Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue January 5, 2004 12 p.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President, Jon Belcher, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Allen Lowe, Planning and Development Department. ABSENT: John Lawless, Anne Marie Levis, Adell McMillan, members. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved to approve the minutes of September 22, September 29, October 27, October 28, and November 18, 2003, as amended. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION: EAST CAMPUS PLAN OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Subcommittee Reports B. Other Items from the Commission and Staff SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 5, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue January 5, 2004 12 p.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President, Jon Belcher, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Allen Lowe, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department. ABSENT: John Lawless, Anne Marie Levis, Adell McMillan, members. Mr. Rusch called the meeting to order. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There was no one wishing to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – September 22, 29, October 27, 28, and November 18, 2003 Mr. Belcher noted that the September 29, 2003, minutes began with a page numbered 2 instead of 1. Ms. Colbath asked that the phrase “and said this” be deleted from the second sentence of her comments on page 4 of the September 29, 2003, minutes. Mr. Belcher noted there was no footnote with a page number on the October 28, 2003, summary minutes. Mr. Rusch asked that the word “yet” be inserted between the words “and” and “how” in the second sentence of his remarks on page 16 of the November 18, 2003, minutes. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved to approve the minutes of September 22, September 29, October 27, October 28, and November 18, 2003, as amended. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION: EAST CAMPUS PLAN Mr. Lowe stated that the discussion would be a continuation of the commission’s deliberations on December 15, 2003. He said that staff had provided additional information on the conditional use policy in response to the commission’s request. He identified three issues to be addressed: • The conditional use permit (CUP) policy • The policy related to the 10-year timeframe policy to apply to portions of the plan as suggested by the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 5, 2004 Page 1  Fairmount Neighborhood Association East Campus Committee (committee) • Transportation related policies: no implementation deadline for either the Agate Street work or traffic calming measures Mr. Lowe said the committee’s feedback on the commission’s discussion of the CUP policy was that generally the committee was uncomfortable with how certain committee policies were dropped from consideration when the University of Oregon and the committee were unable to reach consensus. He said that the committee stated that where there was no agreement, the default position was the University’s language and staff, in the absence of finding any fault with the language, recommended accepting it. He said the committee was uncomfortable with that approach and with the mediation process. He related that the committee was disappointed that staff was not to be more proactive in developing solutions to unresolved issues, specifically the 10-year timeframe for limiting changes to the plan. Mr. Lowe reported that the committee was unhappy with two policies. He said the first was the CUP policy and explained that the University’s initial application included an East Campus policy to be internally administered by the University. He said the original language in the policy stated that a CUP would not be pursued for more than three contiguous lots. According to Mr. Lowe, in the policy that had ultimately come forward and was recommended by the City for adoption, contiguous uses were not mentioned at all. He said that during the negotiation process, the University changed its position and did not agree to any restrictions on contiguous uses. Mr. Lowe conveyed the committee’s second concern about the CUP policy that related to insertion of a phrase to permit, in addition to office uses, similar support functions that were compatible with a low- density residential environment. He said in his opinion the added phrase did not materially change the outcome. Mr. Duncan asked about the specific nature of the committee’s concerns about contiguous uses. Mr. Lowe replied that it related to the size and bulk of a building and the definition of a lot as currently configured or amended in the future. He noted that code permitted lots of up to 13,500 square feet, which could theoretically allow the University to create and then combine three maximum sized lots for a lot that was 40,000 square feet. He said that a “lot” was identified as a tax lot. Mr. Belcher asked what type of process would be used to consolidate lots. Mr. Lowe replied that lot line vacation was a type 1 application and an administrative process with no appeal. Ms. Colbath asked if the default language about which the committee was concerned related only to the policies on contiguous uses, the 10-year timeframe, CUP, and similar support function uses. Mr. Lowe responded that the default language was not limited to those issues and the proposal before the committee contained components from the University and the committee. Ms. Colbath asked why the University had changed its position on limitations on contiguous uses. Mr. Lowe said it was his impression that the mediation process had explored ramifications of the policy that were not initially understood by the University when the policy was first proposed. Mr. Rusch commented that the creation of a 50,000 square foot lot seemed inconsistent with the intent of a transition zone. He asked if the University was at all flexible in its position. Mr. Lowe replied that the University had opposed the committee’s specific recommendation for a restriction on contiguous uses, but he couldn’t say whether the University would have opposed alternate language if proposed. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 5, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Belcher remarked that it would be possible, given the height limitation of 30 feet in the low density transition zone, to construct a 150,000 square foot building on a 50,000 square foot lot. Mr. Lowe said on a theoretical lot size of 50,000 square feet, the building could only be 25,000 square feet for a two-story building, or 50,000 square feet total. Mr. Rusch suggested that staff could ask the University what would be acceptable language on the issue of contiguous uses limitations. Mr. Belcher said once the commission had made its recommendation on the proposal, it would go to the City Council for consideration. He felt it was appropriate for the commission to recommend appropriate language and allow that to be addressed at the next step in the process. He agreed with Mr. Rusch that a large building would not serve the purpose of the transition zone. Mr. Lowe corrected his earlier statement that a theoretical lot size of 50,000 square feet could be created by stating the University’s self-imposed limitation of three lots could only result in 40,000 square feet. Mr. Nystrom agreed with that calculation and reminded the commission that the scenarios being discussed would involve a conditional use permit to scrutinize the type of facility. He said the commission should consider whether it would rely on the CUP process or require another public process. In response to a comment from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Lowe agreed that there was language in the policy that would govern the CUP process outside of the City’s usual procedures and provide consideration for the architectural character, setbacks, roof pitch, and building and entrance orientation. Mr. Duncan asked what requirements were attached to combining tax lots. Mr. Lowe said that there were criteria, but the process only required staff approval. Mr. Belcher asked if the committee was comfortable with elimination of some of the specifics it recommended related to the CUP process. Mr. Lowe replied that generally the committee understood why specific numbers were causing problems. Mr. Belcher said there appeared to be some movement toward the middle and a willingness to give up some subjectivity to the Hearings Official. Mr. Duncan remarked that placing specific numbers into policies could create unanticipated problems in the future and possibly prevent redevelopment that would benefit the neighborhood. Mr. Belcher asked what conditional uses might be in the zone that would be larger than 40,000 square feet. Mr. Lowe said the list of conditional uses was very limited. Mr. Duncan observed that the transition zone was only half of a lot deep and it would not be feasible to build a structure that was 40,000 square feet and asked if the restriction was necessary. Mr. Lowe said that staff preferred that the plan language be clean and reasonable and not contain words that would be difficult to interpret in the future just to appease. Ms. Colbath said that if the commission’s concern was construction of a large building that would be incompatible with the neighborhood, it should deal with that issue. She asked if CUP criteria would prevent a large, incompatible structure from being built. Mr. Lowe said the CUP discretionary policy created at the request of the commission required that new development shall demonstrate compatibility with the historic, low density residential character of the surrounding neighborhood through consideration of appropriate historic architectural style, setbacks, building entrance orientation, and roof pitch. He MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 5, 2004 Page 3 added that staff would make that determination. He said that staff routinely made findings based on that type of criteria during the staff analysis and review of a CUP application. Mr. Belcher said he understood the intent of the neighborhood to prevent building sprawl across the entire block and did not feel the policy achieved that. Mr. Rusch suggested adding size and scale of building to the list of compatibility criteria Mr. Lowe had recited earlier. Mr. Lowe replied that the general criteria applicable to all CUP processes included the criteria of location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the use are reasonably compatible with, and have minimal impact on the livability or appropriate development of surrounding property as they relate to building mass, scale, and mitigation of offsite impacts. Mr. Rusch and Mr. Duncan said they were comfortable with the criteria. Ms. Colbath asked if several lots were consolidated through lot line adjustments, would the scale be judged on the basis of one lot in the rest of the neighborhood or multiple lots in the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Lowe said the judgment would be based on the surrounding area, in general He said the committee’s argument was that once a use that was not compatible (in the view of the neighborhood) was allowed, it would become the basis on which future applications would be made. He said the intent was to determine compatibility with the surrounding area, not just what was next door. Mr. Belcher asked what flexibility existed in the hearings process regarding size and scale. Mr. Nystrom replied that the process was discretionary, site-specific, and intended to be flexible. He said that the context of the surrounding area changed dramatically from project to project. He said the proposed policy would relate compatibility specifically to the residential area and add another layer of review. Mr. Lowe recited the list of uses allowed in a CUP process, including churches and synagogues, universities and colleges, theater for live entertainment, assisted care facilities, and day care facilities for thirteen people, cemeteries, and racetracks. He said that, given the mission and purpose of the University, it was unlikely to have an interest in developing most of those uses and further, the plan limited uses to offices or similar support functions. Mr. Rusch asked if uses other than single family residences, such as dormitories or apartment-type student housing, would be allowed under the present zoning. Mr. Lowe said the area was low density residential and while apartments, as a building type, were not prohibited, density was restricted to ten units per acre. Mr. Nystrom said that any development that exceeded one home on one lot would trigger other types of application processes. Mr. Belcher suggested limiting the width of a building that could be built on three consolidated tax lots to address the issue of scale and size from the perspective of neighbors facing those lots. Mr. Lowe said the difficulty was in determining the numeric point at which building width achieved a scale that was incompatible. Mr. Duncan expressed concern with trying to define compatibility in specific numeric terms and said the discretionary process was acceptable. He suggested that the compatibility be further defined as compatible with the remainder of the low density residential neighborhood. Mr. Lowe conveyed Mr. Nystrom’s suggestion that some of the language from the regular CUP process that addressed location, size, and scale could be incorporated into the policy so that specific MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 5, 2004 Page 4 considerations for bulk and size of a building would be included in the compatibility criteria in the plan. Mr. Duncan said his intent was to prevent a “wall of brownstone” from being built on a consolidated lot and asked if the suggested changes would result in that outcome, or overlook scale in favor of architectural style. Mr. Lowe said there were a number of historic architectural styles represented, but nothing similar to Mr. Duncan’s example. He said the proposed policy would consider façade treatments, materials, ornamentation, and similar features that would replicate characteristics of the low density, historic residential neighborhood and staff would use their discretion to determine the compatibility of scale. Mr. Belcher asked if the additional conditions and reference to the low density residential area would prevent the “creep” of institutional characteristics into the neighborhood. Mr. Nystrom said that making single family residential the primary context for evaluating compatibility would achieve that outcome. Mr. Belcher said he was inclined to support the proposed changes because it appeared the proposal from the committee would not accomplish its intended purpose and there was another opportunity for public input. He felt it was important for the commission to clearly express its intent with the new language. Mr. Belcher asked if the concern staff initially had about the impact of the half-lot configuration on the alley had been resolved. Mr. Lowe said the concern had been resolved with an explanation from the University about its intent to proceed and staff was now comfortable with the proposed process for lot line adjustments, zoning, and vacation of the alley. Mr. Rusch asked for a summary of the status of traffic circulation issues. Mr. Lowe referred the commission to the draft land use code amendments recommended by staff on page 58 of Attachment C to the staff report. He said under the traffic circulation policies, the City would conduct a study jointly with the University and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association to identify strategies to improve the function and carrying capacity of Agate Street. He added that the City would implement the necessary changes, but a time had not been identified because the project would have to compete with other street improvement projects for priority and limited funds through the capital improvement program (CIP) process. He said the intent was for the City, the University, and the neighborhood to jointly approach the City Council with a strong recommendation to approve the policies and allocate the funds to implement them. Mr. Belcher suggested that the commission recommend to the City Council that the Agate Street improvements and traffic calming be given the highest priority for funding. Commission members concurred with the suggestion. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Lowe said the University could spend its own funds for traffic calming measures, but would have to receive approval from the City. Mr. Rusch asked Mr. Lowe to restate the issue of the 10-year limitation. Mr. Lowe said the committee had proposed a policy that the plan would govern for ten years from March 2004, and if not reviewed and updated after that period, would continue to govern and at no point become obsolete. He stated that staff recommended against adoption of the policy because it disallowed any kind of amendment to the plan and did not differentiate between major and minor amendments which, according to the committee, was its intent. He said staff felt the policy was unwarranted because it was unlikely the University would unilaterally set this plan aside and come back with a substantially changed plan recognizing the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 5, 2004 Page 5 significant amount of effort, time, and money it had invested in development of the plan. Mr. Belcher asked what was in the plan that was not in the code, noting that the neighborhood felt it had not participated equally in the development of the plan. Mr. Lowe said that the list of policies in Attachment B to the staff report that were italicized and in bold face print represented new language that was inserted in the plan since the initial submission by the University in August. He said the new language was proposed as a result of discussions and compromise between the University and the committee and governed CUPs, the study of Agate Street, traffic calming measures, parking, and other factors that were of concern to the neighborhood, but did not include every issue raised by the neighborhood, only those that both parties could agree upon. Ms. Muir clarified that the 10-year restriction on amendments issue related more to the burdensome nature of the process and the difficulty of the neighborhood in preparing for and responding to the process. She said the intent was to limit the frequency of the process and bring some certainty to the planning process; however, plans were dynamic by design and she was unaware of any other efforts to prohibit amendments to plans or zoning codes. Ms. Colbath asked what process would be used to help the University, the neighborhood, and the City to continue to work together to mitigate problems that might arise in the future. Mr. Lowe said that a collaborative design review process for the Villard Street corridor could address many of the neighborhood concerns, but a design-review based process was not in place in Eugene. Ms. Muir commented that the City could work at the staff level to build on the innovative process used in this instance; however, facilitating a collaborative process placed considerable demands on staff time and resources. Ms. Colbath thanked staff for their efforts to assist the commission to reconcile the proposals from the University and the neighborhood. She asked that commission members be provided with any feedback on its deliberations from the University and the neighborhood. Mr. Belcher concurred with Ms. Colbath’s remarks. Mr. Lowe said once action on the plan was completed, he would meet with the University and the committee and provide information to the commission on the process and how successful elements of it could be institutionalized. Mr. Belcher noted the committee’s discomfort with the addition of similar support function uses to office uses. He questioned if the concern arose from the vagueness of the language. Mr. Lowe responded that the concern seemed to arise from the sudden addition of that language at the end of the negotiation process. He explained that “similar support function” was a discretionary phrase and the plan discussed primary and secondary uses. He said the CUP policy stated that offices and other assisted uses would be compatible as determined by traffic conditions and the criteria for CUP processes, including limitations on size and scale. Mr. Duncan asked if the University had added the language after considering what office use actually meant. Mr. Lowe agreed with that comment and noted that the need for space to accommodate practice and exercise activities by the rowing crew provided impetus for the change. He said that such a use was unlikely to generate traffic or change the nature of the building, but was not an office use. Ms. Colbath asked if the term “University-owned” included all related legal entities such as the University Foundation. Mr. Lowe said that “University-owned” meant owned by the State of Oregon Board of Higher Education, which owned all university properties. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 5, 2004 Page 6 Ms. Colbath asked if any of the properties could be sold to a private party or another entity such as the University Foundation. Mr. Lowe said if the property was sold to a private party there would be a problem with the Metro Plan designation as government education and he was not certain what the status would be if the sale was to another University entity. He suggested that legal counsel should be consulted. Mr. Duncan cited the example of the construction of the arena, which the University turned over to a non- profit foundation for construction and operation. He asked if restrictions would no longer apply if a similar situation occurred in the area governed by the plan. Mr. Lowe said that could happen in the east campus area and was a concern stated by the committee. Ms. Colbath requested that the issue be flagged for the council. Mr. Belcher and Mr. Rusch agreed with Ms. Colbath’s request. Mr. Belcher asked if the traffic impact analysis for the potential Howe Field complex, which was not recommended for inclusion in the plan, would take into consideration the impact of what was proposed in the plan, including that which was not yet built. Mr. Lowe said the analysis for the plan would become part of the background for the Howe Field analysis, which encompassed a bigger area that would include the East Campus Plan area. In response to a question by Mr. Belcher, Mr. Lowe explained that staff had not agreed with the committee’s request to change the word “should” to “shall” with respect to application of a special overlay zone and site review requirements because it was a proposal rather than a standard, that implementation strategies and proposals were not adopted, and therefore the language should remain general and not a mandate. He said that staff had worked with the University and committee to clarify when site reviews would occur. Ms. Colbath said the use of the word “shall” tended to strengthen the policies and compliance with them from an internal audit perspective. Mr. Lowe replied that the Planning Department would not perform that type of audit and pointed out that many plans included a number of implementation options that could not contain “shall” because they were mutually exclusive. Mr. Belcher asked if the 2-day limit on special events was included in the final proposal. Mr. Lowe replied that it was included. Ms. Muir summarized that staff would return on January 12, 2004, with recommendations that would include the following changes: • Add the traditional CUP standards from the code to the CUP policy that tied it to the low density residential compatibility language • Develop a note about the importance of the Agate Street traffic study and traffic calming measures and a request that they receive high priority • Develop a note about the ownership issue OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 5, 2004 Page 7 Ms. Colbath, Mr. Belcher, and Mr. Duncan asked that time be scheduled for the commission to discuss the issue of design review. Mr. Coyle agreed with the need to better understand and define design review. Ms. Muir said a discussion of design review was tentatively scheduled for February 9, 2004. Ms. Muir reported asked for a commission member to participate in a three-part series on land use planning in Oregon to be presented to the Neighborhood Leadership Council. Mr. Duncan and Ms. Colbath expressed an interest in participating. Ms. Colbath reported that the University and City Liaison Committee would meet in February. She said a recent article in Planning Magazine contained an interesting article on downtown issues. Mr. Duncan gave an overview of the Springfield State of the City address. He said a Lyle Hatfield award for support of good government was being established, along with a Mayor’s Business Assistance Team to encourage economic development. He reported that the Springfield City Council had approved funds for downtown revitalization in conjunction with the new Lane Transit District station. He said that plans for redevelopment in the Glenwood area were moving forward, as were nodal development activities. Ms. Colbath read an excerpt from an article on the negative impact of expressway construction on downtowns. Ms. Muir said that LTD staff would make a presentation to the commission on January 12, 2004, about the LTD planning process and a January 26, 2004, presentation on the Coburg Road Steering Committee recommendations. Mr. Rusch adjourned the meeting at 2 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040105.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 5, 2004 Page 8