Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue March 22, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, Vice President, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, members; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Planning and Develop- ment Department. ABSENT: Charles Rusch, member. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS DISCUSSION: NODAL DEVELOPMENT OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Subcommittee Reports B. Other Items from Commission and Staff SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 22, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue March 22, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, Vice President, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, members; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Planning and Develop- ment Department. ABSENT: Charles Rusch, member. Mr. Lawless called the meeting to order. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There was no public comment. DISCUSSION: NODAL DEVELOPMENT Planner Allen Lowe illustrated the evolution of nodal development with a series of maps from 1994 to the present. He said the purpose of the commission’s discussion was to reexamine the nodal development process and recommend a new approach to the City Council. He commented that public education and marketing were essential to the success of nodes. Referring to the evolution of nodes, Mr. Lowe emphasized the importance of documenting the direction of nodal development, why decisions were made, and any changes in direction as those concepts are carried forward. He explained that in 1994, there were eight different node types with transit fully integrated; on the current map the node types are undifferentiated. He said that the decision to not differentiate node types was made, in part, because it was thought it would make explaining nodal development easier. He pointed out the eight designated high priority nodes on the current map and indicated that the Council has adopted /ND Nodal Development zoning and plan designations for three of them; the rest were postponed by the council in recognition of the commission’s concerns and interest in re-examining the entire process. Mr. Duncan asked what the current purpose of nodes was, given the evolution in thinking about nodal development. He commented that his perception of nodes was that they were primarily residential in nature and asked if there should be a distinction between residential and commercial nodes. Mr. Lowe responded that a problem with undifferentiated types was the difficulty in discussing the characteristics of different nodes. He said the initial purpose of nodal development was to meet state mandates for reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and integration of land use and transportation planning. Mr. Duncan concurred with the integration of land use and transportation and asked why it occurred in MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 22, 2004 Page 1 nodes, rather than as a City-wide concept. Mr. Lowe said that nodal development was a key strategy for growth management and one of many concepts under the nationwide smart growth initiative. He observed that many people in the community understood and accepted smart growth concepts, but did not necessarily see how nodal development was related. He said that eliminating the term “nodal develop- ment” and presenting the concept as smart growth could increase support. Ms. Levis remarked that people in the community did not relate to nodal development and it was hard to explain. She agreed with the need to rename the program and link it to something such as smart growth, which the community supported. She said it was important to develop talking points that would allow it to be easily and simply explained. Mr. Belcher said the primary issue was that the state-mandated purpose of nodal development set unrealistic targets, such as VMT reduction and job creation, and when those targets weren’t met the perception was that nodes did not work. He said perhaps the City should decide what was possible and face the consequences with the State. Mr. Lowe responded that during development of the Growth Management Study (GMS) there was a major shift in community thinking about the purpose and value of nodes. In earlier TransPlan discussions, nodal development was seen as a way of linking land use and transportation planning to achieve reductions in vehicle miles of travel (VMT’s). In the GMS, nodal development began to be understood as a means of improving community livability by employing smart growth principles and of delaying expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB) by intensifying development. Mr. Belcher said a problem existed with a document that stated different goals from those embraced by the community. Mr. Lawless suggested that nodal development, smart growth, and livability should be discussed in terms of the “story of Eugene” and how they related to individuals’ neighborhoods. He said that identifying types of nodes by residential, commercial, and employment would make it easier to explain the reasons for those nodes in terms of making the environment more livable. Ms. McMillan stated that the commission had agreed to undifferentiated nodes because of concerns that the public would not understand the specific elements, for example that a commercial node did not exclude housing, and perhaps thinking about nodes more globally was not a better idea. Mr. Lowe said that the issue would need to be resolved before effective marketing techniques could be developed. He noted that the designated nodes were real places with buildings, uses attached to them, streets, and a future designated for them through the Metro Plan. He said the essential nature of each area was lost by use of undifferentiated node types. Ms. Levis said that the identification of nodes was now so generic that people did not connect with them. She said that nodes should be given names that tied them to the neighborhood and provided identify and local connections, such as the Pearl District in Portland. She encouraged the use of a term like “district” that would give a romantic and neighborhood feel to the area. Mr. Duncan remarked that there was a negative perception of nodes, whereas people were enthusiastic about smart growth. He agreed that the concept of nodes was dated. He said that the Pearl District and other districts in Portland were created by what was occurring in each area. He suggested that rather than listing zones with exclusive uses, the City should begin to meld uses like commercial, industrial, and housing because of the changing nature of some of those uses. He said that melding uses could encourage the natural development of nodes without the current zoning restrictions. Mr. Lowe replied that the Royal MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 22, 2004 Page 2 and Chase nodes were created with the idea of developing a prototype for mixed-use districts that could be used City-wide. He said the idea was not carried forward into subsequent work on nodal development. Mr. Duncan said he felt the Royal and Chase nodes attempted to drive the market instead of letting the market drive the process. Referring to the Chase node, he said there was too much commercial space required and it could not be supported. Mr. Lowe responded that, independent of that issue, a set of mixed-use codes was created for the Chase node that contained a use list that defined compatible uses, square footage and setback requirements, and lighting and sign requirements, and many other factors in a generic way that could be applied anywhere in the City. Ms. Colbath said it was her experience that people generally supported smart growth. She indicated that she often referred to the districts in Portland to explain the concept of nodes and agreed that the term “node” should be replaced. She said that as the population grew and demographics shifted it would create advantages for doing nodal development successfully. She commented that the problem might be less with the concept of nodes than the restrictive nature of current tools for achieving them. Mr. Belcher stated it was important to achieve a success and that would require a more objective and less prescriptive process that would allow the City to work cooperatively with a developer. He cited a development planned for the 29th Avenue and Friendly Street area that could provide that type of opportunity. Mr. Lowe responded that the area was not identified as a priority node making it difficult for the City to work opportunistically to realize its policy objectives for the area unless approached by the developer. Even then, there was no way to discuss the overall Friendly nodal development area outside of the developer’s property. Mr. Belcher asked if awareness in the neighborhood of the proposed development would provide an incentive to engage in the process and discuss integration with the larger area. Mr. Lowe said there was no mechanism for that and once the development proceeded to the application process, only the legal confines of that property were addressed and not the surrounding area, unless there was a compatibility requirement in the code. Mr. Belcher commented that it was time to discuss a different process without creating an additional layer of requirements. Mr. Duncan remarked that in his Ferry Street Bridge neighborhood, residents constantly discussed the lack of basic commercial services because the area was all residentially zoned and there was no mecha- nism for establishing a small node, which missed the opportunity to create a better neighborhood environment. Mr. Lowe said that during the land use code update (LUCU) there was an opportunity to create that type of mechanism, but there was a decision by the City Council and Planning Commission not to do so because the intent was to simplify and streamline the code, not proactively create a different structure for planning. He commented that a key element of an employment center was day-to-day services such as lunch counters, banks, and dry cleaners; without those services people drove throughout the community on their lunch hours, creating overloads at intersections. He said there was a disconnect in the code that prevented such development. Mr. Lawless said Mr. Lowe’s remarks about employment centers represented a way to tell the story to the community about the benefits of nodal development. He said that VMT reduction was a byproduct of integrated support service planning and there should be a mechanism for doing that. Mr. Belcher suggested that another approach could be to determine how far apart support services should MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 22, 2004 Page 3 be and when a developer expressed interest in an area, the City would assist with planning for integrated services, instead of identifying in advance specific nodes. Mr. Lowe explained that in most of the designated nodes there was a role for City infrastructure and one of the Growth Management Study policies was to focus infrastructure improvements, with the limited funds available, on areas where high density, mixed-use, transit-supported development was expected. With more dispersed development, he said, the question became how to prioritize infrastructure improvements. Mr. Duncan agreed that the location of nodes could not be entirely open because of the costs involved in densification, but at some point could the City or the commission decide what should be happening in a particular location. Mr. Lowe responded that the community had made the determination about node designation through adoption of the Metro Plan diagram which generally locates activity centers through designation of commercial areas, employment areas, and areas of higher density residential development. Ms. McMillan inquired if it would be possible, should the commission decide that a “mixed-use district” was desirable, to have that in the code and retain flexibility by identifying some priority areas, but not the specific boundaries. Mr. Lowe replied that the code language could be written with that flexibly, but the problem was the need to produce for the state inventories of land specifically identified as residential, commercial, or industrial. He said the state required a clear definition; the mixed-use designation would not satisfy the criteria for establishing those inventories. . Ms. McMillan asked how the Pearl District in Portland had been established. She asked if the term was a colloquialism or the area was actually designated as a district. Ms. Muir replied that her understanding was that the area was a district and it was developed through a give-and-take process between the developer and the City. She said the bargaining process essentially wrote new code through a develop- ment agreement between the City and developer. Mr. Lawless said there were few opportunities for that type of momentum in Eugene and wondered if another approach to prioritizing infrastructure and dollars could be to follow development in areas that were trending toward smart growth or mixed-use. Mr. Lowe replied that the hospital development in Springfield was an example of how that did happen, with a significant investment in transportation improvement for the hospital irrespective of the fact that it was not located in a node. He said the same argument was made that the location of a hospital in Eugene, wherever that might be, should be a node because transportation was such a critical element. He noted that in the case of a hospital, node characteristics, such as pedestrian-friendliness, would only be reviewed if there was a nodal designation that required a particular type of infrastructure. He said that currently there was no mechanism to apply those development principles to an area that was not designated as a node. Ms. Colbath commented that public improvements often encouraged development and the commission could consider prioritizing nodes in order to make the most efficient use of infrastructure dollars. Mr. Belcher encouraged the commission and staff to contact Portland and find out what worked and what didn’t in the Pearl District project. He emphasized the need to change the community’s perception that the citizens had antipathy toward public/private partnerships and to help the public realize that change was coming and they should take the opportunity to guide it in the right direction. Mr. Duncan noted that during the recent smart growth briefing it was surprising to see the number of communities the size of Eugene that had very successful smart growth policies and programs in place. He suggested that comparably sized communities be surveyed to determine how they have handled smaller projects, as it was unlikely that Eugene would have a project the magnitude of the Pearl District in MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 22, 2004 Page 4 Portland. He mentioned a study by a University of Oregon professor that indicated that following the land value would predict where redevelopment would occur; as values increased there was interest in intensifying use to achieve a higher return. He suggested that approach could be used to prioritize areas, pointing to the Oakway Center as an example. Mr. Lowe related that redevelopment was addressed as a part of TransPlan and there was a methodology for projecting where land values were likely to increase based on available data. He said the City did not collect the extensive data that was collected elsewhere and he did not think the methodology had been tested over time. He said the methodology could be useful in targeting infrastructure expenditures. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Lowe said the methodology had not been used to prioritize nodes. He remarked that the commission was pulled in many directions and not always focused on one issue. He said that sometimes it seemed decisions lacked the central ingredient of a top priority goal or objective such as the Growth Management Study and smart growth. He wondered whether there could be a smart growth “litmus” test for decisions. Ms. Levis agreed that the commission did not have fixed priorities and decisions were often based on the issue and needs of the day. Mr. Duncan observed that the Growth Management Study results were applauded by the community and policy makers but when it came to implementation, NIMBYism (not in my backyard) was encountered. He suggested that it was time to revisit the smart growth principles as practices were often in conflict with them. Mr. Lowe said that the City Council had stated at adoption of the smart growth policies that they would be used for budget decisions, not land use decisions. He indicated that staff no longer reported on Growth Management Study policy implementation. Mr. Belcher suggested it was time to remind the community of the smart growth policies and assure that they still represented community values. He also suggested that smart growth policies be addressed during the commission’s work session with the City Council. Ms. Muir stated that the current top five priorities in the Planning Department’s work program were State-mandated activities and the council had prioritized the remaining activities. She said that resuming staff reporting on the smart growth policies could help to refocus the council on those issues. She said it was important for the City to regain ownership of the smart growth program and market it positively to the public. Mr. Lawless said that data provided to the Land Use Management Task Force indicated that it was daily activities, like those conducted during the lunch hour, not the morning and evening commutes that most contributed to high VMT. Ms. Levis commented that proactive planning established conditions that contributed to healthy neighborhoods. Mr. Belcher encouraged staff to approach the State with a list of what the City should be addressing, such as access management issues, instead of VMT reductions. He noted that the controversy over a Coburg Road bus rapid transit corridor was being blamed on Lane Transit District when the issue was really one of access management. He said the City should not be tied to impossible tasks mandated by the State because it prevented work on realistic goals. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 22, 2004 Page 5 Ms. Colbath said that VMT was initiated for healthier communities, both physically and economically, and it was a good time to go back to the public to promote smart growth and growth management policies. Mr. Lawless suggested that ways be explored to structure development in an incremental fashion that would contribute to the broader goals and support the initial stages of growth without requiring that all conditions be met at the beginning. Mr. Lowe agreed that the evolution of communities over time needed to be acknowledged. Mr. Belcher encouraged flexibility in working with the residents and developers and a willingness to compromise on some issues in order to move forward, with both sides willing to go further than they initially had planned. Mr. Lawless expressed doubt that developers would be willing to compromise unless it was supported by market demand. Using the Chase Gardens and Crescent projects as an example, Mr. Lowe said the dilemma arose when there were two developers and one said he was able to achieve the required density and the other said he was not. He asked who should be believed. Mr. Lawless noted that the Crescent project was a large master planned development consisting of several phases that would be developed independently and the density would be achieved over a significant period of time; the Chase Gardens projects was much smaller scale and looked at an initial investment to satisfy market demands. Mr. Duncan said a problem with the Chase Gardens projects was that the area between Harlow Road, the river, the freeway, and Coburg Road only had 5,800 people and it would be difficult to support 190,000 square feet of commercial space and call it a node when the transportation infrastructure was not in place. He said a much different situation existed for the Crescent project. Mr. Lowe stated that the perception was that driving in nodes was undesirable and the City had encour- aged that perception when the State forced restrictions on certain kinds of automobile-oriented uses; hence, nodes were identified with walking, which was inconsistent with major commercial space. He said that issue would continue to be raised with subsequent nodes. Mr. Belcher suggested that perhaps the problem could be mitigated by connecting the commercial development to adjacent neighborhoods to make it more advantageous for people living nearby. Mr. Lowe said one challenge for the commission as it looked at the code was to consider subdivisions, planned unit development (PUD), conditional use permits (CUP), and the other mechanics of planning and ask what regulations were in place to achieve the desired goal of pedestrian connections, for example. Mr. Duncan remarked that it would require more than small walkways; it would require more green space and access space. He said that discussions with 1000 Friends of Oregon indicated that the organization’s attitude with regard to urban development was changing and there was recognition of a staging concept of development like shadow planning that would put in place mechanisms that would support incremental achievement of density goals. Ms. Colbath observed that some PUDs looked at incrementally increasing density over a period of time, MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 22, 2004 Page 6 adding transit as density developed until the density goal was achieved. She suggested that one approach could be to create lots that were deeper than they were wide without placing a house in the middle and over a period of time that could provide land to increase the density as transit would support it. Mr. Belcher agreed that such an approach could be useful. He pointed to use of land from urban reserves and the requirement that the development be platted to allow eventual denser redevelopment. Mr. Duncan noted that subdivision development during the 1960s through 1980s did not require alleys so there was no access to the back of large lots. He said those developments occurred when personal vehicles were the most common mode of transportation and it was necessary to recognize and be sensitive to what was already in place. Mr. Lowe said the example illustrated the evolution of a long-range, comprehensive planning process and the need to recognize the unique characteristics of different locations. He said there was a need for a more streamlined planning process that would allow flexibility in addressing sites. The commission discussed the issue of alley improvements and the sometimes prohibitive costs because of restrictive standards regarding runoff and pavement. Ms. Muir thanked the commission for its feedback on nodal development. She said that the nodal program was the first priority for staff and she was hopeful that grant money would be received from the State to assist with further progress. OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Subcommittee Reports Ms. Colbath distributed a list of long-term projects for the University of Oregon. Mr. Lawless reported that the Infill Committee report was under review. B. Other Items from the Commission and Staff Ms. Muir announced that there would be a downtown area housing policy walking tour on March 29, 2004, and that there would be a debriefing at 5 p.m. that evening, following by a public hearing at 6 p.m. She reminded the commission that it was required to make a decision at the public hearing. She asked commissioners to review to file related to the public hearing and notify her immediately if there was a conflict. Mr. Belcher and Ms. Colbath indicated that they had attended a meeting of the Far West Neighbors where the subject of the public hearing was discussed; however, they indicated clearly to the group that they could not discuss the matter. Ms. Muir provided an update on the building at the corner of 14th Avenue and Olive Street. She said the property was sold by the City in November, 2003 for $350,000 and the purchasers were a group of six individuals lead by Jean Tate for purposes of developing a 45-unit condominium complex with a price of approximately $280 per square foot. She said the development would include approximately 1,500 of ground floor commercial space to be occupied an architectural firm. She said the building would be six MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 22, 2004 Page 7 stories, utilizing steel and concrete construction, at a cost of $17 million. She said the developers intended to begin pre-selling units at the end of March, 2004 and if 50 per cent of the units were pre-sold, the project would proceed. Mr. Lawless adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040322.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 22, 2004 Page 8