Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 02/11/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-City Hall February 11, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Papd, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. WORK SESSION: East Campus Plan Amendments City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Allen Lowe, Senior Planner for the Planning and Development Department, and asked him to speak to this item. Mr. Lowe explained that in August 2003, the University of Oregon submitted an application seeking land use approvals to establish a new planning framework for the east campus area, a 35-acre area just east of the main campus. He said the necessary approvals included amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Diagram, the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Study, and to Chapter 9 of the Eugene City Code. He stated that the Metro Plan amendment would redesignate 30 acres of land now designated for high-density residential (HDR), medium-density residential (MDR), and low-density residential (LDR) to Government and Education. Mr. Lowe noted the University had been actively pursuing the purchase of property within this area since the 1960s and currently owned 113 of the 122 parcels within the boundaries of the east campus area. He indicated on the map the area proposed to be redesignated. Mr. Lowe said the current Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Study had been adopted in 1982. The University was seeking to amend three of the policies in the plan that referred to University-owned land. He stated that the amendments to the policy would have the effect of expanding the public land zoning over most of the State-approved campus boundaries and would allow a general intensification of a mixed-use category of land throughout the area and leave a residential buffer of R- 1 zoning. Mr. Lowe reported that staff findings indicate the University proposal satisfied all of the criteria for approval necessary to adopt the amendments. Mr. Lowe highlighted neighborhood concerns regarding the East Campus Plan and its impact on traffic, parking, and livability. He related that the Fairmount Neighborhood Association had commissioned a group of people to monitor the land use process and comment on the land use application, known as the Fairmount Neighborhood Association East Campus Committee (ECC). He stated that the City suggested a mediation process and all parties agreed to participate. He said the ECC made suggestions for modifications to the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 1 Work Session plan. At the conclusion of the process there were three issues left unresolved. He felt the process had been successful in coming to agreement on a number of issues and eliminating others that, at the beginning, had been ~quite contentious." Mr. Lowe cited two policy issues for the council, a study of Agate Street and an area-wide traffic calming study. He noted there were funding issues associated with the policies and conveyed staffs recommendation that, should no funding be allocated, the policies be removed from the plan. Mr. Lowe called attention to the issues mediation had not been able to resolve with the neighborhood. He reported the neighborhood sought a minimum time limit for the plan to be in effect and staff had recom- mended against it. He said another issue brought up by the neighborhood was a desire to prohibit conditional use permits (CUPs) in the zone. He anticipated that the City Council would hear some testimony in favor of this prohibition from the neighborhood. Mr. Lowe indicated that the adopting ordinance published the previous week had erroneously specified that, in addition to other uses allowed by a CUP, office uses would be allowed. He clarified that the policy strictly limited the kinds of conditional uses in the area to office uses and other supportive uses. Mayor Torrey called for questions and comments from the council. Mr. Kelly noted the east campus area was located within his ward and that he had attended many of the meetings regarding the plan. He had been pleased by the mediation process. He felt there had been a ;;huge gulf" between the interests of the neighborhood and the University initially and that to reduce 30 areas of contention to 3 was no small feat. Mr. Kelly called the traffic studies critically important. He urged the council to find funding for them. He thought it especially prudent given the development of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), the potential redevelopment of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) site, and the enormous impact he predicted the East Campus Plan would have. He noted the second study was not slated to be completed before 2008. He commented that the first study only called for $15,000, suggesting it be taken from the General Fund Contingency. Mr. Pap6 commented that citizens in the River Road/Santa Clara also wanted funding to update the plans in that area. He felt it important to keep ;;an even playing field." In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Lowe clarified that the Walnut Street/Franklin Boulevard Node was a completely separate issue. He explained that the University application was judged on a set of criteria and the boundary of the plan was 400 to 500 feet from the westernmost edge of the node. He added that traffic patterns were projected to change, but the City would not be able to condition the plan to address those concerns. He stressed that an area-wide traffic calming study would address concerns where the node and the campus plan might overlap. Ms. Taylor asserted the council should be concerned about the preservation of neighborhoods. She asked why CUPs should not be excluded. Mr. Lowe responded that the CUP process was one of the few permitting processes that allowed the City to evaluate new development as it went in and place conditions on its construction. Ms. Taylor believed the CUP process could be used to change development from residential to office development. Mr. Lowe said that staff believed there should be a process that allowed MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 2 Work Session for positive change to happen in the edge of the east campus area. Without such change, he asserted properties could lapse into disrepair because there was no way to improve the building. Ms. Taylor disagreed, stating it would be worthwhile to preserve the housing. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lowe explained that a parking structure was prohibited in both the R-1 area and the area to be zoned for limited institutional/residential use. Even so, he said a parking structure was envisioned in the area. Mr. Poling applauded the collaborative effort that the City had participated in. He said he was impressed by the "give and take" all parties demonstrated. Regarding the two traffic policies, he asked what would happen if the two policies were removed. Mr. Lowe responded that removing the policies would disallow a proposed mandate that the City study Agate Street, deemed a fairly dysfunctional minor arterial. He said that identifying how to improve function on the street was an important part of enabling the University to expand in the area. As for the traffic calming study, he acknowledged there was no funding available from the City at present for such an endeavor. However, he recommended this area be an exception as it was increasingly impacted by out-of- area traffic. Mr. Poling asked about the pros and cons of having a time limit for implementation of the East Campus Plan. Mr. Lowe replied that the policy had gone through two phases, the first of which was the insistence by the neighborhood that it be a participant in any future plan amendment process. He said the initial proposal was that any plan amendment over two acres in size would force the City to create a collaborative process. He related that staff had identified 21 plan amendments that would have triggered this process in the past two years. Such a requirement would have translated into a dramatic increase in staff workload. He explained that a back-up proposal had been made to establish a ten-year time frame that would dictate that anything having to do with the University's use of land would stay in effect for ten years and was immuta- ble. Staff concluded that it could not be applied in a fair and equitable way to other neighborhoods. Mr. Meisner praised the process that had been undertaken. He pointed out that any traffic studies would lead to further expenditures in the implementation of the resulting recommendations. He suggested staff remain diligent about seeking grant support for the studies. Ms. Nathanson commented that the University campus was like a city within a city, with a daily population that exceeded that of many of the small, rural Oregon communities. She averred that, when looking at the geography of the city, much of the traffic in the area was traversing through the campus. She suggested the study try to capture how much of the vehicular traffic simply traveled north to south or east to west. Ms. Nathanson suggested that examples of successful residential neighborhoods that abut campuses be sought to determine what to aspire to and what to avoid. She felt the City would not knowingly support or embark upon policies that would cause a neighborhood to decay. She sought some assurance that the right direction was being taken for the neighborhood. Ms. Bettman called the University of Oregon a ;~tremendous asset" to the city. She averred the neighbor- hood around the university was an asset as well and needed predictability and the livability of the area protected. She felt traffic to be a key issue. She thought any capital projects would be a problem due to the lack of resources. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 3 Work Session In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lowe said the dysfunction on Agate Street was due in part to pedestrian traffic. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that a pedestrian overpass, a very costly venture, would be required to mitigate the problems. Mr. Lowe responded that an underpass or overpass would not be the only options. He pointed out that diverting pedestrian traffic to signalized intersections would be a less costly and probably more effective option. In response to another question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lowe said the University had made it clear it would willingly participate in any required improvements that would arise from redevelopment of the area, but it would not help fund improvements to existing infrastructure. Mr. Kelly noted that, regarding parity across the city, the City had funded a transition manager for the River Road/Santa Clara area and could certainly fund the first transportation study as well. He strongly recommended the traffic calming study consider the nodal area. He agreed Agate Street was dysfunctional and averred a "little money" should be spent now in order to determine what options there were for improvement of the situation. He liked the idea of seeking out grants, but thought contingency money should be set aside should no grant options be available. Mr. Kelly remarked that, while the University was a great asset to the community, it also placed a great burden on the infrastructure of the City. He noted that an application for the construction of a new building could trigger a traffic impact analysis (TIA) which could ultimately require the University to participate in implementation of mitigation measures. Mr. Kelly reiterated his approval of the collaboration process and suggested such collaboration should be the norm. Ms. Taylor asked why Agate Street was considered to be dysfunctional. Gary McNeel, Traffic Engineer for the Public Works Department, responded that the street was partially dysfunctional in that if a person was destined for a point north and west of the University, Agate Street facilitated this. Beyond this, he asserted that people avoid it. He listed the multiple stopping points that interfere with the smooth flow of traffic and stressed that it did not function well as a minor arterial. Ms. Taylor contended it was functioning. She felt more development east of Agate Street would exacerbate the situation on the street and increase pressure on pedestrians. She did not think that the pedestrian traffic would willingly be channeled to a signalized intersection. Ms. Taylor suggested the University assume responsibility for a pedestrian overpass. Mr. Lowe responded that there was no mechanism in the City code to force the University to pay for improvements to Agate Street. Ms. Taylor supported funding the Agate Street study. Mr. Pap6 stated, regarding comments from Ms. Nathanson, that the neighborhoods to the east and south could be seen as examples of successful neighborhoods that abutted a university campus. Mr. Kelly related that a larger concern in relation to traffic on Agate Street expressed by the neighborhood was not the traffic on that particular street per se, but the traffic caused on side streets by people trying to avoid the traffic difficulties presented by Agate Street. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 4 Work Session MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 5 Work Session B. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning the Citizen Involvement Committee and Amending Sections 2.013 and 2.350 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4856, an ordinance concerning the Citizen Involvement Committee. Mr. Taylor explained that this item was an administrative clean-up item for work done during the budget review. Mr. Kelly agreed this was administrative clean-up. He reiterated his disappointment that the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) had been defunded. He declared the CIC to be a focal point for public participation. Ms. Taylor opined the action was a %urial" and not a clean-up. Ms. Bettman opposed the dissolution of the CIC. She underscored that the intention of the CIC was to increase citizen involvement in a multitude of projects. Regarding the land use issue mandated by the State, Ms. Bettman asserted the Planning Commission had not reviewed a citizen involvement plan for minor land use code amendments. She asked how the Planning Commission was going to approach it at this point. Planning and Development Executive Director Tom Coyle responded that for the minor code amendment process, Planning Division staff would notify the community and home builders and would hold a work session. He stressed that the 12- to 18-month process had not started at this point. He explained that the citizen involvement component of the land use process would begin subsequent to the City Council approval of the prioritization of the Planning Division work plan. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City provided advice to various departments on how to create an ad or a handout to solicit citizen involvement. Mr. Taylor replied that, since 1976, the ideas and expertise that the CIC articulated were well-embedded in City practices. He felt many of the ideas were incorporated into how the City conducted business on a regular basis. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Taylor said staff would encourage that any inadequate notices be brought to their attention. Mr. Pap~ reiterated that continuing the CIC with a limited budget would continue the diminishing results from it. He felt the City intemet was a tremendous resource for citizen involvement in City processes. He was also pleased with the complaint response process at City Hall. He could not agree with the contention that the dissolution of the CIC meant the death of citizen involvement, and added obviously such involve- ment had not ceased. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend time for this discussion by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Taylor asked how home builders were notified. Mr. Coyle responded that they were notified via e-mail. Ms. Taylor averred that a more equitable system of noticing would require the Lane County Homebuilders MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Association to be noticed through a quarter-page ad like the rest of the citizenry. She asserted many people do not read the newspaper or have access to the internet. She felt the CIC ensured that dedicated citizens from the voters' pool participated in the decision process. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He stated that citizen involvement had been most impacted by a City Council decision in 1992 which eliminated "dozens" of committees and, by virtue of this elimination, curtailed citizen access to involvement. He related that every year the CIC had been asked to look at new and different ways of reaching out to citizens and every year the committee responded that it would need additional funding to do so. Mr. Meisner expressed hope the City not only consider existing best practices but, was also is imaginative in looking for new ways to inform and attract citizens to involvement. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that the internet did not reach everyone. He opined that, in practice, use of the voter pool resulted in the same people participating on committees. Ms. Bettman commented that the Mayor often said he wished a broader range of people would testify at public hearings. She asserted the CIC, when it was adequately funded, had the ability to bring more citizens to speak to issues. She added that the CIC had been integral in the creation of the voter pool. She felt feedback from the public had deteriorated without it and declared she would not be voting for the ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Taylor said the new advisory group of key employees with public involvement experience had yet to be named, but the talent had been identified. He stated that he would provide the list of who would be on this committee via e-mail to Mr. Kelly. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bett- man, Mr. Kelly voting no. C. ACTION: Roosevelt Yard Property Acquisition Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to authorize the City Manager to move forward with the purchase of the property as soon as possible using the financing plan described in the Agenda Item Summary and to include the inter-fund loan and other necessary appropriation changes for the purchase in the next supplemental budget. Mr. Meisner said he would support the "discreet motion" before the council, but felt the master plan should have been brought before the council and not just passed administratively. Mr. Meisner conveyed his satisfaction with the response to his concerns regarding liability. He stressed that the City was self-insured and should be vigilant in monitoring activity in the area of the proposed purchase. Additionally, Mr. Meisner noted the property would remain on property tax roles so long as it was leased to tenants. He recommended that it remain leased out until the City was ready to prepare the property for Public Works uses. Mr. Kelly opposed the motion. He suggested potential efficiencies in Public Works that could come about due to partnerships with the County could dramatically change the master plan and the need for the land. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 7 Work Session added that the interfund loan would take from the Road Capital Fund and the Stormwater Fund, which were both in need of funding. Mr. Pap6 remarked that the council should have been "brought into the loop earlier" due to the amount of money involved. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Taylor assured him that the approval of the financing plan and the adoption of the supplemental budget would guarantee the way the interfund loans would be made and that they would be repaid from the $160,000 in annualized revenues. He stressed this was one-time money used as an investment to complete the land assemblage for the Roosevelt Master Plan. Mr. Pap6 said he would support the motion because, should the property prove to be unneeded, it could be turned over at a profit. Mr. Poling agreed that staff should have brought the council into this property purchase earlier. He echoed Mr. Meisner's comment that the property should remain rented until the City was "ready to turn dirt." Mr. Poling felt the County was not likely to share the property as it seemed to be moving out more toward the periphery of the City. He supported the motion. Ms. Bettman inquired as to whether the property was contaminated. She felt she could not support the financing or the acquisition. She remarked that this was a demonstration of fiscal discipline and that, as the purchase was not a city-wide priority, she would do as staff often urged the council to do and exercise this discipline. She repeated her concern regarding the size of the property and her assertion that data projecting a staff increase of 40 people was highly unlikely to due to fiscal constraints and the commitment by the manager to no service additions. Ms. Solomon informed the council that an environmental report had been published on the site and it was determined to be clean. Mr. Taylor corroborated this. Ms. Solomon supported the motion. She opined the City should not own too much property, however. She asked how much property the City currently owned and if excess property was being sold. Mr. Carlson responded, stating the City had been successful in selling such properties, having recently sold three fire stations, the parking lot across from the library, and a large portion of City-owned land in the Danebo area. Ms. Taylor called it "misplaced priorities and land speculation." She opined there was too much money at stake and continued rent income was not a certainty. Mr. Meisner reiterated that he regarded it as an investment. He expected the City to make the property a revenue-producer. He concurred with Ms. Bettman that it was more land than needed and suggested the City sell a portion of it. Ms. Nathanson said it was an investment and "an important way of avoiding potential cost in the future." Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The motion passed, 5:3 (Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) M: 120041Centra! Services DepartmentlCity Councillcc04021 lml. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 9 Work Session