Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/16/09 Public Hearing M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon November 16, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Resolution 4991 Amending the Systems Development Charge Methodology and Charges for the MWMC Regional Wastewater System City Manager Jon Ruiz provided a brief overview of the item. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. She determined there was no one wishing to testify and closed the hearing. There were no questions from councilors. 2. PUBLIC HEARING Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments Mr. Ruiz introduced Terri Harding, Planning and Development Department, to provide a brief overview of the item. Ms. Harding stated that the three public hearing items represented the first round of recommendations from the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. She distributed copies of the three alternatives (A, B and C) for proposed code changes related to building height that had been reviewed by the Planning Commission. The commission selected Alternate B. She said in response to questions from the council at its work session she was developing additional information on the impact of building height on neighborhood density, car- sharing, diagonal parking potential and enforcement and revisions to the figures that accompanied the Jefferson-Westside Special Area Zone. She said written testimony had been received from 16 additional people after the agenda packet was prepared and that would be provided to the council. A. An Ordinance Concerning Parking Requirements for Multi-Family Housing; Amending the West University Refinement Plan, and Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.6410, and 9.6420 of the Eugene Code, 1971. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2009 Page 1 Public Hearing Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. Drix , High Street, Eugene, characterized ICS as the foundation of the City’s future. He said density in his neighborhood continued to increase as more students attended the University of Oregon and parking was an issue. He said personal transportation modes varied and included bicycles and EmX. He hoped that solutions to compatibility of denser development would preserve the unique qualities of Eugene. Mike Dotson , Calla Street, Eugene, Homebuilders Association of Lane County president, spoke in favor of the parking ordinance, with revisions recommended by the Planning Commission. He said builders were caught between the opposing needs of increasing density and preserving neighborhoods. He felt the building community had come together with neighborhoods to develop the compromise solutions reflected in the ordinance with recommended alterations from the Planning Commission. Rick Alexander , Jacobs Drive, Eugene, a member of the Homebuilders Association, said he had been involved in development of the parking standards compromise proposal. He felt it was a good compromise that met the needs of neighborhoods for increased parking for higher density developments. He noted the council would be considering many other ICS recommendations and asked members to keep in mind that they were all part of a package that when taken as a whole could potentially significantly reduce the number of units and amount of density within a given area that was in need of greater density. Laura Potter , Laura Street, Springfield, speaking on behalf of the Homebuilders Association of Lane County, said a number of its members had participated in the ICS process. She urged the council to adopt the ordinance with the alternations recommended by the Planning Commission as it was a fair compromise between the current code and MiCAP (minor code amendments process). The association strongly supported the concept of tandem parking and encouraged its broader use. Regarding the building height ordinance, she said dramatically increasing building height caused the building community concern. The association strongly supported Alternate B, which allowed for 90-foot heights on sites of 10,000 square feet or more abutting the University. She said it was imperative that buildings be allowed to go up in that area because of the growing enrollment at the University and increasing need for student housing. Sue Prichard , Emerald Street, Eugene, ICS Task Team co-chair, commented on all three of the public hearing items. She said an astounding amount of work over the past two years had gone into developing ICS recommendations and the first three presented for public hearings had been thoroughly researched and discussed and major compromises reached, with all stakeholders providing input. She said passions ran high on ICS issues and asked the council to consider the facts, rather than emotions. Steve Gab , Villard Street, Eugene, ICS Task Team co-chair, said on the issue of parking there was no “right” answer as it was a moving target. The recommendation represented a consensus of stakeholders. He noted the council’s interest in the concept of car-sharing and said the proposal reflected a middle ground between those that preferred a parking space for every vehicle and those that preferred no vehicles. He said developers recognized the need to provide a few parking spaces as possible within the reasonableness of the market. He asked the council to focus on the car-sharing aspect and encourage the community to develop a viable, dynamic car-sharing program. th Howard Bonnett , East 28 Avenue, Eugene, Ward 3, asked that the record be kept open for two weeks. He noted that there were ordinance findings related to state goals, but not to council goals on climate change, reduction of fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide. He felt those would also be addressed. He said the proposal MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2009 Page 2 Public Hearing did not address increasing bicycle parking requirements and he had noticed a lack of secure bicycle parking when passing through the neighborhood. He was concerned that the proposed ordinances had not been subjected to the scrutiny of a triple bottom line assessment. Gordon Anslow , Paddock Drive, Eugene, Ward 2, stated he participated in the ICS process and was generally supportive of the proposed parking standards. He felt it was preferable to base parking requirements on footage of residential use, as were all other uses, instead of the number of bedrooms. He also had some concerns with the determination of the number of bedrooms based on representation of the owner or agent because it could lead to the subpoena of private financial documents such as rental contracts or loan applications in the event of a citizen complaint. He said parking based on the unambiguous square footage standard eliminated the need for ongoing monitoring; otherwise he fully supported the parking standards ordinance. th Deborah Healey , East 15 Avenue, Eugene, Ward 3, was in agreement with the parking standards proposal, particularly the change in language from parking spaces per unit to parking spaces per bedroom to reflect the four- to six-bedroom units currently being built. She said most students living near campus did not drive to school, but did use their cars for many other purposes like employment, shopping and visiting family. She doubted that students would be willing to pay $9.00 or more per hour for a shared car to get to a job. She recommended removing the car-sharing feature from the proposal and giving it further study before incorporating it into the code. She was also opposed to tandem parking up to the front yard setback, although not to the concept of tandem parking. Carolyn Jacobs , Agate Street, Eugene, Ward 3, as a member of the ICS Task Team, urged the council to support the code change, which addressed long-standing parking problems in the neighborhoods abutting the University. She reminded the council about the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision on the MiCAP ordinance, which contained more stringent requirements than the proposed ICS ordinance. She said the ICS Task Team had not discussed car-sharing and while it was an idea with enormous potential it did not address the goal of changing behavior and reliance on cars. She asked the council to remove car-sharing from the proposal. Bill Aspergren , Alder Street, Eugene, Ward 3, fully supported the ICS parking proposal and recommended passage without the shared-car provisions. He said car-sharing was a worthy idea, but was new to Eugene and had not demonstrated it reduced student car ownership; more study and experience was needed as there were too many unanswered questions. He suggested it would be better for the City to seek incentives promoting shared cars instead of reducing onsite parking spaces permanently. He said spaces could not then be increased if a car-sharing agreement was terminated and the City had no way to enforce those types of arrangements. He submitted a written copy of his remarks. th Steven Baker , East 15 Avenue, Eugene, Ward 3, member of the ICS Task Team and chair of the subcommittee that generated the three recommendations, said the proposed changes allowed for a modest increase in off-street parking for apartments with larger numbers of bedrooms and also provided other efficiencies, such as tandem parking and reduced parking for certain types of developments. He said the proposed changes were based on facts and data illustrating the dramatic difference in developments around the University, which began in 2004, was included in the agenda packet. He favored restoring the provisions that would prohibit tandem parking off an alley within 30 feet of the street. He said another ICS recommendation regarding tandem parking in driveways of multi-family developments would be considered in the future. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2009 Page 3 Public Hearing Al Couper , Harris Street, Eugene, Ward 3, supported the parking amendment recommended by the Planning Commission with the caveats related to car-sharing and tandem parking discussed by previous speakers. His concern was student use of cars and disputed testimony that adding more parking would result in a concomitant increase in the number of cars coming to Eugene. He said surveys and interviews with many students indicated that the decision to bring a car to Eugene had nothing to do with the availability of off-street parking spaces. Students used their cars for many purposes other than school and for women students having access to a car was also a safety issue. He said adding a small number of parking spaces would not bring more cars to Eugene; the growth of the University caused that. The ordinance would bring some relief to parking problems in the neighborhood. th Lauren Hulse, East 20 Avenue, Eugene, Ward 3, was opposed to allowing developers to provide fewer parking spaces because of a shared car agreement. She said the City’s code enforcement was complaint- driven and there were not resources to begin proactive enforcement. If shared car arrangements were abandoned as unfeasible, there was no way to add back the parking spaces that were lost. She encouraged the council to find an alternative way to incentivize the use of shared cars. Sam DeBow , Harris Street, Eugene, a University of Oregon student, supported the efforts of South University neighbors to lower the maximum building height and slightly increase required parking for apartments. She brought a car to Eugene because she needed it for many household errands and to facilitate her participation on the women’s lacrosse team. She said that type of car usage was typical of many students and the lack of parking for apartment buildings created problems. She said her decision to bring her car was because it was a necessity, not a luxury. Kaitlyn Pasko , Harris Street, Eugene, a University of Oregon student and lacrosse team member, echoed Mr. Couper and Ms. Hulse’s remarks about the necessity of having a car for many students. She urged the council to support the ICS parking standards ordinance. Charles Biggs , Antelope Way, Eugene, a member of the ICS Task Team, supported the proposed code changes. He strongly believed that neighbors who had to live with the consequences of development in their area should have a strong voice in how that development occurred. Pamela Miller , Harris Street, Eugene, stated that she had lived in that location for over 20 years and chose to live on the interface between single-family and multi-family zones because she enjoyed the liveliness of a student neighborhood. She had seen parking problems become more severe recently as the density of development increased. She sympathized with students’ need for cars and shared concerns with incorporating the untested concept of car-sharing into an ordinance. As ancillary issues, she urged the council to consider limiting the number of parking permits per unit and working with the University to find other parking solutions for students. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. There were no comments from the council. B. An Ordinance Concerning Building Height in the University Area and Amending Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. th Katie Hulse , East 20 Avenue, Eugene, Ward 3, concurred with an earlier speaker’s request to increase secure bike parking. She said greater density increased the potential for more crimes in a neighborhood and MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2009 Page 4 Public Hearing as a young female University student she was part of an at-risk population, particularly walking or riding a bicycle at night. She said large residential structures provided opportunities for incidents to get out of control more quickly and the proximity of four- and five-story buildings to her home was a cause for concern. She urged the council to keep the neighborhood safe by assuring that populations in and around the University area were residential in nature, not prone to partying and mayhem. th Lauren Hulse , East 20 Avenue, Eugene, Ward 3, spoke to the limitation on building heights. She said the MiCAP process offered good protection for the neighborhood and was supported by residents. The MiCAP height ordinance was referred to the ICS Task Team and neighbors participated in the process. She agreed th with the Planning Commission’s recommendations for height limitations of 35 feet south of 19 Avenue and th 50 feet for the first half block north of 19 Avenue, but opposed heights of over 65 feet along the south edge th of 18 Avenue. She said maximum density could be achieved through three- or four-story structures and anything over 65 feet was excess and diminished the neighborhood’s character; taller structures should not be allowed until there were applicable design standards. Al Couper , Harris Street, Eugene, spoke in support of the building height recommendations from the Planning Commission, with two exceptions: maximum height should be limited to 65 feet, not 90 feet; and delay allowing a height benefit bonus for large lots until there were design standards in the code. He said the neighborhood supported the concept of high density near the University and the City’s ability to meet its density goals. He said the density goals articulated in the Metro Plan could be achieved with buildings of two or three stories; four-story buildings were able to achieve the maximum density allowed by the zoning code of 112 dwelling units per net acre. He felt that the limitations of 35, 50 and 65 feet would meet all of the City’s density goals. Bill Aspergren , Alder Street, Eugene, commented that Eugene was out of step with other Oregon cities on the issue of building heights by allowing significantly taller buildings. He said outside of Eugene and Portland, the average maximum building height was less than 50 feet. Eugene was the only city that did not have a transition area between single-family dwellings and taller multi-family dwellings. All cities in Oregon were governed by the same state laws regarding density, housing needs and urban growth boundaries and other cities were able to comply with buildings half the size of Eugene’s maximum building height. He said buildings taller than 65 feet were not necessary to meet density goals and asked the council to lower the maximum height to that level and eliminate any exceptions for larger lots until design standards were in place. He submitted a written copy of his remarks. th Steven Baker , East 16 Avenue, Eugene, spoke in support of adopting maximum buildings heights, but thought the proposed heights were in excess of the maximum heights adopted by the ICS Task team and should be reduced. He favored no more than 65 feet for the maximum building height in R-4 zones. He referred to data in the agenda packet and noted that recently constructed multi-family development in the subject neighborhoods would comply with the limits. He favored adding areas in the West University th neighborhood north of East 13 Avenue zoned R-4 into the area of reduced maximum building height as that area contained most of the historically significant structures remaining in the neighborhood. He submitted a written copy of his remarks. Mike Russo , Potter Street, Eugene, Ward 3, urged the council to impose a building height limitation of 65 feet. He noted that the ICS Task Team had favored a 50-foot limitation on a 14 to 1 vote. He said lowering the maximum height to 65 feet would not impact jobs based on data collected by the task team and included in the agenda packet; any downturn in construction was more related to the economy and a shortage of available credit and declining demand. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2009 Page 5 Public Hearing Timothy Shinabarger , Agate Street, Eugene, Ward 3, asked that the record be left open for one week so the public could respond to testimony received during the hearing. He regretted that the Planning Commission had recommended Alternate B with a 90-foot cap on building height, which was out of scale with the neighborhoods. He compared provisions of the three alternates considered by the Planning Commission and urged the council to establish a separate process for addressing building heights in the historic neighborhoods surrounding the University. He pointed out that the Planning Commission’s recommendation did not preclude the council’s consideration of the other two alternatives and urged them to approve the height limitations in Alternate A and direct staff to modify the proposed ordinance accordingly. st Malcolm Wilson , East 21 Avenue, Eugene, Ward 3, supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation, but strongly favored reducing the maximum building height to 65 feet. He said the neighborhood was not opposed to reasonable and balanced proposals to increase density, but building heights were not sustainable if they permitted massive, out-of-scale buildings that destroyed the livability and viability of the neighborhood. He said the area was a dense urban neighborhood with a diverse population that supported numerous services within easy walking or biking distance. The character of the neighborhood promoted neighborly communication, civil society and a high level of property maintenance. He feared that the application of worthy abstract principles would destroy the good they were intended to foster and preserve. He said sensible building height limits would promote a full range of social, economic and environmental benefits to the City. Carolyn Jacobs, Agate Street, Eugene, said the 35- and 50-foot building heights were in accord with the work of the ICS Task Team, Planning Commission and neighborhoods. She said convincing data was presented demonstrating that maximum density could be met with buildings of three and four stories and less than 50 feet, but the task team responded to a request for more design flexibility by agreeing to a 65-foot height limit. She said 65 feet achieved a balance that would meet density demands while preserving neighborhood character and encouraging home-owners to stay. She urged the council to limit building height to 65 feet until design standards were implemented. The height bonus for large sites did not appear until after the task team had completed its work. th Deborah Healey , East 15 Avenue, Eugene, supported the 65-foot height limit in R-4 zones to provide flexibility and prevent excess. Regarding the areas of the West University neighborhood zoned R-4 and not in the current proposal, she noted that they were part of one of the earliest residential areas in Eugene. She distributed a map of historic buildings and related materials demonstrating areas of historic interest. She said adding height restrictions to the rest of the R-4 areas in West University would help protect one of Eugene’s heritage areas, but was not sufficient. She urged the council to direct staff to proceed with a study of the area, then create and implement clear and objective language in the code that would allow the site review overlay zone to be fully enforced. Steve Gab , Villard Street, Eugene, remarked that the building height proposal was a complex issue affecting a small band of properties adjacent to the University. He said the proposal had gone through an arduous public process and it was natural for stakeholders and decision-makers to seek compromise positions. The 90-foot height limitation was a compromise on a compromise made at the last minute by the Planning Commission. He urged the council to reject a height bonus for large sites until design review standards were in place. Gordon Anslow , Paddock Drive, Eugene, stated that the initial work of the task team and recommendation of the Planning Commission on building heights attempted to balance the needs of many stakeholders. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2009 Page 6 Public Hearing said the impact of increasing demand for student housing was being born primarily with the neighborhoods to the south and west of campus because the City had taken a myopic view in past decisions about other areas of the City. Pamela Miller , Harris Street, Eugene, spoke in support of Alternate A. She recognized the need for greater density in the areas adjacent to the University. She said there were unique qualities in a concentrated student population that could create problems in activities moved into adjacent historic neighborhoods. She said a dense urban area should include urban amenities and allow for small commercial, service-oriented development. She suggested considering the conversion of R-3 property to condos for young working or retired people to create more diversity in the neighborhood. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for questions from the council. Councilor Clark asked how the Planning Commission had developed its recommendation for a 90-foot height on large sites. Ms. Harding said a committee composed of stakeholders worked over the summer to further refine the building height proposal and submitted to the Planning Commission Alternate A, with Alternate B and Alternate C submitted as minority reports by developer members of the committee. The commission held a public hearing and after deliberations determined that the 90-foot limitation still represented a compromise that accomplished protection for the neighborhoods but was acceptable to the Homebuilders Association. Councilor Solomon asked for additional information from staff on decisions during the previous land use code update (LUCU) process that prevented the development of multi-family residential uses on commercially-zoned sites. Councilor Zelenka said the testimony had informed him that maximum density could be achieved in the area with a 50-foot building height and there had been a surprising amount of development occurring there without benefit of the multi-unit property tax exemption (MUPTE). He was concerned with how the Planning Commission arrived at its decision to increase the allowable building height to 90 feet and asked staff to provide that justification in the council’s next agenda packet. Councilor Pryor asked staff to illustrate on the map the size of a 10,000 square-foot site. Ms. Harding indicated that would be the equivalent of two single-family lots. Councilor Pryor joined in Councilor Zelenka’s request for more information about the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Councilor Clark asked to have the record remain open for another week. He asked if there were issues related to potential appeals of a decision on building heights. Ms. Harding said one of the consistent goals of the ICS process was to consider all points of view in order to develop a solution that had broad support, but preventing an appeal was not a policy issue. C. An Ordinance Establishing the Jefferson-Westside Special Area Zone (S-JW); Applying that Zone to Specific Properties; Amending the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan; Amending the Westside Neighborhood Plan; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.2161, 9.2170, 9.2171, 9.8030, and 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding Sections 9.3600, 9.3605, 9.3615, 9.3626, 9.3630, 9.3631, and 9.3640 to that Code. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2009 Page 7 Public Hearing Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. th Della Perry , West 11 Avenue, Eugene, Jefferson-Westside Neighbors chair, said the proposed zone was a thoughtful product that would preserve the character of the neighborhood, both visually and emotionally, and promote a strong sense of community. She urged the council to adopt the ordinance establishing the S- JW zone. Phil Farrington , Monroe Street, Eugene, Ward 1, said the American Planning Association recently presented its “Great Places in America” award to three neighborhoods on the West Coast in Pasadena, California; Spokane, Washington; and Portland, Oregon. Those neighborhoods share many characteristics with the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood. The ordinance would help to preserve those qualities by tempering the manner in which future infill development could occur. He asked the council to support the ordinance. Gretchen Miller , Adams Street, Eugene, stated that the neighborhood, in which she had resided for many years, was an asset to the City but it could be fragile. There were times when many neighbors moved out because of safety concerns and it took a long time to rebuild the sense of community that had been lost. She said maintaining a successful neighborhood close to downtown took planning and work and while greater density could be accommodated, it should be compatible with the character in existing dwellings and maintain livability of the area for residents. She urged support for the proposed ordinance. th Garrick Mishaga , West 14 Avenue, Eugene, Ward 1, stated that he valued the neighborhood and its proximity to downtown and the University, the walkability to amenities and the diverse housing stock. He had participated in the ICS process and as a landscape architect appreciated the importance of maintaining quality neighborhood form and character. He said some infill projects had compromised the livability of the surrounding area, while others complimented it. He urged the council to support the proposed ordinance to assure a balanced mix of residential development that positively contributed to the character of the neighborhood. th Paul Conte , West 10 Avenue, Eugene, encouraged the council to support the proposed Jefferson-Westside special area zone. He thanked many individuals who had been involved in neighborhood planning over the years, as well as the council and City staff. Steve Gab , Villard Street, Eugene, pointed out that the 17 recommendations from the ICS Task Team were greatly varied and complex and the three items before the council were some of the easiest to address. He thanked the Mayor, council and City staff for their work on the ICS process and said the community had been well served by Ms. Harding’s efforts. He said the three items included two common threads: a need to correct past mistakes and recognition of changes in R-2 uses. Mayor Piercy closed the hearing and called for questions from the council. She thanked those involved in developing the proposal for a special zone. Council Zelenka thanked those involved in the ICS process, which demonstrated that fragile neighborhoods survived because people cared. City Attorney Emily Jerome clarified that the record would remain open on the ordinances related to parking standards and building heights and was closed on the Jefferson-Westside Special Area zone. She also noted MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2009 Page 8 Public Hearing that if the council wished to reconsider an ordinance approved on November 9, it would need to take action and an explanatory memorandum had been distributed to councilors explaining the process. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to reconsider the motion to adopt Council Bill 5016, an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Land Use Diagram; amending the Willakenzie Area Plan, and returning the “River Ride” site to the low density residential designation. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to divide Council Bill 5016 into two ordinances, one related to the land over which the City has sole jurisdiction and the other related to the land over which the City and County have joint jurisdiction. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to postpone action on the two ordinances until Monday, November 23, 2009. Councilor Brown asked if action taken by the council to approve a MUPTE application at its last meeting could also be reconsidered. Mayor Piercy noted that a memorandum from City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that the MUPTE action could not be reconsidered because contractual obligations were now in place. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Jerome cited Mr. Klein’s memorandum regarding the MUPTE action. She said that MUPTEs were governed by state law and City code and once an application was approved there were no provisions that would allow the council to repeal or terminate the resolution; termination could only occur if the developer failed to comply with conditions of approval. Councilor Taylor expressed concern that not all councilors were present when the MUPTE action was taken. Councilor Ortiz was not certain the outcome for that application would have been changed if all councilors had been present. She commented that she supported MUPTEs, but that particular application had not met all of the requirements. She felt it was important that future MUPTE applications fully comply with the conditions for approval. The meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2009 Page 9 Public Hearing