Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 12/14/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall December 14, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papé, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Piercy noted that today’s meeting was the last meeting before the holiday recess. The next council meeting would be the State of the City event on January 6, 2006. She invited all to attend the event. Mayor Piercy reported that Santa Claus visited City Hall that morning to take care of a parking ticket; she regretted that she had been unable to do anything about the ticket. A. WORK SESSION: City Council Priority Issue—City Hall Complex The council was joined for the item by Mike Penwell of the Facilities Division and Jonah Cohen of Thomas Hacker Architects. Mr. Penwell said he was seeking council direction for implementing Phase 2 of the development plan phase of the City Hall Complex Action Plan. Staff had identified two basic approaches, one that included more detail and more public process (Approach A) and a second that was more conceptual in nature and had less detail (Approach B). Mr. Penwell noted staff’s recommendation for Option A, with one of the additional services, the Generic New Versus Remodel Study. Mr. Penwell acknowledged the cost involved with Approach A but said staff recommended the higher dollar amount with the expectation it would result in more detailed information on which to base future council decisions. It also included more public involvement to gauge and build community consensus. Mr. Cohen briefly noted the input process associated with the development of the scope of service. He referred the council to the Attachment E to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), which was a preliminary task list and schedule for phases 1 and 2. He reviewed the document. Mayor Piercy noted that Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz were attending a conference on civilian police review and could not be present for the item. She called for council comments and questions. Mr. Papé asked for more information about the Generic New Versus Remodel Study. Mr. Cohen said that the study addressed how the City Hall building, if retained, could be used. He thought it would be difficult for the council to decide that without more information, so the consultants proposed to develop three distinct scenarios. One scenario retained the current building in its existing form and was premised on a new MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 1 Work Session building nearby or across the street. Another scenario was for new construction. The third scenario was more complicated and was premised on retaining as much as possible of the existing building structure but proposed to fit the entire organization in a remodeled facility. Mr. Papé asked if it was easier or more cost-effective to build new or to try to retrofit the existing building. Mr. Cohen said the experience of other municipalities indicated it was probably more expensive to retain the existing structure than build new. There were several factors to consider. He said that independent cost estimators concurred with those conclusions. Mr. Papé asked if the Council Chamber or a similar gathering space could be duplicated in a new facility. Mr. Cohen said that in terms of the dignity of a public gathering space that was appropriate for a govern- ment body to come together with the community, the answer was yes. He envisioned that such a facility would be state-of-the-art in terms of systems and technology. Mr. Papé asked for more detail on the Police Services Delivery Study. Mr. Cohen said his firm had a consultant on the project team with considerable experience in working with municipal police departments. He proposed to work with the City to facilitate a decision about the appropriate police services delivery model, examining both the experience of other communities and the internal operations of the department. There were also implications related to land; he pointed out that the operations side of police services must be housed in an essential services structure and designed to a higher seismic standard, which had cost implications as well. Mr. Papé believed the analysis of police services delivery being proposed was needed, particularly given the need for parking for police vehicles. Ms. Taylor suggested that police vehicles could be scattered across the city for traffic calming purposes. Ms. Taylor hoped the consultant would consider the relative importance of co-location of the departments and consider what needed to be together for the convenience of the public. She emphasized the importance of citizen involvement in the process so that the voting public felt that the decision was theirs. Ms. Taylor asked how much more expensive on average it was to renovate a structure rather than replace it. Mr. Cohen said that information was difficult to pin down until one went through the detailed seismic upgrading plans and their relationship to the programming in the structure. In this case, the City knew the City Hall structure needed to be upgraded, so at minimum the “bones of the building” would be saved and augmented. He noted that some general contractors were contacted as part of the study to get their sense of the issue, and they agreed with the conclusions in the study. Ms. Taylor said that people said it was cheaper to rebuild and then the price of rebuilding continued to go up. She said a new building was not necessarily better; for example, the sound system in the Bascom- Tykeson Room at the library was not as good as the sound system in the McNutt Room. Mr. Cohen said that his firm would take in to account everything from acoustics to mechanical space so the council could really understand every aspect of the decision before it was made. Ms. Taylor asked who would be involved in the citizen interviews. K.C. Cooper of the J.D. White Company responded, saying that between 50 and 60 people would be interviewed and would be selected by the council, staff, and the project team. The project team was seeking diverse input. Many interviews would be MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 2 Work Session in small groups to reduce costs. Technical professionals, citizens, business people, and others would be involved. Ms. Taylor was concerned about relying too much on citizens who might be chosen for their standing in the community. Ms. Cooper said that the workshops would be inclusive and would try to involve those who do not normally participate in City affairs. The project team was trying to avoid over-reliance on the “usual suspects.” Mr. Pryor was very impressed with the process to this point and thought it gave the council the ability to evaluate its options. He said the cost differential was a consideration for him. He believed the citizen input process should be as inclusive as possible and suggested the more comprehensive process was the most appropriate and would produce the most realistic result. He encouraged the project team to be as thorough as possible in the process so the council had the information it needed to reach a decision. He supported Approach A. Mr. Kelly referred to the Generic New Versus Remodel Study, and said he was pleased that Mr. Cohen had mentioned a possible hybrid approach in his remarks to Mr. Papé. He had feared the issue was being cast and was reflected in the AIS as a “new versus remodel” issue but Mr. Cohen had explained the hybrid approach. He thought it was important for the public and council to understand that a hybrid approach was possible. Mr. Kelly said he did not doubt renovation could be more expensive than new construction, but cost was not the only factor he considered. For some people, the existing City Hall had symbolic value that must be considered in that discussion. Since the decision to retain or not retain City Hall was so fundamental to the future, he questioned why it was not included in both options. Mr. Cohen said that the City Hall issue was identified separately because it was a tricky thing to do; the project team was not designing anything yet because it was not in the design phase and had to make assumptions. The project team considered the issue in terms of how it could meet the program needs, deal with parking and adjacency relationships, and have an inviting building. Mr. Cohen said the project team learned in its discussion with other cities that the decision about whether to retain the building had to do with the community’s strength of feeling to retain the building. If that strong desire existed, that should guide all future decisions. Mr. Kelly asked how a development plan could be done without determining the fate of the building. Mr. Cohen said the project team was trying to give the council choices. The idea of the generic study came from the workshop and was not in the original scope of work. Because of the way the idea evolved, the consultant identified it as a separate element. Mr. Kelly asked Police Chief Robert Lehner why he believed the work associated with the Police Services Delivery Study needed outside facilitation. Chief Bob Lehner asked Mr. Cohen if his reference was to the model of police service delivery or the facilities that go along with that. If the answer was the latter, the study was the appropriate venue. Mr. Cohen confirmed that the focus was on facilities. He said his firm was offering the expertise of its consultant team to the City. However, his firm may not need to be involved. Mr. Kelly did not know why the City’s Facilities staff could not do the work required. Mr. Poling referred to the co-location opportunities listed in the meeting packet and asked if the discussion to come would be about sharing both space and sharing costs. He asked if that would be offered to the public for its consideration as he thought that discussion was very important, particularly as it regarded cost. City Manager Dennis Taylor suggested that would come out in the community process. He said that MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 3 Work Session he talked to School District 4J and there was some interest, and the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) also expressed interest in maintaining a downtown presence. He thought the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) might also be interested, and said it was important to find out. Mr. Penwell said that he directed the project team to focus on the City’s needs first. He heard consensus from the council that the City needed to deal with its own space needs and costs first. He met regularly with the County and its priorities were not the same as the City’s with regard to the project and the funding it could provide. He thought the co-location question would be dealt with in the next phase of the project. Mr. Poling said the cost reflected just the beginning of the process. He said the added money was necessary to have the community process. Some of the added costs to the first phase were because of the public process. With regard to citizen interviews, Mr. Poling said he hoped not just the usual people were involved. He proposed a random selection process from voters’ lists, rather than asking individual councilors for their suggestions. He thought that would result in a true sampling of people not otherwise involved. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with Approach A for implementation of the Development Plan Phase of the City Hall Complex Action Plan plus the Generic New versus Remodel Study and request of a Supplemental Budget an appropriation of $1,135,000 from the Facility Reserve. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Ms. Taylor asked how neighborhood outreach would occur. Ms. Cooper responded that the project team would work with the Neighborhood Program staff to meet with the different organizations. There would also be forums that would elicit comment from a sample. The project team planned to have neighborhood involvement in each of the forums. Ms. Taylor hoped the project team went to every neighborhood organization. She did not support the citizen interviews, and suggested that citizens be encouraged to attend neighborhood meetings or go to a forum. Mr. Kelly liked Mr. Poling’s suggestion for a random sampling of voters. Mr. Kelly asked the cost differential between approaches A and B. Mr. Cohen estimated a differential of between 20 percent to 25 percent. He said there were many reimbursable expenses associated with that process. Mr. Kelly said even Approach B cost more than he expected. He did not understand how Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) secured a 30 percent schematic design for $800,000 and the City’s was $900,000. Mr. Penwell said that the project was potentially $100 million plus, and the technical work being done represented less than one percent of the eventual project cost. The City was looking at more difficult questions and issues than EWEB had. The City was doing the most difficult part of the project at the front end. He had come to believe it was a good deal and an appropriate use of City funds. Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Penwell’s remarks helped address his concerns a little but he was still somewhat troubled. He suggested the council consider Approach B plus the Generic New Versus Remodel MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly moved to amend the motion by substituting Approach B and reducing the amount to $860,000. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. The motion passed 5:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Papé was concerned about taking something to the public that was very complex, and asked how the issue would be resolved. He did not think the current City Hall should be part of the complex, and wanted to remove the funding for the examination proposed and consider it separately. Mr. Papé, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion by removing the $85,000 for the Generic Versus Remodel study. Ms. Solomon said that many of her thoughts about the project were predicated on doing the project on the existing site. She asked if the motion implied the site would not be used. Mr. Papé said the building would not be used. The council would have to develop a process to determine whether to demolish or retain the building. Ms. Solomon thought the study was intended to provide that information. Ms. Solomon said she also wanted a new city hall on the current site and did not want to retain the existing building. However, she thought the study was needed because a certain element of the community would argue that the issue had not been studied and the council would have to halt work and commission the study anyway. Ms. Taylor did not think the public had the opportunity to make up its mind and she thought the study was basic to that. Mr. Pryor said that he also supported demolishing the building but he agreed with the remarks of Ms. Solomon, saying that for the sake of fairness the option should be explored. He could not support the motion. Mr. Kelly did not agree that the fact the building would not be used was a forgone conclusion, but he thought Ms. Solomon’s remarks were well-taken. The issue would still be there and must be addressed in some way. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:1; Mr. Papé voting yes. The motion passed, 5:1; Mr. Kelly voting no. B. WORK SESSION: Rules Concerning Dog Ownership in City Limits Mike McKerrow of the Planning and Development Department joined the council for the item. He provided some background on the issue. He reviewed the complaints received to date, noting that most were about barking and the housing of three or more dogs. He said Springfield allowed four dogs per residence and Lane County allowed eight dogs per residence. He said that complaints were generally based on how dogs were managed. If the council chose to modify the code, the amendment would be included in the next round of code amendments to be considered by the public. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Mayor Piercy called for comments and questions from the council. Mr. Kelly said that the council’s action would merely lead to a public process. He did not know how he felt about the issue but wanted to hear the public feedback. Ms. Solomon thanked the council for supporting her work session request. She offered two examples of how the current code was a problem, one of which concerned a family that rescued dogs and had to put one down after a neighbor complained that they had three dogs. In another case, a daughter with two dogs moved in with her mother who also had a dog. They were concerned they would be turned in by a neighbor. She believed the limit caused problems for otherwise well-meaning, good citizens. Mr. Poling said that like Mr. Kelly, he supported asking the public its opinion. He thought the number of complaints demonstrated that it was not a significant problem. However, the fact the code had not been changed since 1968 argued that a reexamination was needed. Mr. Pryor said that a constituent pointed out to him that people who had problems with barking dogs frequently did not know who to complain to or did not want to complain about their neighbors. He said that one barking dog was bad enough. He said the City should enforce its current codes. Mr. Papé said he was happy to look at the issue. He asked if there was a limit on other animals. Mr. McKerrow said the code contained a limit on dogs and had a section on large animals, such as farm animals. In general, those standards concerned larger lot sizes and a minimum square footage. Cats were not regulated at all by the Land Use Code. Mr. Papé thought the City should consider a limit on cats as well as a requirement for cat licensing. Ms. Taylor said there were many things that could be a nuisance in a neighborhood. She pointed out that frequently two people get married, and they had more than two dogs. She asked what they were supposed to do since for many people, giving up a dog would be like giving up a child. She did not understand the code’s hostility toward dogs. She pointed out that the City would issue a ticket without substantiation if someone complained. Mr. Poling said he would like to know about similarly sized cities and the number of dogs they allowed and the complaints they received. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to provide a new kennel definition allowing up to three adult dogs on a residential property in the package of proposed code amendments for consideration during the next phase of the land use code amendment process. The motion passed unanimously. C. WORK SESSION: Inappropriate Infill The council was joined for the item by Planning and Development Department Director Susan Muir and Senior Planner Steve Nystrom. Mr. Nystrom noted that the issue was raised by the council and staff was present to answer questions. The packet included key components of the code that addressed the issue of infill. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Mayor Piercy called for questions and comments from the council. Ms. Taylor said if this problem had not come to other councilors yet, it would. She believed it would happen increasingly. People were calling her and saying they formerly had a nice backyard and now they faced a wall. She said she supported Growth Management (GMS) Policy 6, which called for increased density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of neighborhoods. That was not occurring. She did not care about new housing developments because she presumed they would be designed appropriately and the people who bought houses in them would know what they were getting into. She did not think it was right to change the character of existing neighborhoods, and that was occurring. Ms. Taylor believed that regulations should be different for established neighborhoods. She thought 4,500 square foot lots were very small, particularly in established neighborhoods. She did not think flag lots should be permitted, pointing out that such structures are permitted to be 30 feet high, thus towering over neighboring one-story structures. She said she had seen one such development ruin four backyards. It lowered property values and affected people’s peace of mind. The situation was worse when the develop- ment was on a hill. Ms. Taylor said that building height should depend on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Kelly said he did not interpret GMS Policy 6 as implying increased densities happened only in new neighborhoods. He interpreted it as applying to new development anywhere in the community. He asked if there was any legislative history or intent the council could examine. Mr. Kelly agreed that inappropriate infill was occurring in the community, although he acknowledged people had different ideas about what constituted inappropriate infill. He liked the idea of addressing the issue through a combination of opportunity siting and density allocation. He said that opportunity siting could direct infill where it was appropriate, and combined with the density allocation, would make sure that everyone had a place to live in the future. He suggested that another place to address the issue would be through design standards, such as the design standards associated with multi-family development. The alternative path could be another approach. Mr. Kelly noted that there were currently no single-family design standards, although the council had spent considerable time discussing such residential design standards when it approved the Chambers Area Revisited Project. He suggested the council consider those standards when it considered infill issues in the future. Mr. Pryor said he thought progress was being made. He thought the City should do more of what it had done in the Chambers area to work with the neighbors while still maintaining its density goals. He agreed the council would have differing definitions on what inappropriate infill is, and that could be addressed as code revision opportunities came up. Mr. Papé said he also encountered the issue cited by Ms. Taylor. He hoped there was a way to get at the problem, such as through a zoning overlay. He asked how the City could make GMS Policy 6 work, given that the council wanted to increase residential densities throughout the community. Mayor Piercy said the problem for her was the notion of trying to be sensitive to individual neighborhoods and situations in neighborhoods while still having clear rules for people to live by. That conflict was a tough one. She understood the sensitivity issue, but she also understood that people planned their lives in accordance with City rules. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Taylor said the Chambers node was a good example of what could be accomplished, but she did not think the City could expect similar initiatives from other neighborhoods. She thought the issue was urgent because of the increased development that was occurring. She thought the height of driveways in flag lots needed to be addressed because people were building infill developments and raising the driveway four to five feet higher than the land. It can reduce the height of neighbor’s six-foot fence to two feet on that side. The location of windows in buildings in proximity to each other was an issue. Ms. Taylor said that obstruction of views was another complaint she frequently heard. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that design standards were needed and that action was urgent. The City should protect those already in their homes as opposed to those who had not arrived yet. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Taylor that such development was happening and it was occurring everywhere. Regarding the Chambers experience, he agreed that the City could not expect to see many such initiatives repeated but the City could use the experience again and apply it to other areas as a starting point. He noted that the Chambers neighbors prepared a document regarding lessons learned about infill. He said the City should use that as history. Mr. Poling suggested there were three elements to the conversation: 1) preserving neighborhoods; 2) infill; and 3) buildable lands. He believed the council needed to consider the character of every neighborhood as well as the “big picture” in the form of the buildable lands supply. Mr. Poling said that not everyone wanted to live downtown or on a flag lot or on a lot close to their neighbors. He advocated for having more “big picture” discussion. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct staff to address the issues raised at this work session within the approved Planning Division high-priority work tasks. Mayor Piercy said that the Sustainable Business Initiative Task Force recently heard testimony that Eugene lacked a supply of close-in, condo-type settings for people who were willing to live more densely. She maintained that “it was a trend” with the “boomers wanting to downsize” and the City needed to address that issue at the same time. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 8 Work Session