Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue January 12, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President, John Lawless, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, members; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Richie Weinman, Mike Sullivan, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Sue Cutsogeorge, Finance and Court Services Division; Stefano Viggiano, Graham Carey, Lisa Gardner, Lane Transit District. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS ACTION: EAST CAMPUS PLAN Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Ms. Colbath, that site review be added to the policy in accordance with the committee’s request. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Belcher moved to replace the term “University-owned” with “State-owned.” Ms. Colbath provided the second for purposes of discussion. Mr. Belcher withdrew his motion; Ms. Colbath withdrew her second. Ms. McMillan moved, seconded by Mr. Duncan, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the staff recommendations in the January 12, 2004 agenda item summary which reflect the commission’s deliberations and changes, including those of the January 12, 2004, meeting. The motion passed unanimously. REVIEW OF RIVERFRONT RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT PLAN AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Ms. Colbath, that a recommendation be made to the City Council that a Planning Commission member be included on the urban renewal advisory committee. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Colbath moved that the commission hold a public hearing on the plan. The motion died for lack of a second. SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 1 LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERVIEW OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Subcommittee Reports B. Other Items from the Commission and Staff SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 2  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue January 12, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President, John Lawless, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, members; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Richie Weinman, Planning and Development Department; Sue Cutsogeorge, Finance and Court Services Division; Stefano Viggiano, Graham Carey, Lisa Gardner, Lane Transit District. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. Mr. Rusch called the meeting to order. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There was no one wishing to speak. ACTION: EAST CAMPUS PLAN Mr. Lawless recused himself. Mr. Lowe provided an overview of the agenda item summary, which contained information, revisions, and recommendations in accordance with the commission’s deliberations at the January 5, 2004, meeting. He summarized issues raised in phone conversations with members of the Fairmount Neighborhood Association East Campus Committee (committee) • Concern about the ability of the conditional use policy, as revised, to clearly regulate compatibility with the surrounding single family residential character, rather than East Campus low density residential area • Concern about change of ownership if a project is developed by someone other than the University • Concern about lack of a mandated timeframe for the revised plan to be in effect • Request for a new policy that addressed attaching a site review overlay to University of Oregon properties at 15th Avenue and Villard Street and to new development within 100 feet of private property within the overlay zone. The policy request was inadvertently omitted from the committee’s December 2, 2003 memo. Ms. Colbath asked what a site review overlay would entail. Mr. Lowe said the issue was discussed at some length during negotiations and there was general agreement that site review in a public land (PL) zone effectively covered the concern, but only related to properties of a certain size and would not cover every use that might occur. He said the committee’s suggested policy was intended to assure that when MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 1 zoning occurred on those properties in the future, site review would be applied. He said there was no objection to the policy. Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Ms. Colbath, that site review be added to the policy in accordance with the committee’s request. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Belcher asked if the committee’s other concerns were reflected in the staff recommendations. Mr. Lowe said the answer to the concern about change in ownership was that the properties were owned by the State, not the University, and would not change ownership to accomplish development of a project. Therefore the policies would apply to all projects until the policy is changed by the City Council.. Ms. Colbath asked if it would be better to use the term “State-owned” rather than “University.” Mr. Lowe replied there was no need to change the language as they mean the same thing. Mr. Belcher asked if the committee would be more comfortable with the term “State-owned.” Mr. Lowe said that was probable, but making a change for something that would not happen was not relevant. He said the committee’s suggestion was to substitute the phrase “University-owned and/or University- affiliated East Campus land,” which was more ambiguous than the current language. Mr. Belcher moved to replace the term “University-owned” with “State-owned.” Ms. Colbath provided the second for purposes of discussion. Ms. Colbath asked why Mr. Belcher had used the term “State-owned” instead of the phrase suggested by the committee. Mr. Belcher replied it was because Mr. Lowe had characterized the phrase as too ambiguous. Mr. Lowe remarked that his remark had applied to the term “University-affiliated.” The commission discussed the need to modify policy language relating to ownership and asked staff to obtain assurance from legal counsel prior to consideration of the plan by the City Council that a change in ownership could not occur. Mr. Belcher withdrew his motion; Ms. Colbath withdrew her second. Mr. Lowe said the committee’s other concern was that the conditional use policy 6.d did not fully address which area was referred to with respect to compatibility. He said the committee was still concerned that compatibility would apply to the East Campus low density residential area, rather than the surrounding residential area. He recited the new language, which specified that the surrounding area, for purposes of compatibility, was east and south of a certain point. Mr. Duncan asked if the committee had specified how far east and south the area would extend. Mr. Lowe pointed to a map to show the area that the committee intended. Mr. Rusch determined it was the consensus of the commission that the committee’s proposed language be incorporated into the policy and asked Mr. Lowe to make that change. Mr. Duncan said his impression was that policy 6.d was modified because policy 6.c would allow the creation of a lot that was approximately 400 feet long and 100 feet wide and would therefore be eliminated from the plan. Mr. Lowe said that was not his understanding of the commission’s direction. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 2 Ms. Colbath and Mr. Rusch said their recollections were that policy 6.c would be eliminated. Mr. Belcher asked if policy 6.c should remain in the plan. Mr. Lowe said that the policy represented what the University had stated in its application it intended to do and to remove it now would eliminate something to which the University had agreed and change the essence of the application. Ms. Colbath said her understanding was that staff felt the policy would be hard to administer and suggested that the policy could remain and the concern be conveyed to the council. Mr. Lowe said the City’s role was to mediate differences between the University and the committee, rather than to generally represent the City’s position, although in some areas the City felt a need to identify what its interests were. He said the University and the committee were in agreement on the policy and there was no need to remove it. Mr. Belcher said the negotiation process should be honored and the policy left in. Mr. Rusch determined there was consensus to leave policy 6.c in the plan. Ms. McMillan moved, seconded by Mr. Duncan, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the staff recommendations in the January 12, 2004 agenda item summary which reflect the commission’s deliberations and changes, including those of the January 12, 2004, meeting. The motion passed unanimously. REVIEW OF RIVERFRONT RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT PLAN AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY (URA) BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL Mr. Lawless rejoined the commission. Mr. Weinman announced that the commission had reviewed amendments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan on December 8, 2003, and the report on the plan was now completed and before the commission for review. He said the City Council would conduct a public hearing on the plan on February 2 and take action on February 23, 2004. Mr. Rusch said he found the writing to be exemplary and complex issues were clearly presented. He noted that on page 2 of the January 12, 2004, memo from staff, a 2002-2003 City Council goal was stated as “Sustainable Community Growth.” He said there was no such thing as “sustainable growth” and the goal had been updated according to Councilor Taylor and should state “Sustainable Community Development.” In response to an observation by Mr. Lawless, Mr. Weinman said the staff recommendation should be corrected to reflect that the commission would forward the plan amendments to the City Council and Urban Renewal Agency Board. Referring to the first bulleted item under the environment category on page 7 of the plan, Mr. Lawless said the term “riparian strip” should have an enforceable definition to avoid disputes over development. Mr. Lawless noted that the first sentence under section A.2 Public Utilities ended with the word MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 3 “environmental” and appeared to be incomplete. Mr. Weinman agreed that something had been dropped and he would research what language should be added. Mr. Lawless asked if only projects identified in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) as of the date of adoption of the plan could be included. Mr. Weinman said that a project must be in the CIP but could be added at any time. Mr. Lawless asked if the term “certain off-site public facilities” in the last sentence on page 9 would include projects outside of the urban renewal district boundary. Mr. Weinman said projects outside of the district could be supported under the plan if they benefited the district. Mr. Lawless asked if there was a definition for the term “substandard and blighting conditions.” Mr. Weinman answered that the definition was contained in State statutes. In the last line on page 10 of the plan, Mr. Rusch suggested that the term “displaces” be replaced with “displacements” or “displacees” and noted inconsistencies in punctuation of the bulleted items under section E on page 11. Ms. Colbath commended the staff work and said she had a number of suggestions to improve the plan that she wanted to propose because of concerns about urban renewal. She said the intent was to limit the risk to the City of doing urban renewal, which could happen when revenue fell short of projections. She asked why there were loans from the City in the projections instead of bond issues from the urban renewal district. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that the urban renewal agency took out a loan from the City to purchase the AgriPac property and there were no other bond issues projected in the cash flow statement, although that type of financing could be considered if there was a project for which it would be appropriate. Ms. Colbath asked if there was a desire to do a special levy under Measure 50. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the council decided not to take steps under Measure 50 to grandfather the riverfront district so there was no ability to do a special levy. Ms. Colbath stated that studies had shown some growth could shift from other parts of the City and that urban renewal could experience problems if public and nonprofit entities acquired private property and it was taken off the tax rolls and felt there should be further discussion of those issues in the report. She commented that the total assessed value overall in cities with urban renewal grew more slowly with tax increment financing (TIF) in place and that should be noted in the report. She said she understood the resource generation intent behind expanding the district, but cautioned that the services required to handle the growth with less revenue going into the general fund could create a problem with City service requirements. Ms. Colbath understood the idea of strong property tax growth after the agency expired, but noted thiswas the second time the plan was being renewed and extended the time the properties would be off the tax rolls. She commented that future tax law changes could dissipate the increments and increase the risk and that issue should be discussed further. She asked if the $10 cap would be hit if another special taxing district, such as a fire district, was created. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the City was at the $10 cap already so a new fire district would not cause that to happen. Ms. Colbath asked why the urban renewal agency board approved projects, other than loans, in excess of $250,000. Mr. Weinman replied that the language was in accordance with a motion by the City Council. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 4 Ms. Colbath said she had discussed TIF with the performance auditor for Kansas City, Mark Funkhouser, and had information and recommendations regarding minimizing risk and assuring the process was open, accessible, and accountable that she hoped would be forward on to the council. She listed several recommendations: • Yearly agency reports should be provided to the City Council and the Planning Commission • Current and aggregate data (as defined within the performance audit proposal) be provided • Only general public improvement should be made with district funding, not loans Mr. Sullivan said that any loans would be made with revenue the district received from the sale or lease of property or revenue other than increment funds. Ms. Colbath said another suggestion was to limit the total assessed value, or total amount, so that when the limit was reached the excess could be used for general fund expenditures. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that was prohibited under State law. Mr. Sullivan offered that the agency could always amend the plan, including closing the district, if the revenue situation for either the district or the community changed. Continuing, Ms. Colbath listed additional recommendations for revisions to the plan and reporting activities: • Develop clear, specific, and measurable goals • Specific performance for developers and consequences for nonperformance • The annual report should include the overall economic picture: TIF, vertical housing credits Multi- Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) credits • Comparison of growth between the TIF and nonTIF expenditures Ms. Colbath said her interest was in enhancing development and minimizing risk. She expressed regret that there was no public hearing on the plan before the commission and said she would so move if there was interest from other members of the commission. Mr. Belcher said that the community lacked tools to implement its vision and urban renewal and other tools were ones that should be considered. He said perhaps the Planning Commission was the place to initiate that discussion. He said that Ms. Colbath’s proposals to move in that direction might be a valid, but was not certain it was the commission’s role to make those suggestions at this time. He said that he lacked sufficient understanding of Ms. Colbath’s suggestions to support moving them forward. He asked if the suggestions could be forwarded to the council as Ms. Colbath’s, without endorsement by the commission, possibly as background information. Mr. Weinman said the public record was open and information could be included in the agenda item summary as part of the public record for the council. Ms. McMillan echoed Mr. Belcher’s remarks about lacking sufficient information on Ms. Colbath’s suggestions to be able to support them. Mr. Lawless said he was intrigued by the idea of the commission having a role in urban development from a policy or “big picture” perspective, but he was hesitant to become involved in the review of performance guidelines and measurable outcomes. He commented that urban development should be a tool that was as flexible and open-ended and enticing as possible, rather than restrictive, measurable, and with penalties for nonperformance. Mr. Weinman offered that the council had created a new committee to advise on urban renewal issues. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 5  Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Ms. Colbath, that a recommendation be made to the City Council that a Planning Commission member be included on the urban renewal advisory committee. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Belcher suggested that it should be noted the figures in table 7 on page 29 of the report were expressed in thousands. Ms. Colbath noted an error on the figure for rehabilitation and conservation on page 13 of the report. Mr. Rusch remarked that there was no mention of the University of Oregon, although its Riverfront Research Park was included in the district, and asked if the University was aware of and agreed with the plan revisions. Mr. Weinman said the University was in agreement with the changes and noted that representatives of the University were in attendance at the meeting. Ms. Colbath moved that the commission hold a public hearing on the plan. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. McMillan, moved to forward the proposed amendments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan, including Ms. Colbath’s comments as part of the record, to other taxing districts, the City Council, the Urban Renewal Agency Board, and the public for comment. The motion passed, 5:1; Ms. Colbath opposed. LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT (LTD) OVERVIEW Mr. Yeiter introduced Stefano Viggiano, Graham Carey, and Lisa Gardner of LTD who would provide an overview of how LTD’s transit planning related to the City’s land use planning activities. Mr. Viggiano distributed a list of possible discussion topics and asked if the commission wanted to focus on particular topics or have an overview of all items. Mr. Rusch referred to a presentation at a previous meeting during which the presenters had made a case for laying down a fixed transit line through an area the City wished to see developed as a “bold stroke” to encourage development. He commended LTD for responding to identified needs and asked if it could respond before there was a need. Mr. Belcher agreed that transportation was a tool to guide development, but acknowledged that LTD’s focus might be different. He hoped the commission could discuss how to integrate LTD’s long range planning efforts to serve transportation needs with the City’s long range planning needs to shape the growth of Eugene. Ms. Colbath asked if LTD had a separate planning board. Mr. Viggiano said LTD only had a board of directors and advisory committees were established for specific projects, such as the bus rapid transit (BRT) steering committee. Ms. Colbath asked if it would be possible to have periodic discussions with LTD regarding land use planning and transportation planning as an integrated process. Mr. Viggiano replied that LTD staff could MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 6 come before the commission as often as desired and he would discuss with the board the possibility of having board members meet with the commission to discuss land use issues or forming a special board committee to focus on land use issues and transportation. Ms. Colbath asked if LTD received federal transportation funds. Mr. Viggiano said that LTD received federal funding for projects annually. Ms. Gardner said that LTD received formula funds each year and made requests for earmarked funds. Ms. Colbath described a project she had recently visited in Wilsonville where density was increased incrementally an increased the need for more transit. She expressed the hope that future discussions could consider how the City could support an incremental approach to density that would provide opportunities for transit. Mr. Belcher acknowledged that what the commission might suggest could be more expensive and not compatible with LTD’s financial plans and revenue needs. Mr. Viggiano commented that the BRT corridors were along existing corridors, rather than in undeveloped areas. He said that anticipating or leading development with transit was a good idea, but required a lot of money, and LTD’s BRT system was predicated on replacing existing service in order to make it financially feasible. He said that sending BRT into an undeveloped area in west Eugene would be a new service that LTD would have to pay to operate and it would require a significant investment. Mr. Viggiano said there had been considerable discussion around the issue of whether transportation infrastructure drove land use or responded to land use and the conclusion was that they needed to be planned together to work. He said that TransPlan attempted to do that by matching transit services with nodal development at the conceptual level. He said a BRT line in Glenwood probably was the best example of putting in a line in the hopes it would be tied to development. He added that LTD was trying to associate as much permanence as possible with a BRT line to encourage confidence of developers. Ms. Gardner said that LTD could do the preliminary BRT planning to identify corridors and nodal development coordination, but developer investment would then have to occur. Mr. Belcher remarked that another factor was the impact of a BRT corridor on existing land use. Mr. Rusch commented that the Region 2050 prediction that the local population would double emphasized the need to take a look at the correlation between transit and land use planning. Mr. Viggiano replied that the most important factor in determining transit ridership was land use density and it was vitally important to coordinate the two in long range strategies. Ms. Gardner said that the Region 2050 scenarios predicted that density would occur in the rural areas and transit issues would become intercity commuter issues, which were very different from the primarily urban transit issues that LTD was addressing. Mr. Rusch asked if there had been any consideration of putting a commuter line on the railroad that extended through Veneta to the coast. Mr. Viggiano said the first priority on the railroad was freight, which made sharing with a commuter line difficult. Mr. Carey said the issue had been explored in Glenwood and it was difficult to work around the freight priority. He added that some other cities, such as Salt Lake City, Utah, had developed agreements to use a portion of a freight line for commuter line service but it was a challenging process. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 7 Mr. Duncan declared his perspective was somewhat different and that the shortage of physical land would require refill and redevelopment and designation of areas with fixed transit types. He said the question than became whether transit needed to be in place for density to grown or whether density had to grow to support the transit. He said most developers were interested in smaller tracts, rather than large tracts. He suggested that an alternative to extending fixed transit lines might be to improve bus shelters and “park and ride” facilities to make them more attractive and provide amenities for riders. Mr. Viggiano said one option was “BRT lite” that was an enhanced fixed route service that would allow LTD to build a system faster and less expensively than a complete BRT system with an exclusive right of way. He said the new Springfield station had been designed to accommodate retail space to provide some amenities onsite and encourage joint development. Ms. Colbath asked if LTD had considered a free downtown shuttle similar to the one in Portland. Mr. Viggiano said both Portland and Seattle had a “fareless square” in which all transit vehicles, not just shuttles, operated. He said it would mean a redesign of LTD’s system and Eugene’s urban core area was not large enough to warrant that because of the small distances traveled. He said there had been some consideration for making the Breeze shuttle free instead of the nominal fee currently charged. Mr. Yeiter observed that a transit line in west Eugene where it was perceived the area was ripe for redevelopment would raise many issues, including cost to the transit district, whether the community could accommodate less industrial land or find a replacement, and whether redevelopment would occur without City incentives. Mr. Duncan related that business and property owners complained about the ability to get workers into the industrial area because some employers ran two and three shifts and many workers came from outlying communities and routes and schedules did not fit those needs. He wondered if a peak hour BRT from outlying communities to fixed transit in the industrial area would be feasible and encourage redevelopment. Mr. Viggiano said that transit ridership to industrial areas was challenging because of the availability of free parking and shift times. In response to a question from Ms. McMillan, Mr. Viggiano said that LTD provided service to Veneta, Junction City, Cottage Grove, and McKenzie Bridge. Ms. Gardner said there were other transit strategies that could better serve industrial area needs, including the use of vans. Referring to Coburg Road, she said that the timing of infill and redevelopment that was compatible with BRT was critical. She said redevelopment to the street front made it more difficult to put in BRT and land use strategies that encouraged redevelopment that accommodated BRT should be the focus of coordination efforts. Ms. McMillan said that Ms. Gardner’s comments were interesting in terms of the City’s emphasis on pedestrian-friendly development up to the sidewalk that would create problems in BRT corridors that would require an additional setback. Ms. Colbath asked if LTD had any feedback on programs in other cities that encourage school children to use the transit system and how could Eugene encourage such usage. Mr. Viggiano said that LTD already provided transportation to 4J School District high schools and sold two thousand youth passes each month. He said that middle schools well-served by transit also had high ridership. He said that free parking at high schools discouraged ridership. Ms. Gardner commented that the regional transportation demand management group Commuter Solutions had a grant to study how to increase ridership among MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 8 elementary students and someone from that group could provide information. Mr. Viggiano remarked that corridor selection was dependent on funding and community willingness. He said the LTD board had decided to allow cities to select corridors. Mr. Duncan asked LTD to provide some guidelines that would help support BRT, such as setback requirements and other factors that needed to be considered. The commission discussed the possibility of creating an ex officio position to be filled by a representative of LTD and other options for including LTD in land use discussions. Ms. McMillan suggested inviting an LTD representative to informally join the commission during discussions of relevant issues. Mr. Belcher suggested that a Planning Commission member could attend LTD board meetings as needed. Ms. Muir suggested that nodal development could serve as a pilot project for joint planning between the LTD board and the commission, using the process suggested by commission members. Mr. Lawless added that the concept of bringing transit from outlying communities into the metropolitan area was another layer of the transportation system that was conspicuously missing from discussions. OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Mr. Belcher asked how the elimination of the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC), which was the subject of a public hearing before the council, would affect the commission by adding duties. Ms. Muir clarified that only land use items would come to the commission, not all items that the CIC had addressed. She said that internal procedures had been adopted to refer the other items to various City departments and divisions. Ms. Colbath reported that she had made a presentation to the Far West Neighbors and the group was enthusiastic and involved in neighborhood issues. Ms. Muir reported that the periodic review subtask 7, related to Goal 5, was appealed by several organizations and individuals. She said that the Department of Land Conservation and Development had remanded part of subtask 7 back to the City to determine if adequate public involvement had occurred. She said the City had appealed the remand and it was likely the next step would be a hearing before the Land Conservation and Development Commission. She said that 1000 Friends of Eugene had filed a petition under Senate Bill 920 to require that the metro region complete period review as previously agreed. Mr. Rusch commented that the Infill Committee could find an example of bad infill next to his house. Mr. Belcher announced that the Jefferson-West Side Neighbors would be voting on a motion to support the idea of a hospital site at 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street. Ms. Muir said the commission’s next meeting was scheduled on January 26, 2004. She said that a presentation to the Neighborhood Leadership Council on Oregon planning would be made by a chapter of the American Planning Association. Mr. Belcher suggested that Philip Farrington, who was part of an outreach group interested in better MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 9 education on land use planning, could be invited to make a presentation at a future commission meeting. Mr. Rusch adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040112.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 10