Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue March 8, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President, John Lawless, Vice President, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, members; Susan Muir, Beth Bridges, Kurt Yeiter, Allen Lowe, Planning and Development Department. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, Jon Belcher, members. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Lawless, seconded by Ms. McMillan, moved to approve the minutes of No- vember 3, 2003, and January 26, 2004, as submitted and February 9, 2004, as cor- rected. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. WORK SESSION: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ROLE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue March 8, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President, John Lawless, Vice President, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, members; Susan Muir, Beth Bridges, Kurt Yeiter, Allen Lowe, Planning and Development Department. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, Jon Belcher, members. Mr. Rusch called the meeting to order. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There was no public comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003, AND JANUARY 26 AND FEBRUARY 9, 2004 Mr. Rusch noted three minor grammatical corrections to the February 9, 2004 minutes. No other corrections were made. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Ms. McMillan, moved to approve the minutes of No- vember 3, 2003, and January 26, 2004, as submitted and February 9, 2004, as cor- rected. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED SALMON PROTECTION REGULATION STRATEGY Planning Manager Susan Muir and Neighborhood Services Manager Beth Bridges discussed the citizen involvement role for the Planning Commission. Ms. Muir announced that Ms. Levis was unable to attend the meeting and had asked that the commission be provided a report done five years on how to develop public involvement plans. Ms. Muir said that the work session discussion was framed around four issues: • Defining major land use projects • Defining the Planning Commission role • Developing guidelines/questions in development citizen involvement plans MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 1 • Reviewing an example project Ms. Muir said the City had defined major land use projects in correspondence with the State as needing to meet three criteria: 1. Initiated by the City Council; 2. Adopted by the City Council by ordinance; and 3. The adopting ordinance includes findings of consistency with Statewide Planning Goals. Ms. Muir reviewed the exceptions set for the in the staff memorandum dated March 8, 2004, which included minor Land Use Code updates, a project that staff was commencing. She said the amendments would not come before the commission because the public process was established under the code and would not require a separate citizen involvement plan. She commented that there were questions about how Public Works projects would fit into the definition of major land use projects. She asked Ms. Bridges to discuss the other options for a public process in lieu of the Planning Commission’s citizen involvement role. Ms. Bridges explained that the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) function for projects that did not meet the criteria for a major land use project, but did meet the guidelines for being high impact or high controversy, would be fulfilled through the submission of citizen involvement plans to a peer review group for feedback prior to implementation. Ms. Colbath asked if staff had researched how other cities without a CIC handled the public involvement process for non-land use projects. Ms. Bridges said that a review of other cities had not been done and she felt that a peer review from staff not involved in the design of the citizen involvement plan was sufficient; her experience was that feedback from the CIC and peer reviews was substantially the same. Ms. Muir added that the peer review process was put in place when the council disbanded the CIC. Mr. Lawless asked for an example of a major land use project that would fall under the three criteria that would not come under the typical land use review and management process. Ms. Muir listed the salmon strategy, nodal development as a whole, the Downtown Plan, and possibly housing standards as examples. Ms. McMillan commented that for some projects, the end result could be a Land Use Code amendment, but the commission in its CIC role was more concerned about public involvement at the front end of the process. Ms. Muir added that the cell tower issue was an example of a project that would not come to the commission because it would only involve minor code amendments and not include the type of public outreach associated with a larger project. Ms. Colbath asked if the commission could address whether a citizen involvement process was required for a project component that was not specifically delineated as land use. Ms. Muir said that typically any land use process would be before the commission three to five times at a minimum and she was reluctant to add another meeting to the front end of the process; it was preferable to have clarity about the threshold for projects up front. Mr. Lawless commented that there should be no gap in terms of citizen involvement for anything associated with land use. He said he was ambiguous about the commission’s CIC role because he was not certain about the implications, but was comfortable with the broad nature of the definitions which allowed flexibility in determining which projects the commission would address. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Duncan asked if staff would seek the commission’s opinion if there were projects that did not fit precisely within the definitions. Ms. Muir said that staff would seek feedback from the commission in those cases. Mr. Duncan asked if staff could use email to consult with the commission on whether a project should come before it in its CIC role. Ms. Muir said she would check on the legality of email consultation. Ms. Bridges explained that before the CIC was disbanded, she would consult with the Planning Manager and identify those projects that were land use projects, sort out those that were regional or intergovern- mental or had a citizen involvement process prescribed in the code, and refer the rest to the CIC. She said that resulted in referral of three to five projects a year to the CIC. Ms. Muir said the commission’s role for those projects would be similar to the CIC’s and consist of a three part process: staff would proposes a public involvement process, the commission would meet to discuss it, and then provide feedback and approve, deny, or change the proposed process. Ms. Muir referred to a list of questions in the staff memo that the commission could use as guidelines during the review of plans and asked for feedback on whether there were any areas that were not covered. Mr. Rusch suggested that the list of questions accompany each plan to aid the commission in its deliberations. Ms. Muir said that the questions could be used as the framework for the staff reports. Referring to the issue of collaborative problem-solving on the list of questions, Ms. McMillan said it would be helpful to the commission to be very clear about the purpose of citizen involvement was in order to avoid raising unrealistic expectations about the public’s role. Ms. Colbath noted that there were guidelines developed by the CIC to assist staff in preparing citizen involvement plans. She asked if staff felt that there was an issue in the list of questions in the staff memo that was particularly important. Ms. Bridges said she felt the most important question related to the purpose of the citizen involvement plan as it determined the types of tools and techniques that were used in the plan. She said there was recognition that techniques should be tailored to the project. She also indicated that it was important to provide feedback to people who participated in the public process about how their input was used and that issue merited more attention. Ms. Colbath said she had conversations with people who had recently been involved in land use matters and they were almost unanimous in stating that the earlier people were involved in the process they more satisfied they were. Ms. Muir said a question could be added to the guidelines related to a plan’s timeline. Mr. Duncan said he had received comments from people who wanted feedback on the results of their participation in the process and he encouraged development of methods to provide that feedback as a part of each plan. Mr. Rusch agreed it was important to acknowledge the contribution of citizens. Mr. Lawless stated that in order for the commission to answer the question of whether a plan met the purpose intended for citizen involvement on a project, it was necessary for staff to clearly define that purpose in specific terms and identify target outcomes in the plan it submitted to the commission. Ms. Muir agreed that future plans would include that type of information. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 3 Mr. Duncan asked if plans would include the steps that were mandated by law, such as notification. Ms. Muir said that plans would identify the mandated steps and timelines and where applicable the content of notifications. She said there was little variation between projects. Ms. Muir said that it would be beneficial to staff to have the commission’s advice on how to get people involved at earlier stages in the process when there were legal requirements for notification that had typically driven the process, keeping in mind the costs involved. Ms. McMillan asked if the CIC had discussed the costs associated with citizen involvement plans. Ms. Bridges replied that often a budget figure was provided for the entire plan, although that was not required. She said cost discussions occurred when the CIC wanted to add components to the plan and it was necessary for staff to negotiate the cost of additions and what would have to be eliminated in order to pay for them. Ms. McMillan said it was important for staff to be clear with the commission about the budget for a plan so it would not recommend changes that were unaffordable. Ms. Muir directed the commission’s attention to a draft project proposal for the Chambers node commercial and residential infill and redevelopment standards and said it could be the subject of an exercise in designing a citizen involvement plan. Mr. Yeiter said the purpose of the project was to continue discussion of the Chambers node and explore ways to promote infill in a way that preserved neighborhood character. He said the anticipated results were sets of design standards for residential and commercial that would allow infill development in a manner that was nodal and preserved the neighborhood character. He indicated staff wanted to work with the neighborhood to develop the standards. Ms. Muir summarized the key words in Mr. Yeiter’s discussion as agreement, promoting neighborhood character, and education and asked what the purpose of a citizen involvement plan would be from the commission’s perspective. Mr. Duncan said a missing element from many discussions on nodes was the lack of education in the populace about the nature of redevelopment and infill and it was necessary to educate people before asking for their input. Ms. McMillan suggested that any groups that had been previously involved in the issue should be identified, educated about the issues, and used to expand efforts into the neighborhood. Mr. Duncan and Mr. Lawless agreed that the initial group could be an effective tool in neighborhood outreach and assuring that all households received notification. Mr. Duncan said that other strategies would be necessary to assure that property owners, particularly absentee owners, were properly notified. Mr. Lowe observed that there were some budget constraints on the type and extent of notification and the effectiveness of using neighbors depended on the strength of the neighborhood organization’s leadership. Ms. Colbath commented that it was important to also engage commercial and business interests and that the effectiveness of neighborhood organizations was also dependent on time and opportunity. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 4 Ms. Bridges discussed methods to achieve the public education goal of citizen involvement. She said that strategies would involve collaboration and consensus building and address issues such as identification of stakeholders, particularly those previously involved, and build on that base. She said the plan should include appropriate and compelling techniques for outreach and recruitment that engage many community elements. Using design standards as an example, she said it was important to define the role of the stakeholders group either as developing standards or responding to City-developed standards. Mr. Rusch emphasized that successful public education efforts should include good and bad examples of the particular issues, such as infill, in order to give people a better understanding of why citizen involvement was important. Based on the commission’s comments, Ms. Muir summarized the purpose of the Chambers Node citizen involvement plan as education, building consensus, and engaging citizens. She said that the question of who should be involved could be addressed initially by contacting stakeholders previously engaged with the Chambers Node and listing the legal notices required by law and the notification dates. She asked the commission what other outreach should be conducted. Mr. Lawless suggested there could be another step between education and building consensus. He said that step should clearly identify the primary issues or goals associated with the process to help the stakeholder group focus on the purpose of the citizen involvement plan. Ms. Muir restated the plan’s purpose as education, identification of goals and issues with the community, building consensus, and engaging. Ms. Colbath asked if issues could evolve during the stakeholder group process, as happened with the East Campus plan. Mr. Lawless responded that he saw the issues and goals being refined through the education and discussion processes. Ms. Muir posed the question of what would happen if there was no agreement on the issues as a result of the citizen involvement plan. Mr. Lawless responded that there was a difference between agreement and consensus and the plan should determine which was the desired result. Mr. Lowe said he could foresee situations in which neither consensus or agreement was reached, such as the majority of the earlier stakeholder group wanting to de-densify the Chambers Node area. He said the question was then how far was the City willing to go as a policy issue. Mr. Duncan said the City could then indicate that the consequence of lower density was expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB) and it was the City’s responsibility to sell the concept of densification to the public. Ms. Colbath said that instead of agreement or consensus there could be resolution and that resolution could define how the process would move forward, possibly through negotiation and mitigation. She referred to the East Campus Plan process in which there were two distinctly different points of view among stakeholders and negotiations resulted in a resolution that was acceptable. Mr. Duncan observed that it did not appear the City had a good definition of infill or redevelopment or a framework for developing a definition. He asked if the Chambers Node process was intended to have MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 5 stakeholders tell the City what infill should be. Ms. Muir responded that the intent was to have the Chambers Node stakeholders define infill and redevelopment for their neighborhood. Mr. Lowe added that there was considerable work done during the development of TransPlan on infill and redevelopment and that material could be used to frame a discussion. Ms. Bridges suggested that a question regarding the explicit parameters within which decisions by the stakeholder group could be made should be added to the guidelines and questions for reviewing citizen involvement plans. Ms. Muir agreed with the suggestion and the need to clearly communicate the role of citizens and its relationship to the decision-making process. Ms. McMillan stated her preference for identifying clearly up front any policy issues so the citizen involvement group was aware of them and understood their ability to influence those policies. Ms. Muir summarized that each citizen involvement plan should clearly articulate the role of the public and the influence the public could expect to have on the project’s outcome. Mr. Yeiter commented that the idea of design standards was a result of an earlier process that discussed infill and what protections were in place. Ms. Muir asked the commission what approaches it would recommend for citizen involvement activities related to development of design standards. Ms. McMillan said that visual representations that allowed people to see options, such as the visual preference survey tool used during the development of TransPlan, were very useful in obtaining feedback, as well as education. Mr. Lawless suggested a walking tour with stakeholder group members, particularly those who were opposed to the concept of design standards. Mr. Duncan commented that it was important for people to understand the costs associated with design standards. Ms. Colbath agreed that a tour of the neighborhood was essential to frame the group’s discussion. Ms. McMillan said that the design review team for the downtown bus station, of which she as a member, conducted a walking tour with the consultant and it was extremely helpful to the group’s deliberations. Mr. Lawless suggested that the stakeholder group could be broken into subgroups based on specific interests or issues. Ms. Muir agreed that approach could be useful. Mr. Yeiter said the East Campus Plan and Chambers Node groups had both used that approach, but it needed to be balanced with available staff resources, which were now reduced. Ms. Muir asked which parties in the community might be unrepresented in the Chambers Node process. Ms. McMillan said that staff should make every effort to include parties who were leasing or renting commercial property. The commission and staff discussed various contact methods, including using mailing lists from business or professional groups or the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Commerce monthly newsletter, neighborhood associations, personal outreach by staff, distribution of flyers, or banners announcing events. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Rusch stated it was important to give people the sense that their involvement would make a difference, perhaps even providing examples of previous processes such as the East Campus Plan. Ms. McMillan asked if staff would have preferred that the East Campus Plan mediation process occurred before the public hearing. Mr. Lowe replied that the process had worked and the public hearing provided an opportunity for everyone’s position to be clearly stated. Ms. Muir said that a debriefing on the process would be scheduled with the commission after City Council action and all parties would participate. She stated that staff would develop a citizen involvement plan for the Chambers Node consistent with the commission’s direction and submit it to the commission for consideration. Ms. McMillan asked if the intent was to present the public with proposed design standards or asked the public to develop standards. Mr. Yeiter said the intent was to obtain feedback from the stakeholders about preferences, feasibility, and appropriateness and then develop draft standards for them to react to. He said that stakeholders should also include local architects and builders. Mr. Rusch asked if future citizen involvement plans would also include a discussion with the commission before the plan was submitted. Ms. Muir replied that the discussion of the Chambers Node plan was intended to help the commission understand its new role with respect to citizen involvement plans, as well as obtain feedback from the commission on the design of plans. She said the future plans would be submitted without a preliminary discussion, based on the direction provided by the commission. OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Ms. McMillan commented that the Historic Review Board had met the previous week, although she was unable to attend. Ms. Muir noted that Richard Dannemiller was appointed to the board as recommended by the commission. Mr. Yeiter said the board was pursuing a grant to conduct survey work in the River Road area. Ms. Colbath reported that she had attended a meeting of the University Campus Liaison Committee and she would provide the commission with a list of projects. She said the committee discussed the need to meet more frequently. In response to a question from Mr. Rusch, Ms. Muir said the Infill Committee would have a report available in 30 days. Ms. Muir said the City was appearing before the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) on March 12, 2004, regarding the appeal of Subtask 7 of Goal 5 related to periodic review. She noted a number of recent emails regarding development near the river and recommended that commis- sioners not to state positions on the issues as they would serve as the appeal body on those issues/ Mr. Lawless said his intent was not to target a particular project, but rather to determine the commission’s interest in having general discussions about larger project development possibilities and impacts as related to the Downtown Plan, infill, emphasis on the river, and other concepts. Ms. Muir replied that it was possible to hold discussions about the commission’s broader role and how it could support those policies it had helped to create. She suggested that others from the community with planning commission experience could be invited to share their perspectives. Commissioners expressed their interest in having such discussions, including updates on the current activities of development staff within the Planning MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 7 Department. Ms. Colbath noted a recent Planning Magazine article relating to Illinois development incentives and standards imposed under the Illinois Accountability Act. Mr. Rusch adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040308.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 8