Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/21/10 Public HearingMINUTES Eugene City Council Council Chamber — Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street — Eugene, Oregon June 21, 2010 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Alan Zelenka, George Brown, members. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the public hearing of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: A Resolution Adopting the Budget, Making Appropriations, Determining, Levying, and Categorizing the Annual Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2010, and Ending June 30,2011; a Resolution Electing to Receive State Revenue Sharing Funds Pursuant to Section 221.770 of Oregon Revised Statutes; and a Resolution Certifying that the City of Eugene Provides the Municipal Services Required by Oregon Revised Statutes Section 221.760 in Order to Receive State Shared Revenues Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules for the public hearing. She opened the public hearing. City Manager Jon Ruiz announced the public hearings for the first four items were opportunities for the council to hear from the public in regard to the proposed fiscal year 2011 City of Eugene budget and supplemental budgets. Deliberations would occur on June 28. John Barofsky, 2010 Hubbard Lane, Chair of the Budget Committee, thanked the members of the Budget Committee and City staff for the work involved in the budget before the council. He had been pleased with the openness of the process and level of communication the manager and staff brought to the process. He spoke to areas of concern, including that the manager brought forward proposals related to the reduction of hours at aquatics facilities and parks programs which consumed considerable committee time better devoted to larger issues. He. suggested that this took time away from other discussions and was not an efficient use of the committee's time. However, he was glad both programs were able to be funded. On positive notes, Mr. Barofsky believed the City was on its way to a sustainable budget. He noted that the budget funded a needed neighborhood park in north Eugene, and also included funding for the ongoing maintenance of the park. The committee had also supplemented funding for the Human Services Commission and had dedicated one -time funds to roads. He felt prudent choices were made in regard to animal control. 'Mr. Barofsky recommended passage of the budget and thanked those who offered input. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and thanked Mr. Barofsky for his service as Budget Committee chair. MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 21, 2010 Page 1 Public Hearing Mayor Piercy closed the meeting of the City Council and convened a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency (URA). 2. PUBLIC HEARING: A Resolution of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene Adopting the Budget, Making Appropriations, and Declaring the Amount of Tax to be Certified for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2010, and Ending June 30, 2011 Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, she closed the public hearing. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the URA and convened the City Council. 3. PUBLIC HEAING: Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2009, and Ending June 30, 2010 Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. John Barofsky, 2010 Hubbard Lane, expressed concern about a shift in the Risk and Benefits Fund budget that reduced the balance available in that fund by $1 million and increased the operating budget appropriation for the Central Services budget by a like amount to pay for a health insurance claim due to an adverse claims experience. He recalled a cost - cutting strategy put forth by staff for the fiscal year 2010 budget that reduced the estimate of risk claims expenses, which saved $473,000. However, he feared that the City had realized that savings at the cost of $1 million in higher claims. Mr. Barofsky was also concerned that the downtown Wellness Center, which had been a significant expenditure, did not seem to have reduced claims. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Risk and Benefits Manager Myrnie Daut attributed the $1 million shift from the Balance Available to the Claims line item in the Employee Health Fund to some extraordinarily large claims; the City had the largest single claim it ever experienced, $600,000, as well as 11 smaller claims that exceeded $100,000. The City was self - insured for the first $150,000 for each claim but must pay the full amount of the claim and seek reimbursement from its stop -loss carrier. The City would be reimbursed for most of its large claims, but to ensure there was sufficient funding, staff submitted the supplemental budget request. That occurred before the resolution of the large claims, and did not reflect an overall increase in program costs. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Daut to speak to the cost - effectiveness of the Wellness Center. Ms. Daut said more employees were using the fitness center who had not been regular exercisers before, and the center offered them an opportunity to meet their fitness goals. Mayor Piercy solicited council questions or comments. There were none. Mayor Piercy closed the meeting of the City Council and convened a meeting of the URA. MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 21, 2010 Page 2 Public Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2009, and Ending June 30, 2010 Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Mary Salinas, General Delivery, Eugene, shared her concern about the homeless and questioned if the City had given much money to the homeless in the current budget. She advocated for more money to be dedicated to the Egan Warming Center. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She called for questions or comments. There were none. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the URA and reconvened the meeting of the City Council. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning the Walnut Street Station Mixed -Use Center; Amending the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Land Use Diagram; Adopting the Walnut Street Station Refinement Plan; Amending the Fairmount/ University of Oregon Special Area Study; Amending the Riverfront Park Study; Rezoning Property; Amending Sections 9.1030, 9.2682, 9.5750, 9.6750, 9.7007, 9.7055, 9.7205, 9.7230, 9.7605, 9.7230, 9.7605, 9.8010, 9.8030, 9.8680, 9.8865, and 9.9570 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Renumbering Sections 9.8110 and 9.8113 of that Code to Sections 9.8007 and 9.8009, Respectively; Adding Sections 9.3950, 9.3955, 9.3960, 9.3965, 9.3970, 9.3975, 9.3980, 9.8110, 9.8111, 9.8112, 9.8113, 9.8114, and 9.9655 to that Code; Adopting Special Setbacks for a Segment of Franklin Boulevard; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date City Manager Ruiz introduced the topic and noted the council was scheduled to deliberate and take action on July 26, 2010. Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public hearing. She opened the public hearing. Bruce Mulligan, 3056 Hendricks Drive, submitted written testimony. He said the process had been in progress for several years, and he noted the collaborative approach to the form -based code that involved the Chamber of Commerce, Fairmount Area Neighbors (FAN), and the University of Oregon. He said the code was not perfect, and compromises were made. He acknowledged that businesses still had some concerns about the multi -way boulevard concept and access restriction that he hoped would be resolved. He supported the form based code as a way to resolve disputes before they arose and streamline development for businesses. He thought the plan was an example of what could happen when people sat down and resolved their differences. He thought the proposed form based code an ideal model for the future and asked the council to recognize the work that had been done. Elizabeth Steffensen, 2435 Skyline Boulevard, a member of FAN, endorsed the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council that the form based code be evaluated after 50,000 square feet of development had occurred or three years had passed. The neighborhood could then evaluate the resulting impacts and suggest adaptive management approaches that could take the form of code or plan changes or other supplemental council actions. She said FAN expected any evaluation to be done in collaboration with all stakeholders, including the neighborhood association. MINUTES — Eugene City Council June 21, 2010 Page 3 Public Hearing Rena Cowen, 1432 Orchard Street, noted the apartment being constructed to the north of her property and plans to build similar structures to the west and south. She had originally favored the node concept, but was also told her business was valuable to the community and neighborhood and no one wanted to impact her business negatively. However, in reality, she anticipated her business would get squeezed out of the neighborhood because she would no longer be able to secure parking for her employees and customers. She had 17 employees and many customers and the coming apartment dwellers would need parking. Ms. Cowen suggested that allowing such high density construction without requiring parking was foolish. She said that it was silly to assume that the people who lived in apartments would not have cars. They would still have cars because people in Eugene needed cars because of the rain and because the bus did not fit their schedules. She liked the idea of a livable and walkable neighborhood, but that did not solve the problem of how clients accessed her business. Most arrived in their cars with their sick animals. Ms. Cowen believed that the multi -way boulevard concept for Franklin Boulevard was poorly thought -out. It was the major arterial to reach the area for many, and she thought that reducing the number of through lanes and adding a parking lane seemed "crazy." It would cost a great deal and she doubted it would accomplish what it was intended to do. Jeff Nelson, 2144 East 15 Avenue, said he lived across the street from properties controlled by the University of Oregon, including the former Romania property. He requested that the record remain open for ten days. Mr. Nelson asked staff to provide clarification on the differences between the word "abutting" and the word "adjacent." He wanted the legislative intent to reflect that "adjacent" included property across a right -of -way or easement, and should include mitigation of impacts across the street. The plan expanded the list of outright permitted uses, which he believed shifted mitigation responsibility from developers to the City Council. He wanted the council to keep in mind that the City would be taking more proactive responsibility for mitigation to the neighborhood. Mr. Nelson asked that surface parking lots be subject to design review. Don Philpot, 1568 Orchard Street, expressed concern about the transition on 15 Avenue between the high - density residential (HDR) area and existing residential area. He believed that the transition from north to south was more responsive to the HDR use than to the existing residential use. The setbacks on the north side were not residential in scale. He suggested that the building heights could remain the same but the setback could be widened to be responsive to the neighborhood scale. Mr. Philpot discussed the lighting standards, which were for a medium ambient light. He said that was a higher standard than a residential standard of lighting. He thought that created too abrupt a transition, and said the transition should be part of the new development and occur from 15 Avenue to the north. He asked that the ambient light standard be lowered to be more appropriate to the neighborhood. He also objected to signage that would be potentially allowed, such as reader - boards. Mr. Philpot believed that parking had been overlooked as something undesirable, but the reality was that there were businesses that needed parking and residents who would also need parking. Jared Mason -Gere, representing the Eugene Chamber of Commerce at 1401 Willamette Street, submitted written testimony. He commended City staff for its work through the process, and particularly noted the work done by the Walnut Station Stakeholders, an effort which brought several groups together to develop a plan that would benefit the community in the long -term. He commended the form based code as having MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 21, 2010 Page 4 Public Hearing a number of advantages in that it fostered a walkable, vibrant, diverse, dense neighborhood served by bus rapid transit. It would also facilitate a more streamlined, uniform process for those wishing to build in Eugene. Mr. Mason -Gere did not support the last minute change related to the body that heard appeals, which had been made by the Planning Commission. He thought there would be more certainty if such appeals went to the Hearings Official as opposed to the Planning Commission, which was a board of political appointees. He was also concerned about negative impacts on business owners on the south side of Franklin Boulevard by the threat of special setbacks on which one could not build. He asked the council to mitigate that, address the appeals process, and adopt the code. Susie Smith, 1659 Orchard Street, a member of the Walnut Mixed -Use Subcommittee of FAN, shared a "no node" sign from 2003 and acknowledged the process leading to the council's consideration of the Walnut Station WC was a long one. While she thought the process started on a sour note, she believed the outcome was an incredible product of collaboration. She believed the draft plan was getting better with each review and hoped by July 26 it would be "really good." Ms. Smith acknowledged the plan was not perfect and there were problems, but she thought the plan went a long way toward addressing the issues that had been mentioned in testimony. She thought it addressed the edges between the MUC and the neighborhood and expressed support for the proposed evaluation process. Ms. Smith said the neighborhood saw much potential in the plan, including the potential that the multi -way boulevard could be a beautiful entrance into the city. Ms. Smith thanked Project Manager Lydia McKinney and said the project would not have gotten so far without Ms. McKinney's energy and ability to forge consensus through collaboration. Josh Reckord, 1575 Fairmount Boulevard, spoke to the creation of an expectation of graceful transitions from mixed -use to single - family houses. He noted that the term "graceful transition" was found in the plan, but grace could not be asserted and must be demonstrated. He believed that graceful transitions were necessary to satisfy those who participated in the planning process as well as to demonstrate the viability of such projects to others in the community as the City contemplated additional mixed -use centers. Mr. Reckord believed the City needed to commit ongoing resources of time and money to the planning process to overcome residents' resistance to change. He suggested implementation would be key to the success of the MUC. How that occurred would set the stage for moving forward. He suggested that resources be used to assess both the process and the products that resulted. David Sonnichsen, 2435 Skyline Boulevard, supported the multi -way boulevard, terming it vital to FAN's support of the Walnut Station MUC. He said a smooth flow of motorized vehicles using a new Franklin Boulevard friendly to both local and pass- through users, augmented by mass transit, would unite parts of the neighborhood now divided by Franklin Boulevard. Much of the "knitting" would be created by alternative modes. He said that the boulevard would make crossing Franklin more inviting and would promote access to the Millrace riparian corridor and Willamette River because of the stepped down height limits. Camilla Bayliss, 1621 Fairmount Boulevard, spoke to the need for the parking policies recommended by staff and noted the increase in parking problems as the University of Oregon grew and the neighborhood increased in density. The neighborhood succeeded in getting recognition from the UO of the impact of parking spillover problems from UO events. She cited examples of some problems created by those MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 21, 2010 Page 5 Public Hearing events. Ms. Bayliss said the Walnut Station MUC Plan included a reduction in the required amount of off - street parking required by new developments without analysis or an attempt to address its impact on the neighborhood outside of committing that the arena parking district remained in place. The arena parking district was not a panacea and parking enforcement did not occur at night. Ms. Bayliss pointed out that the new Courtside Apartments had four floors of apartments and limited parking underneath; she questioned where residents would put their cars. She suggested that the overnight storage of such cars in the neighborhood was unacceptable, and called for a study to determine whether supplemental parking program measures beyond the arena parking district were needed. In addition, she called for a future re- evaluation of the situation. She noted that staff recommended both courses of action, and FAN supported the staff recommendation. Mary Ann Holser, 2626 Cresta de Ruta, submitted her written testimony. She called for careful future evaluation of the plan components, including the developments that resulted, to ensure that it produced the desired outcome. She called on the University of Oregon to define the uses it located on public lands so the parking demand could be evaluated. Such uses could cause problems for adjacent neighbors. Without such definition, there could be negative impacts on the mixed -use vision. She said FAN requested that the evaluation be completed within a year. Sue Jakabosky, 2018 Orchard Street, FAN Board of Directors, commended all those who put effort into the Walnut Station MUC for so many years. She said that the plan might not be perfect but she agreed with Ms. Smith it was getting better and better. She hoped the council honored all that commitment. She spoke to property values and said the neighborhood was still very desirable. With all the things occurring in the neighborhood, many people had expressed concern that it maintain its value and amenities and continue to be a place people loved to live in. She thought the plan would help maintain the neighborhood, which was a prime goal for residents. Marion Walter, 1846 Orchard Street, urged the council to consider the issue of pedestrian safety seriously. She said it was dangerous and unpleasant to cross many area streets, especially Orchard Street and Franklin Boulevard. John Barofsky, 2010 Hubbard Lane, submitted written testimony. He acknowledged the work that led to the MUC Plan. As a business owner and resident, he felt the steps taken had been positive and all had come together on the plan. He acknowledged the critical role played by the development community in the development of the area. He thought the plan fit all stakeholders and the collaboration worked well. The neighborhood association believed the recommendations related to a traffic study and parking were important to the neighborhood livability and he personally saw them important to the city as a whole as the MUC was the first the City Council would adopt and there were others remaining to be planned for. He thought that the current planning process could inform those future processes and would be valuable in assigning impacts and finding ways to mitigate them. Since such studies required resources, he asked the council to direct the City Manager to ensure funding was in place to support them. Mr. Barofsky suggested that one -time funding from the one -time vacation of property in the MUC area be used as a resource. He thanked the stakeholders. Al Couper, 2850 Harris Street, supported the Walnut Station MUC Plan. He said that form -based codes were past the experimental phase, as evidenced by the many in existence. He had never seen a more open and collaborative process than the planning process. All those with an interest had an opportunity to participate. He said the frequent complaint about form based codes was that they emphasized form rather than use and led to a lack of due process; however, the area in question was now zoned C -2, which MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 21, 2010 Page 6 Public Hearing allowed most uses, and the process added several uses, so he thought that created a net increase in due process which allowed for the mitigation of impacts. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She thanked all those involved in the planning process, particularly the FAN. She said the council was deeply concerned about protecting neighborhoods and the lessons from the process would assist the City in other tasks that lay ahead. Councilor Zelenka thanked those who offered testimony and those who collaborated in the planning process. He also commended the staff work of Ms. McKinney. He said the plan was an experiment in two areas new to Eugene, the fact of the first MUC and the first deployment of a form based code. He suggested it was important to get things right the first time because of the City's hope to have more such MUCs in more areas. Councilor Brown also thanked those who testified. He referred to page 3 of the plan, which referred to the opportunity to protect the existing Fairmount Neighborhood. He asked how the plan would protect the neighborhood in a way that current codes did not. Ms. McKinney suggested that one major emphasis was the 15` Avenue transition edge. The existing zoning was C -2, General Commercial, or PL, Public Lands, for the most part, which allowed 120 feet in height with no setbacks and a broad range of commercial uses. Rather than creating an abrupt edge between the two uses, planners looked at how to mitigate impacts, such as height limits that stepped up and more design standards for buildings along the edge. Responding to a question from Councilor Brown, Ms. McKinney described the scope of new apartment development in the area. Councilor Poling thanked all those who were involved in the planning process and the commitment they demonstrated. He thought the plan a good example of collaboration. He asked what the approximate total length of the proposed multi -way boulevard would be. Ms. McKinney noted the extent of the boulevard, which extended from Walnut to Onyx streets. She clarified that the improvements would not go the length of Franklin Boulevard. Councilor Poling asked the rationale for changing the appeal process. Ms. McKinney said that FAN requested that process, and staff discussed that with the stakeholders group. It came up at the end of the process, and originally staff thought that the process had more support from the other stakeholders. However, they preferred the appeal going to the Hearings Official. The Planning Commission discussed the issue and agreed that because the code was new and it had familiarity with it, it was the correct body to hear such appeals. Councilor Poling indicated his disagreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission in regard to the appeals process because the Hearings Official was specially trained to hear such appeals. He would recommend a change in that element of the plan. Councilor Clark congratulated Ms. McKinney and those involved in the successful completion of the planning process. He believed the plan would help the community grow in a helpful way. He acknowledged the concerns expressed by neighbors in regard to parking. Councilor Clark questioned if the City had the appropriate processes in place to evaluate parking impacts. He thought that parking was an area that could create conflicts in the future. He called on the City to do a better job up front about being wise about parking impacts. MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 21, 2010 Page 7 Public Hearing Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to hold the record open until July 1 at 5 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beth Forrest City Recorder (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 21, 2010 Page 8 Public Hearing