1996 and 1998. Based on the breakdown, unless council wanted to set the maximum lot size at 7,000 square feet, it did not seem to be an issue. He stated that the average lot size was 7,446 square feet. Only six lots were created that were above a half acre in size. Mr. Meisner said he just wanted to make sure the option remained open to initiate a code amendment on a fast-track. Ms. Taylor asked for clarification on the 19 Lot Rule. Ms. Bishow explained the rule and how it was being implemented. The motion passed by a vote of 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to update the project objectives and establish guiding principles that reflect adopted Growth Management Policies as stated in the attachment to the staff notes. Mr. Tollenaar moved, Ms. Nathanson seconded, to amend the motion substituting the language on Objective 11 as follows: In light of public benefits to be achieved, consider both public and private costs and short- term and long-term impacts in proposed changes to the Land Use Code. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Conrad asked the council if a reception with the groups was necessary. Mr. Lee said the commission could use its discretion. B. Information Session: Urban Design Charrette Focus on the New Downtown Library Mr. Johnson introduced John Lawless of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Southwest Oregon Chapter, who would comment on the design charrette. Mr. Lawless stated that the goal of the project was to explore physical planning for the new downtown library. This was seen as a way to address how the library fit into downtown and how it would effect the urban design evolution of the downtown area. The Local Affairs Committee of the AIA had spoken with library representatives, citizens, and local professionals, and coordinated a one-day event to visualize some concepts of the scope and scale of the area. Mr. Lawless explained that five teams with support people from AIA, Planning, and the library first came up with what they considered the "big ideas." At the end of the day, the work was presented and critiqued by the group. The library was the focus site, but some of the peripheral plans emanated from ideas contained in the West End planning, the South Bank Study, and the 8th Street Historic District. MINUTES-Eugene City Council October 14, 1998 Page 6 11:30 a.m. Mr. Lawless referred to the work of the first group as representing a social, cultural, and civic center anchored by the library. It was seen as a way to regenerate the single-stow buildings and asphalt that existed and promote a higher density of culture for all ages. He said group two looked at how a high density of activity centered on the library node created linkages with other high density nodes. One option was to have the links gain energy from physical activity nodes, and encourage pedestrian connections to those nodes. The integration of parking and housing were an important point in this scenario. Mr. Lawless noted that all the groups saw the library corner as the civic plaza setting the direction for the area. He talked about possible uses for the Sears building. Some schemes focused on the area closer to the library, incorporated vacant land as civic space, looked at parking alternatives, and linkages with other cultural nodes. He noted that all the groups considered additional housing in the area. The fourth group explored ways to utilize some of the alley ways as cross connections so development could be more than single-sided. The participants recommended gateways, scale options, and physically creating a more urban setting by requiring buildings to be taller than two stories. He reported that the fifth group looked more at the library itself and the issue of scale. Since these projects were only built every 30 years or so, the group believed that increasing the density of this critical space was imperative. He said the question of what could be done to encourage an increase in density was answered by one scheme putting housing over parking structures, or the library itself. Mr. Lawless said the material would be put into a booklet, and the AIA would like to start a dialogue with downtown business owners and land owners to find ways that were more creative and enhanced the downtown area. In response to Mr. Meisner's question, Cathy Briner, Acting Co-Director of Planning and Development Department, said what had been proposed was very consistent with the Downtown Plan, and she was encouraged that the Sears building area had been included. Mr. Tollenaar referred to a pamphlet on renewable energy containing suggestions for constructing public buildings with renewable energy as a public demonstration of feasibility. He recommended serious consideration of using solar and alternative energy resources for the library. Ms. Nathanson thanked Mr. Lawless and the Southwest Chapter of the AIA for their participation in this and the prior urban renewal discussions. This visioning could stimulate revitalization of the downtown community using public and private sector assets. Mr. Laue suggested having interior trees in the plan as well as the exterior trees. In response to a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Johnson said the ideas generated from the charrette and the council would go to the library design team. The design team would come back to the council when the time came for a decision. Ms. Taylor said her constituents have requested a safe parking situation, maybe a valet service. She also asked how the citizens for the charrette were chosen. Mr. Lawless stated that the Lane Arts Council, representatives of the Library, and PDD submitted a list of names and those who responded were invited to participate. Ms. Nathanson expressed an interest in preserving open space for a plaza or park on the Library and Sears sites. Another concern would be lighting for safety and aesthetic benefits; some new MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1998 Page 7 11:30 a.m. or creative approaches were in order. Mr. Fart commented that in this artistically rich community, his suggestion was for an affordable venue for public theater. Mr. Farr said that if the council had no objection, Item 4: Public Safety Coordinating Council Update would be deferred until a subsequent meeting. Mr. Johnson noted the item was an "information only" item. The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Nancy HafneO MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1998 Page 8 11:30 a.m.