Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/24/05 Mtg M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber—City Hall October 24, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé. Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS Eugene Fire Department Accreditation City Manager Taylor conveyed his pride in the Fire Department and invited Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Chief Tom Tallon to the podium. Chief Tallon thanked the Mayor, City Council and community for the moral and financial support to achieve the milestone that accreditation represented. He introduced Gary Curmode, a member of Fire Chiefs International, and asked him to speak about the accreditation process and what it meant to Eugene. He noted that Chief Curmode served as Fire Chief for Sedgewick County Fire District #1 in Kansas. Chief Curmode outlined the accreditation process. He said the Eugene Fire/EMS Department was doing excellent work, but had some room for improvement. He commended the chief and his officers for the work they had done to provide the reporting and documentation to the accreditation team. He stated that the team made some recommendations for ongoing improvement and would be available as a resource to help achieve those goals. He explained that at the end of five years, a different team would come in and review the department again to measure progress. Additionally, he lauded the council and staff for their vision in building several new fire stations. Chief Curmode presented a plaque commemorating the occasion to Chief Tallon, Mayor Piercy, City Manager Taylor, and Fire Planning Chief Ruth Obadal. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy welcomed everyone to the City Council meeting and reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, brought articles regarding the University of Oregon’s decision to close down the Westmoreland Student Housing for staff to circulate to the council. He thought there was a lack MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session of public process around the decision. He felt there could be a developer “waiting in the wings.” He did not believe that renters’ protections were working. He wondered if the media would tackle the issue. Mr. Vishanoff opined that the City Council workshop on the City Hall complex should have been televised. He thought the City should have a “long talk about whether there’s a need to replace City Hall.” He suggested money that was set aside for the project could be spent on road repairs. Carl E. Sundberg , 3318 Coraly Avenue, said he lived in a diverse neighborhood and loved living there. He stated that the park was five houses away. He wanted to be able to ride his electric scooter on the bicycle path. He explained that he was a heart patient and could not ride a bicycle. He enjoyed riding his scooter to get to places. He thought the ordinance preventing the use of vehicles of this sort had not been thoroughly investigated and suggested a committee be formed to review it and recommend a change. He wanted to involve a variety of stakeholders in order to come up with something that would work for everyone. Tom Slocum , 1950 Graham Drive, observed that a good number of elected officials expressed displeasure with Ballot Measure 37 because of impacts it could have on the State. He hoped that councilors would have the same position regarding the West Eugene Parkway (WEP). He said the City spent “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to make it happen and it was time to move forward. He urged the council to do so. th He noted that West 11 Avenue had been particularly congested over the summer because Fern Ridge Dam was being repaired and the road along the dam had been closed. He underscored that the people of Veneta and Florence wanted the WEP and all of the land use planning in the west side of Eugene had been predicated on the WEP. Larry Reed , 4765 Village Plaza Loop, with JRH Transportation Engineering, stated that since the 1960s, urban areas throughout the United States were required to have transportation plans to help ensure that federal and State funds were consistent with regional transportation plans and goals. He said according to the Urban Land Institute (ULI) studies, traffic congestion problems were not caused by a failure to plan, but by a failure of local government to deliver results and build the planned roadways. He thought the history of the WEP illustrated this. He outlined the history of the WEP over 45 years. He averred that “no-build advocates” wanted to convince the council and the news media that the WEP was a poor investment because it only generated an increase of traffic. He called this argument false. He suggested one way of looking at it would be think of it as a school. Mr. Reed asked if one would suggest that building a new school would only bring in more students. He asserted that new roadways, like schools and libraries, did get used. He called this a “good thing.” He declared that a roadway’s usage documented its success at providing shorter routes, dispersing traffic, and diverting traffic from other streets. He related that the ULI conclusion was based on a number of studies, studies that found the roadways construction such as the WEP and mass transit improvement like the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) would lessen the amount of traffic congestion. He asserted that the construction of the WEP would actually reduce congestion by reducing miles traveled and would improve air quality by lessening the time that cars would idle at stoplights. He averred that the Eugene City Council’s continued support of the WEP as a regional policy was expected by the citizens of Eugene. nd Jana Jackson , 1012 East 22 Avenue, spoke in opposition to the City Charter Amendment before the voters in November. She did not believe it appropriate for the City Council to be hiring an external auditor. She averred that the position would be hired whether the amendment passed or failed. She asked the City Manager and the Mayor and council to include all citizen complaints about all City departments in the review. She felt the citizens of Eugene wanted accountability and wanted a place to go to raise complaints MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session against all departments. She perceived the singling out of the Eugene Police Department (EPD) to be discriminatory. She predicted it would lead to lawsuits against the City. Russ Brink , 132 East Broadway Street, provided a brief update on some of the projects that Downtown Eugene, Incorporated (DEI) had done in partnership with the City of Eugene over the summer. He pointed to the 80 flower baskets hanging in the downtown area and noted that DEI had partnered with Planning and Development Department (PDD) and the Facilities Management Division. He said there were banners on all of the downtown area light poles, some that said “Surprise yourself, Eugene” and some that said “World’s greatest city of the arts and outdoors.” He thanked Facilities staff for maintaining the hanging flower baskets. He noted that DEI asked the downtown property owners to make a voluntary “fifth quarter” payment to help the downtown’s “Branding Program.” He felt confident they would participate. Mr. Brink reported that DEI had ECO-Northwest conduct an economic impact analysis on what siting a $200 million hospital in the downtown area would mean. He said the study was finished, though the question of siting such a facility there seemed to be fading, and he provided a summary of the study for the council. He added that the study confirmed the City’s position that situating the facility there would have a positive economic impact. Mr. Brink noted that, in looking forward, the council would be considering some significant downtown projects in the near future, such as the possible development of a Whole Foods Grocery store and both low- and middle-income housing. He averred that all of them would present the opportunity to change the face of downtown and all of them would need some level of public participation. He hoped the council would consider them favorably when the time came. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for questions and comments from the council. Councilor Pryor recalled that when discussing the issue of electric scooters on the bicycle path there were a number of questions around alternative transportations for people that required them. He indicated he would support revisiting the issue. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for their testimony. She remembered that the ordinance governing motorized scooters included some medical exemptions. City Manager Taylor affirmed that there were some medical exemptions, but none that were specific to the type of scooter that Mr. Sundberg referred to. Councilor Bettman was interested in revisiting the specific issue of how medical exemptions were processed and what kinds of vehicles would be considered. Councilor Kelly concurred with councilors Pryor and Bettman. Councilor Kelly acknowledged Ms. Jackson’s testimony. He guessed that the majority of the council would not be interested in having the external review fall under the purview of the City Manager because it would not provide the independence that the proposed charter change would. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session Continuing, Councilor Kelly asked for a memorandum indicating the amount of the City’s voluntary fifth quarter contribution to the “Branding Program” so that the council could determine what fund it should come from. Councilor Ortiz wished to acknowledge the Fire and EMS Department. She declared that the City of Eugene had a “top notch” EMS system that was able to provide pre-hospital care for patients on their way to the hospital facility of their choice. Mayor Piercy thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. She shared how much she liked the flower baskets. She related that she had heard from people “all over town” about it. She thanked Facilities staff for their efforts and the partnership that made it happen. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes -September 26, 2005, Work Session -October 4, 2005, Boards, Commissions and Committees Interviews -October 5, 2005, Boards, Commissions and Committees Interviews -October 6, 2005, Boards, Commissions and Committees Interviews B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4854 Concerning the Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption Granted Redwood Partners, LLC., and Amending Resolution No. 4853 Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly said he had submitted one minutes correction electronically. Mayor Piercy deemed the correction, without objection approved. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4.PUBLIC HEARING: Minor Land Use Code Amendments An Ordinance Concerning Land Use; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2161, 9.2171, 9.2173, 9.2180, 9.2450, 9.2470, 9.2683, 9.2685, 9.2686, 9.2741, 9.2760, 9.2761, 9.2775, 9.2795, 9.3220, 9.3822, 9.3910, 9.4730, 9.4830, 9.5250, 9.5350, 9.5500, 9.5750, 9.5800, 9.6105, 9.6410, 9.6420, 9.6610, 9.6615, 9.6630, 9.6640, 9.6650, 9.6670, 9.6709, 9.6730, 9.6745, 9.6805, 9.6810, 9.6815, 9.6820, 9.6830, 9.6870, 9.6885, 9.7015, 9.7020, 9.7110, 9.7605, 9.7655, 9.7805, 9.7885, 9.8010, 9.8030, 9.8055, 9.8090, 9.8215, 9.8220, 9.8310, 9.8320, 9.8325, 9.8410, 9.8440, 9.8515, 9.8520, 9.8700, 9.8710, 9.8715, and 9.8720 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 9.8335 and 9.8580 to that Code; and Providing Effective Dates MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session City Manager Taylor introduced Steve Nystrom, Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), and asked him to speak to the proposed minor land use code amendments. Mr. Nystrom explained that the public hearing sought to consider the first of two phases of code amendments slated to come before the council. He said the first phase was made up of minor amendments which he hoped the council would agree were fairly non-controversial in nature and had the intent of improving administration of the code. He stated that for the most part, the amendments sought to resolve conflicts, gaps, or ambiguous language in the code in the hopes of improving the PDD administration of the code and without raising substantial policy concerns. He indicated that the second phase would deal with more significant issues and, perhaps, policy questions that would be brought before the council in winter 2006. Mr. Nystrom stated that the packet before the City Council represented the recommendation from the Planning Commission. He reported that the Planning Commission helped to filter out which amendments were more minor in nature and subsequently conducted the more formal proceedings, input from the public and any recommended changes in the language before the council. Mr. Nystrom related that some concern had been expressed by the council on whether the amendments could result in any benefit in property value. He said staff worked with the City Attorney to review those and, in general, the minor nature of the amendments did not raise substantial concern with the exception of three of them. He stated that those three amendments had been flagged and suggested that they be considered and then removed only if they should remain a source of concern. He acknowledged receipt of a list of questions from Councilor Bettman. He indicated that staff had not had time to provide a written response to them but was willing to provide oral answers. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Terry Connolly , 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, provided written comments identical to those submitted at the public hearing before the Planning Commission. He reported that the chamber found the amendments to be minor. He thought the amendments made minor practical improvements to the code in areas such as clarifying the 5,000-square foot limitation that applies to new commercial buildings and not existing businesses. He expressed appreciation for the review the Planning Commission had given to the amendments. He commended staff for creating a matrix for the amendments. He felt the matrix was very helpful in aiding the public to quickly identify what the amendments were and what sections of the code they applied to. He said the chamber looked forward to other opportunities to find ways to make the code enable good things to happen in the city of Eugene and for the direction and involvement of the City Council in that process. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, recalled that Councilor Bettman made a motion in a work session on October 12 that would postpone land use decisions until a funding mechanism for potential Ballot Measure 37 claims had been created. He related that the motion passed and wondered why the council was considering land use code amendments in the face of that. He said it was his understanding that the City had been presented with its first Ballot Measure 37 claim. Kevin Matthews , Box 1588, Eugene, president of 1,000 Friends of Eugene, commented that he was unable to adequately express his frustration at the minor code amendment process. He complained that staff had not accurately or frankly represented the involvement of the Planning Commission in this process. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session alleged that the items were presented to the Planning Commission on a consent calendar, the commissioners pulled them from the consent calendar, and then amendments were brought to a public hearing. He claimed there had never been a general explanation of where these items came from. He said in some cases explanations of where these code amendments came from did not even contain complete sentences. He related that the Friends of Eugene asked repeatedly for a comprehensive list so that they could work on them and get more people involved in the process. He stated that he was not provided with a list and was told that a list could not be made until the hearing before the Planning Commission. He asserted that staff had a list and was “doling them out 10 or 12 at a time.” Mr. Matthews requested that the record remain open for seven days. In closing, Mr. Matthews averred that “probably half of these items” would allow development or expansion that would not have otherwise been allowed. He was uncertain how this would interface with Ballot Measure 37, but he called the statement that only three of them would influence property values “specious.” He found the findings for the package of 81 code amendments “equally specious.” He asserted that the amendments were a “solipsistic package of backroom dealing.” Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for councilor comments and questions. Councilor Kelly echoed Councilor Bettman’s request for feedback to her questions at the present meeting. He said the majority of the amendments “felt” minor and he was comfortable passing nearly all of them. He expressed concern that the amendment to 9.121(1), to allow recreational vehicle sales in areas zoned C-2, would fall under the category of amendments that could potentially increase property values. Councilor Kelly also took issue with the amendment to 9.2173(10)(c), which changed the code to allow walls with loading docks to be excluded from the requirement to have windows. He felt it was too broadly written and could allow a 100 foot long wall with a small loading dock to be built without windows. Councilor Kelly echoed Councilor Bettman’s concerns with the proposed amendment to 9.2761(6). He thought because the language was changed from ‘shall’ to ‘may,’ a four-plex lot that was larger than the minimum lot size could be developed with a single-family house on it. Mr. Nystrom affirmed this and said the amendment needed additional work. Councilor Kelly also agreed with Councilor Bettman that the amendment to 9.2761(6) needed some way of ensuring that the exception to the R-1 maximum lot standard to protect natural resources would continue to protect those natural resources through subsequent ownership. Councilor Papé, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to keep the record open for seven days. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman recalled that when the initiative to look at minor code amendments had originally been taken, the council was assured that outreach to the community and groups that represented the public would be asked to provide input. She said to her knowledge this never occurred. She averred that the list of amendments “represented an industry wish list” and many of them rolled back provisions. She stressed that when looking at major land use amendments, the public process should be emphasized. She referred to her list of questions and asked Mr. Nystrom for his responses. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session Mr. Nystrom said the first question had to do with the definition of a legal lot and the lot of record. He stated that the proposed amendment would change one word which would get at when a legal lot was considered established. He related that the current provision indicated that this was when the lot or deed was recorded. He said over the years, many situations had arisen wherein an individual transferred a deed and had not recorded it; a new owner then had a problem finding when the date of transfer occurred. He indicated that legal staff would look into the question, but if there was a great degree of concern the amendment should be eliminated. Councilor Bettman asked that this amendment be added to the list to postpone because it could mean the difference between a viable or non-viable Ballot Measure 37 claim. Mr. Nystrom referred to her second question, which referred to the same amendment Councilor Kelly brought up that would allow recreational vehicle sales in areas zoned C-2. He noted that Councilor Bettman’s concern revolved around the downtown areas that were zoned C-2. He said the amendment was procedural, whether to allow as an outright use or to subject this type of business to the conditional use permit (CUP) process when no other auto-related uses were required to apply for a CUP. Councilor Bettman averred that there was a fine line between permitted uses and conditional uses and that the CUP application included a public process. Councilor Bettman asked staff to speak to the amendment proposed for 9.2683(2) which sought to clarify language so that projects requiring a CUP would not also be subject to site review. Mike McKerrow, supervisor of the Land Use Management section of the PDD, explained that the intent of the amendment was to simplify the land use matrixes. He said the previous code had the listing of transportation and freight yards and terminals. He related that as staff looked at similar operational characteristics, the use of building contractor storage yards seemed to have some of the same operational characteristics. He stated that it was not an obvious use and had been removed from the draft. He said staff recommended adding this back so that the use would continue to be allowed in land zoned I-2 and I-3. Councilor Bettman asked if this would allow trucking terminals in the railroad yards near the Trainsong Neighborhood and the River Road neighborhood and where this would specifically crop up. Mr. Nystrom replied that the rail yard was not currently zoned so there would be no allowed uses other than railroad uses. He underscored that this would only apply to the I-2 and I-3 zones. Mayor Piercy suggested that staff go down the list of questions Councilor Bettman wished to have answered. Mr. Nystrom said the next question was similar to Councilor Kelly’s question on the duplex, triplex and four-plex units. He stated that in a single-family neighborhood one is normally allowed to have single- family lots but there was a provision that allowed for some higher density to happen through the subdivision process. He underscored that this had been in place in the code for many years. He said what was unclear was how to handle a lot that was platted for a triplex in an area that was zoned R-1, and on which a triplex was never built, when it was sold to someone else who wished to build a single-family dwelling. He explained that this raised the question of whether the person was bound to build the triplex because it was recorded as a triplex on the plat or were allowed to build that single-family dwelling. He agreed that Councilor Bettman had identified a loophole as potentially someone could plan to build a four-plex and a four-plex lot exceeded the maximum lot size for a single-family home. He said the main question, however, MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session was whether one would allow the property owner the flexibility to build one home on land that he or she had purchased. He underscored that there was no minimum density requirement in R-1 zoning so a single-family home in place of a four-plex would not violate a density requirement. Mr. Nystrom stated that the next question dealt with one of the three items identified to potentially eliminate, the code that addressed rowhouse lots. He explained that in the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) the provision for rowhouses to be part of the R-1 list of housing types that was acceptable but no corresponding reduced lot width had been addressed. This left a standard lot on which it was impossible to build a rowhouse. He said the amendment attempted to correct what appeared to be an oversight from the previous action. Continuing, Mr. Nystrom noted that the next question, regarding an amendment that sought to clarify that an exception to the maximum lot size could be granted to protect natural resources, had also been raised by Councilor Kelly. He averred that there were tools available through the review process that were part of the normal application process. He thought one thing that could be offered would be to link this exception back to the criteria that was already embedded in the parent applications that provide that protection and by doing that one could ensure that these protections were in place for the long term. Mr. Nystrom read the next question, which had to do with the open space requirement for R-2 zoning. He said the question was whether amending the code would allow someone to provide “hardscape” and no landscaping in R-2 and the answer was no. He indicated that both a landscape and an open space requirement would be triggered. Mr. Nystrom stated that the next question had to do with a requirement under street connectivity standards for 600 foot block lengths. He added that this had been added as part of LUCU to ensure a good solid network of streets with regular intersections. He noted that it also helped in terms of pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. He said the question asked if allowing flexibility in this would compromise the code requirements. He stressed that the flexibility being considered had to do with some subdivisions that were presented with geometric challenges when designing streets. Mr. Nystrom said the intent of the amendment would be to allow a small amount of variation from the standard as long as all of the other objectives had been met. He observed that some of the concern pertained to whether other amenities such as bicycle and pedestrian access would be compromised. He stated that the requirements for those amenities would not be disregarded because they were ensured by other criteria that were part of the same application review. He thought if the language could be “beefed up” to tie that link better it would address councilors’ concerns. Regarding the adjustment review process for street connectivity, Mr. Nystrom said at present the code allowed for certain adjustments to the street connectivity standards, having to do with whether or not streets had to be provided to neighboring properties or whether they had to connect to existing streets that may stub to the subject property. He said it was suggested to take the same adjustment process and move it into the land use application process. He stressed that while it would be called a different process, the criteria would remain the same and the process for review would remain unchanged. Regarding the amendment to Section 9.7885, Mr. Nystrom explained that there was an agreement adopted many years ago that involved council action and the City Manager’s approval between a coalition of industrial owners and the City. The contract exempted the industrial corridor from required annexations. He underscored that the amendment sought to make sure the agreement and a figure that is represented in the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session code match. He noted that the current figure included some properties along Airport Road that should not be part of this corridor. Councilor Bettman asked how boundaries would be changed. Mr. Nystrom believed it would come back to the council for review. Mr. Nystrom said the last concern expressed by Councilor Bettman was with Section 9.8055(1) which had to do with Cluster Subdivision provisions. He stated that currently there were provisions to relax certain lot standards in order to encourage better clustering of housing. He indicated that the proposal to amend the provision sought to eliminate some redundant references to criteria dealing with lot standards, street standards, and others. He stressed that this amendment would not change how cluster subdivisions were managed. Councilor Kelly noted that the Planning Commission flagged Home Occupation Standards and Home Occupation requirements, Section 9.5350, for further discussion. He noted that the proposed amendment dropped the reference to residential zones so that the standards applied in all zones. He questioned why the City wanted to impose the standards in a commercial zone, as an example. Mr. Nystrom replied that the amendment would allow Planning Division staff to treat someone in an apartment complex in a C-2 zone that wanted to do a home occupation the same as someone who pursued a home occupation in a residential zone. Councilor Kelly expressed interest in further discussion on the portion of the amendment that clarified another part of the code which said one could not have a home occupation on a flag lot. He said his initial impulse would be to consider this in a larger discussion. He did not readily see why a home occupation would have more impact on a flag lot than in a front lot. He acknowledged that the amendment before the council sought to make the code consistent. Councilor Kelly averred that the council worked a lot on the block length standard during the LUCU adoption. He recognized that the amendment sought to make the standard more flexible. He noted that the code language said if the traffic flow that a street provided was on an overall basis providing good traffic flow an adjustment or exception could be granted. He wanted the current code to convey the sense that the allowable change to street length was only “slightly greater than 600 feet.” Councilor Bettman indicated that she would not go through and address each amendment she took issue with and how it could be improved or whether it should be removed. She said she would do this in an email after she received Mr. Nystrom’s memorandum with a more expansive discussion of them. However, she noted one concern she had expressed regarding the amendment to Section 9.6420(3)(f)(l) had remained unaddressed in the current discussion. Mr. Nystrom explained that this dealt with a situation in which landscaping was required on the interior property line of a parking structure. He said, though not many parking structure requests were made, a C-2 or C-3 zoned area with a parking structure on the interior side typically had buildings close to the property lines and often with solid walls to the outside because of fire rating issues. He stated that it was uncertain as to whether it made sense to have landscaping in an area with buildings in proximity to each other. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session Councilor Bettman indicated that she agreed with this if it was a commercial building next to a commercial building. She interpreted the amendment to mean that a buffer would no longer be required between a commercial and a non-commercial building. Mr. Nystrom replied that he would clarify that for her. Councilor Kelly thought the amendment to cul-de-sac requirements that would strike the limit on the length to a cul-de-sac was not a minor amendment and longer cul-de-sacs could negatively impact connectivity. Mr. Nystrom responded that some of the language was confusing to understand and the amendment also attempted to consolidate some of the discussion. He said any dead-end street would require a turnaround. He also pointed out that there were exceptions to longer street lengths that may connect in the future to an adjoining property but acted as a cul-de-sac in the meantime. He stated that the intent was to simplify the variables and clarify the intent of LUCU which was to provide more flexibility for alternatives to cul-de- sacs, not always requiring the “big bulb,” and that hammerheads were sometimes a more efficient use with less paving and a softer impact on neighborhoods. He understood that the shift in language could cause some uneasiness, but he believed that the amendment sought to fulfill the intent of the LUCU. Councilor Kelly reiterated that in terms of street connectivity there had been a second intent which was to avoid the creation of new long cul-de-sacs. He noted that (5) in that same subsection was carefully written to say “shall require” pedestrian/bicycle emergency connectivity and the new language changed ‘shall’ to ‘may.’ He said he would likely pull this amendment. Councilor Papé asked if there was a limit on large animals for a 20,000 square foot lot in 9.5250(l)(b). Mr. McKerrow replied that the code was very specific, requiring 10,000 square feet per horse and 5,000 square feet per goat as an example. Councilor Bettman echoed Councilor Kelly’s concerns regarding cul-de-sacs. 5. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing Property Tax Exemptions and Amending Sections 2.945 and 2.947 of the Eugene Code City Manager Taylor stated that this was a “straight-forward ordinance” that asked to conform the City’s ordinance with recent revisions to State law and changing the sunset clause from 2006 to 2012. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, commented that the City Council was “tinkering” with the Multiple- Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE). He averred that people “all over town” were interested in these types of things. He suggested that the MUPTE be renamed in order to engage more public dialogue. He thought the acronym MUPTE sounded like something from the Muppets Show. He opined that MUPTE was contributing to the lack of money available for road repairs. He maintained that all of the property tax exemptions were going to give the City lots of big fancy buildings with expensive apartments and all of the day-to-day services would be neglected. He said a lot of people would like to have a greenway all along the Willamette River that was 200 to 300 feet wide. He recommended looking to Portland to see the effects of a MUPTE. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session Councilor Bettman said if she had council support for it she would ask to remove the West University Neighborhood from within the boundary. She supported the downtown MUPTE housing incentive, but opposed inclusion of the West University Neighborhood because she felt it would subsidize buildings that would be built anyway. She opined that the MUPTE would only help housing be built for students and these kinds of development created a burden on City services while at the same time foregoing the tax revenues that would pay for those services. In light of the announcement that the University was closing the Westmoreland student housing, she thought a huge apartment building boom would happen. She indicated that she would vote in opposition to the ordinance. Councilor Taylor asked why this was called a housekeeping ordinance. Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Community Development Division, replied that the State revised the law to extend the life of the program and the City was bringing the local ordinance into compliance with the State statutes. Councilor Taylor asked if this meant the City had no choice. Mr. Weinman responded that the City had a choice and taking no action would cause the program to automatically sunset. Councilor Taylor said she preferred that the program sunset. She opposed the ordinance. Mayor Piercy ascertained from the council that there were no objections to taking action. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4909, an ordinance concerning multiple-unit housing property tax exemptions. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy called for a five-minute break at 8:50 p.m. 6. ACTION: Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees Mayor Piercy conveyed her appreciation to all of the people who applied for positions on boards, commissions, and committees. Budget Committee Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to reappoint Jana Rygas to Position 1 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint John Barofsky to Position 4 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint Michael Biglan to Position 6 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint Michael Caprais to Position 8 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2008. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to substitute Claire Syrette for Michael Caprais. Councilor Kelly supported placing Ms. Syrette on the Budget Committee because he believed she was more appropriate selection in order to maintain a balance. He said that with Ms. Syrette the Budget Committee would be comprised of six men and two women. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the substitute motion to appoint Maurie Denner to the Budget Committee. Councilor Solomon averred that Mr. Denner exemplified public service. She said he was qualified and knowledgeable and the City had benefited from his service on the Police Commission. Councilor Bettman moved to substitute Claire Syrette for Maurie Denner. City Attorney Jerry Lidz explained that according to Robert’s Rules of Order, a motion, a motion to amend, and a motion to amend the amendment could be made and no more than that. He said the way to get to Councilor Bettman’s desired result was to vote down Councilor Solomon’s motion and proceed from there. Councilor Ortiz commented that she knew Mr. Denner and Mr. Caprais and they would both benefit any committee they would serve on, but she intended to support Ms. Syrette’s appointment. Councilor Papé commended Sherry Schaeffer for her service on the Budget Committee, adding that he wished she could have remained on the committee. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion to amend a 4:4 tie, with councilors Poling, Solomon, Papé, and Pryor voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted against the amendment and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute Claire Syrette for Michael Caprais passed, 5:3; councilors Solomon, Poling, and Pryor voting in opposition. Roll call vote; the amended motion to appoint Claire Syrette to the Budget Committee passed unanimously, 8:0. Planning Commission Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to reappoint John Lawless to Position 5 on the Planning Commission for a four-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2009. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint Phillip Carroll to Position 4 on the Planning Commission for a four-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2009. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to substitute Greg Ringer. Councilor Taylor said all of the applicants were very well qualified, but she felt Mr. Ringer brought an unusual level of experience and therefore she wished to support him. Councilor Bettman thought both candidates were well-qualified but supported the appointment of Mr. Ringer in order to provide “balance.” She opined that with the reappointment of Mr. Lawless the Planning Commission had a “super majority on the Planning Commission that is either directly involved with development or somehow associated with development.” She suggested that appointing Mr. Ringer would bring the “voice of the community” to the Planning Commission. She alleged that the development industry “already had direct access” to the Planning Division as well as having paid lobbyists. Councilor Solomon agreed that the Planning Commission needed a voice from the community but felt the appointment of Mr. Carroll would serve this purpose. She underscored that he had become familiar with the Planning Commission and its charge through his work with the community group the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN). She averred that this was exactly the kind of expertise the community needed. Councilor Papé wished to remind Councilor Bettman that Mr. Carroll was not tied to any particular industry or any other with the possible exception of the Eugene Tree Foundation, which only served to demonstrate his dedication to the community. Roll call vote; the vote on amend the motion to substitute Greg Ringer was a 4:4 tie, with councilors Bettman, Taylor, Kelly, and Ortiz voting in favor and councilors Solomon, Poling, Papé, and Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition and the motion to amend failed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Human Rights Commission Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to reappoint Misa Joo to Position 11 on the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint Rebecca Flynn to Position 5 on the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint James Garcia to Position 7 on the Human Rights commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 13 Regular Session Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint Annette Leonard to Position 8 on the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint David Cottier to Position 9 on the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Toxics Board Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint Rue Ann Thomas to Position 3, an industry representative, on the Toxics Board for a three-year term beginning on November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint John Jordan-Cascade to Position 6, an advocacy representative, on the Toxics Board for a three-year term beginning on November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Historic Review Board Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint Denny Hellesvig to Position 3 on the Historic Review Board for a four-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2009. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint Sara Palmer to Position 5 on the Historic Review Board for a four-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2009. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to appoint Hilary Loud to Position 3 on the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission for a three-year term beginning on February 1, 2006, and ending on January 31, 2009. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy extended her congratulations to all of the new appointees. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 14 Regular Session (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 15 Regular Session