Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue February 9, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President, John Lawless, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Beth Bridges, Kurt Yeiter, Neil Bjorklund, Ken Guzowski, Planning and Development Department; Charles Biggs, guest. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED SALMON PROTECTION REGULATION STRATEGY Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. McMillan, moved to approve the citizen involvement plan for proposed salmon habitat protection regulations set forth in the February 3, 2004, memo from Mr. Bjorklund, including the requirement that there be three workshops in areas adjacent to affected areas, occurring in both daytime and evening sessions as described, and with the addition of stakeholders identified by the commission. Mr. Lawless offered a friendly amendment to include in the process a review by the commission of preliminary information from the workshops and staff work before it was forwarded to the council. Ms. McMillan accepted the amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. NODAL PROGRAM DISCUSSION PRESENTATION: OREGON CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION – “TELLING THE OREGON STORY” OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Ms. McMillan moved, seconded by Ms. Colbath, to recommend the appointment of Richard Dannemiller to the Historic Review Board. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue February 9, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President, John Lawless, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Beth Bridges, Kurt Yeiter, Neil Bjorklund, Ken Guzowski, Planning and Development Department; Charles Biggs, guest. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. Mr. Rusch called the meeting to order. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, addressed the commission on the subject of nodal development. He expressed concern about proposed development by Arlie and Company in the Crescent node. He said that existing codes did not force nodal development in the commercial sector to emphasize minimal parking, which went against the concept of getting people out of vehicles and encouraging walking. He also stated a concern with the appropriate use of open space, noting that many developers created “stormwater retention areas” to satisfy open space requirements. He asked for more emphasis in nodal development on decreasing the amount of parking, open space requirements, and connection to adjacent areas. He observed that some developers avoided the requirement to front streets by reclassifying internal driveways into streets. Ms. Colbath and Mr. Lawless arrived at 11:40 a.m. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED SALMON PROTECTION REGULATION STRATEGY Ms. Muir explained that the City Council would be taking a final vote that evening on elimination of the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) and that action would result in the Planning Commission acting as the CIC on planning-related matters. She referred to materials in the agenda packet that provided information on the history of citizen involvement reviews and suggested a discussion between the commission and staff about ways to accomplish effective public involvement on time and on budget and preserve the intent of the CIC. Mr. Bjorklund stated that code amendments and regulations were not yet developed and the citizen involvement plan before the commission related to a proposed regulatory strategy. He said that the City Council had previously approved nine non-regulatory strategies recommended by the Eugene Environmental Policy Team (EPT); review of the tenth strategy, which was regulatory in nature, was MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 1 postponed until adequate public outreach could be completed after the riparian portion of the Goal 5 inventory was adopted. Mr. Bjorklund stated the proposed citizen involvement plan would include a series of three workshops to discuss the regulatory strategy that would educate the public about threatened salmon and the protection measure and gather feedback on the strategy. Following the workshops, he said, the commission would review the information gathered in the workshops, provide additional comments, and all materials would be forwarded to the council with a recommendation on the strategy. He said at that point the council would provide direction to staff on whether to pursue a regulatory strategy to protect salmon habitat. He said if the council directed staff to pursue a strategy, it would become part of the Goal 5 implementation process and incorporated into the periodic review program and the citizen involvement plan for that program, which was already in place. Referring to the public involvement plan for the Metropolitan Natural Resources Study, Mr. Rusch noted it did not extend beyond 2002. Mr. Bjorklund replied that the plan content remained the same, but the timeline had been updated. He said a new schedule was being developed and would be provided to the State and the commission. Ms. Muir added that the timeline had changed in part because the City was under an appeal and a new timeline would be part of a negotiated process with stakeholders, interested parties, and the State. In response to a question from Mr. Rusch, Mr. Bjorklund said the proposed strategy to be discussed at the workshops was the same strategy that was reviewed previously by the commission and would examine regulatory setbacks and a transition area beyond the setback that would limit uses along waterways were salmon were found. He said the strategy would address the issue of whether protection should go farther than that afforded under the Goal 5 process because of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing of upper Willamette spring chinook salmon as a threatened species. Ms. Muir reminded commissioners that the question before them was the adequacy of the citizen involvement process and not the content of the proposed strategy. She asked for feedback on issues such as were the appropriate stakeholders identified and were the right steps included in the process. Ms. Colbath asked if any direction had been received from the former CIC or from the City Council. Mr. Bjorklund replied that no CIC direction was given because most of the process was included in the Periodic Review Work Program and governed by that approved public involvement plan. He said that direction from the council was clear, but broad regarding outreach and instructed staff to bring to the table those parts of the community that would have an interest in the regulatory strategy. Mr. Duncan commented that he was not a member of the commission when all ten strategies were originally reviewed and requested that those materials be forwarded to him. Mr. Bjorklund said he would forward the information to all members of the commission. Mr. Duncan asked if there was a native run in the Willamette River. Mr. Bjorklund responded that there were primarily juvenile, wild native spring chinook salmon in the Willamette River. In response to a comment from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Bjorklund and Ms. Muir explained that the commission’s current role was to approve the citizen involvement plan for the regulatory strategy, and later to make a recommendation to the council on the strategy itself. Mr. Belcher asked for a future discussion to help clarify the commission’s role as the CIC on land use MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 2 issues and to separate that function from regular Planning Commission functions. He suggested adding the following to the list of stakeholders: • Oregon Natural Resources Council • Neighborhood Leadership Council (in lieu of contacting individual neighborhoods) Mr. Belcher asked how a Goal 5 public hearing would be conducted. Mr. Bjorklund replied that options included a joint hearing before the elected officials and separate hearings before the planning commissions to allow for more in depth discussions, although a joint hearing could be held at the planning commission level as well. He said that feedback received during the Goal 5 process indicated that people preferred to see the entire picture, which argued in favor of a joint or “mega” hearing. Mr. Duncan asked if notification of the proposed strategy would be provided to those on the Springfield side of the river. Mr. Bjorklund said that notification would be provided only to those who had specifically asked to be involved or if there was a wider geographic interest. He cited the example of a neighborhood group in Thurston, which would not be notified of workshops because it was not directly impacted. Mr. Duncan remarked that the waterway issue was much larger than Eugene and he wanted to see protection strategies happen at the State level. He added that much work had been done on the subject and there were likely parties outside of the Eugene area with interest and expertise who should be notified. Mr. Bjorklund said the City of Springfield had been notified and there would also be press releases and advertisements in the newspaper to publicize the opportunity for public input. Mr. Duncan asked if the previous CIC had done any analysis of the effectiveness of various types of public notification, such as newspaper ads. Ms. Bridges replied that an evaluation of the effectiveness of different kinds of techniques was identified by the CIC as a special project to be done if sufficient funding had become available. She said that staff had conducted an inventory, by department, of the types of citizen involvement strategies that were utilized and suggested that information might be useful to the commission. Ms. McMillan requested that the University of Oregon Planning Department be added to the stakeholder list. Mr. Belcher asked how the workshops would be structured. Mr. Bjorklund responded that the workshops would be held on three different days in three different neighborhoods as close to the affected properties as possible. He said workshops would be held during the afternoon and early evening hours, typically 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Mr. Duncan asked for a map of potentially affected properties. Mr. Bjorklund said that staff was generating a list of those properties owners who might be affected by a regulatory proposal and would provide it. He said the list would probably be narrowed as details of the proposed regulations emerged. He said the process would broadly discuss protection measures, consistent with interest expressed by property owners during the inventory stage, and then feedback would be used to refine the measures. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. McMillan, moved to approve the citizen involvement plan for proposed salmon habitat protection regulations set forth in the February 3, 2004, memo from Mr. Bjorklund, including the requirement that there be three workshops in areas adjacent to affected areas, occurring in both MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 3  daytime and evening sessions as described, and with the addition of stakeholders identified by the commission. Mr. Lawless observed that the step that would provide preliminary information from the workshops and staff work to the commission before it was forwarded to the council was missing. Mr. Lawless offered a friendly amendment to include in the process a review by the commission of preliminary information from the workshops and staff work before it was forwarded to the council. Ms. McMillan accepted the amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Bjorklund agreed to provide commissioners with a copy of all ten strategies. NODAL PROGRAM DISCUSSION Ms. Muir reviewed a draft memo prepared by staff in response to a request from the commission at its January 26, 2004, meeting. She said the memo, which was addressed to the Mayor and City Council from the Planning Commission, discussed the need to retain a flexible approach to the nodal development program and use of funding for site specific nodal planning. Referring to a statement in the memo, Mr. Rusch asked if Standard Insurance would be a willing participant at the 29th Avenue and Willamette Street site. Ms. Muir replied that Standard Insurance had already been approved and was not willing to participate. Mr. Rusch asked if the point was that there was no single willing property owner. Ms. Muir said the phrase “or a group of owners” could be added. Mr. Rusch expressed concern with a change in the commission’s original direction to pursue site specific nodal planning to more general nodal development program activities. Ms. Muir said the intent was that site specific planning could occur, but more productivity would be realized with interim steps to protect designated nodes and when the market facilitated development and there were willing property owners, site development could proceed. She said that clarification could be added to the memo. Mr. Lawless agreed with Ms. Muir’s suggestion and said the interim steps could also help reduce concerns about the ramifications of nodal development by clarifying the intent prior to site specific planning. Mr. Belcher observed that the memo did not mention the need for interim steps to protect nodes and suggested that the issue be included as the first item in the memo. Ms. McMillan concurred that an overlay zone should be the first priority. Mr. Belcher stated that the approach to site specific nodal planning should be revised to include developers more in the process. Ms. Colbath asked for clarification of the intended use of the $200,000 allocated by the council. Ms. Muir replied that the minutes stated that the funds were to be used for site specific nodal planning. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 4 Ms. Colbath remarked that the memo did not clearly state the commission’s position that the general work on nodes as an interim step was important. Mr. Coyle said the term “site specific” was more broadly stated when the allocation was made than it was currently being interpreted. He said that site specific planning without the tension of a development interest was of little value and Planning Department staff was not well situated to represent the economic perspective of commercial interests. Mr. Duncan said he supported the concept of creating a more user-friendly nodal development process that would encourage participation. Mr. Belcher suggested that the memo also include information on the amount of the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program grants the City had received and the actual cost involved in developing each site. He said the memo should emphasize the need to improve the interim overlay process and develop an approach to site specific planning that was less expensive and time-consuming and more attractive to developers. Mr. Lawless said the commission wanted to create a pre-development component to nodal development that would provide a springboard and direction for potential developers. Mr. Coyle said that his perception of a site specific planning approach was a public dialogue for each node that would identify specific neighborhood interface, historic, or other issues relevant to potential development, rather than a narrower approach to develop site plans. Ms. Colbath offered her impression of the council’s discussion, which was that if the overlay was not working as well as anticipated to provide interim protection for nodes it should be improved, and secondly, site specific planning such as occurred with the Royal and Chase Gardens sites allowed the council to visualize the node and approve protective measures. She agreed that both issues should be pursued by the commission. Mr. Duncan thought it would be helpful to revisit the subject of site specific planning with the council because attitudes about the effectiveness of that approach may have changed. He agreed with Mr. Coyle’s comments about creating a policy framework and direction for development and leaving the site design to the developer. Mr. Belcher recommended looking at how other communities approached nodal development and acknowledged the challenges faced by the commission and staff in trying to define current and future visions for nodal development. Mr. Rusch supported Mr. Belcher’s recommendation to examine other communities comparable to Eugene handled nodal development. Mr. Lawless also supported the idea of obtaining as much background information on similar communities as possible. He said the notion of trying to establish a vision for the present and 20 years into the future presented a dilemma not only for the City but for developers. He said uncertainties regarding bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors, transportation access management issues, and elimination of bus routes further complicated the matter and necessitated close communication with partners in transportation and the development community. Ms. McMillan suggested that the commission look a ways to engage in a dialogue about appropriate interim steps that could include mediation and collaboration, rather than a regulatory public hearing, such MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 5 as the process used with the East Campus Plan or downtown visioning. Mr. Belcher said that the Planning Commission +3 process could be suggested to the council. He asked Ms. Muir to summarize the content of the memo consistent with the commission’s discussion. Ms. Muir listed the following changes to the memo: • The first item should address improving the overlay zone approach • Focus on not requiring site specific planning and permit more flexibility in use of funds • Suggest a joint work session if desired by the council Mr. Coyle remarked that any discussion with the council should include all members, rather than three representatives from the council. Mr. Duncan suggested that the memo could also offer an interim report on the progress and direction of the commission to assure that tangible results would be achieved. The commission agreed that Ms. Muir would email a revised draft to all members and any comments would be forwarded to Mr. Rusch, who would approve the final document. Ms. Muir invited commissioners to attend the City Council meeting that evening for the discussion of the memo. PRESENTATION: OREGON CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION – “TELLING THE OREGON STORY” Ms. Muir gave an overview of the slide presentation. She said it was a useful tool to help people understand Eugene land use issues within the context of the State’s land use planning program. She said that the presentation was available for commissioners to present to community groups or staff could make the presentation when requested. Mr. Rusch said he would like to have a presentation that identified all of the planning activities that were under way in Eugene. Mr. Belcher commented that 95 per cent of citizens engaged in land use issues at a public hearing, when most of the decisions had already been made. Mr. Coyle noted that notice requirements were almost always at the end of the process rather than the front. The commission discussed ways to improve the notification process, including formal and informal methods and use of email. OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Mr. Guzowski explained that the Historic Review Board was a subcommittee of the Planning Commission and a vacancy had been created by the recent resignation of Teresa Giustina. He said the vacancy was posted by the City and he was recommending the appointment of Richard Dannemiller to fill the citizen representative vacancy on the Historic Review Board. He reported that Mr. Dannemiller had extensive MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 6 experience in the construction industry as the project manager for St. Vincent de Paul and was currently working with the City on the rehabilitation of the Hunter house at 13th Avenue and Jefferson Street. He distributed an article that illustrated Mr. Dannemiller’s interest in sustainable design. Ms. McMillan moved, seconded by Ms. Colbath, to recommend the appointment of Richard Dannemiller to the Historic Review Board. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Rusch announced that he would be undergoing a medical procedure and depending on the results, could be unavailable for commission meetings for a period of time. He said he would keep staff informed of his status. Mr. Lawless stated that the City Council would be discussing the multiple-unit property tax exemption (MUPTE) that evening. He said that a subcommittee of Downtown Eugene, Inc. had supported the staff recommendation that the MUPTE application should be prefaced aspirations of how that type of housing should be developed in downtown. He invited anyone who was interested in supporting the issue to attend. He thanked commissioners for their responses to his email regarding transportation planning. Mr. Belcher expressed an interest in more information on the impact of Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decisions on the City. Ms. Colbath inquired about the State’s position on the City’s progress regarding nodal development. Ms. Muir replied that there were three issues of concern to the State: nodal development, appeal of a subtask under task 7 of period review related to Goal 5, and the lateness of periodic review. She said that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) from around the State that had to work with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) were meeting to brainstorm problems and identify solutions that would allow greater flexibility. Mr. Belcher commented that the code changes that allowed hospitals in residential zones had been appealed. Mr. Rusch adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040209.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 7