Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue May 10, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President; John Lawless, Vice President; Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, members; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Steve Nystrom, Shawna Adams, Nan Laurence, Kurt Yeiter, Richie Weinman, Ken Guzowski, Planning and Development Department; Virginia Gustafson, Hearings Officer; Gary McNeel, Pub- lic Works Engineering; Terry Connolly, Eugene Chamber of Commerce; Carol Heinkel, Principal Planner, Lane Council of Governments; Charles Biggs, Cal Young Neighbor- hood Association; Liam Sherlock, Carl Bothman, Bill Kloos, guests. ABSENT: Ann Marie Levis, member; Tom Coyle, ex officio member. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McMillan, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved approval of the minutes from the meeting held on March 29, 2004, as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. III. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA OF MAY 11, 2004 Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved to recuse Mr. Lawless. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0:1; Mr. Lawless abstaining. IV. DISCUSSION: REGION 2050 V. DISCUSSION: DOWNTOWN AREA ZONING VI. OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Commission and Staff SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue May 10, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President; John Lawless, Vice President; Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, members; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Steve Nystrom, Shawna Adams, Nan Laurence, Kurt Yeiter, Richie Weinman, Ken Guzowski, Planning and Development Department; Virginia Gustafson, Hearings Officer; Gary McNeel, Pub- lic Works Engineering; Terry Connolly, Eugene Chamber of Commerce; Carol Heinkel, Principal Planner, Lane Council of Governments; Charles Biggs, Cal Young Neighbor- hood Association; Liam Sherlock, Carl Bothman, Bill Kloos, guests. ABSENT: Ann Marie Levis, member; Tom Coyle, ex officio member. Mr. Rusch called the meeting to order. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, wished to speak on the importance of adjacent land use zoning issues. He felt it very important to maintain the appropriate amount of buffers between two conflicting land uses. He supported the gradation of uses. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Minutes of Two Meetings Held on March 29, 2004. Ms. Colbath offered the following correction to the minutes of the second meeting: • Page 13, paragraph 8: “She agreed that the applicant appeared to have had met the criteria.” Mr. Rusch offered the following correction to the minutes of the second meeting: • Page 14, paragraph 3: “He said he would have preferred to take this group of good neighbors and Eugene School district 4-J, and ask asked them to work it out rather than forcing them through a quasi-judicial hearing.” Mr. Belcher noted that the minutes of the second meeting had inadvertently listed the incorrect commis- sioners in the disclosure of ex parte contacts on page 4. Ms. McMillan, and not Mr. Belcher, had toured the site while serving as a member of the Eugene School District 4J Committee. Mr. Belcher, and not Mr. Lawless, had attended dog training in the school gymnasium. Mr. Lawless noted that he should be MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 1 stricken from the bottom sentence regarding ex parte conflicts as he had none. Mr. Belcher offered the following correction to the minutes of the second meeting: • Page 12, paragraph 8: “… the appellants made a compelling case that they would loose lose park and open space.” • Page 12, bottom paragraph: “… sufficient land for parks and that was the criteria criterion the Hearings Official...” Ms. McMillan, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved approval of the minutes from the meeting held on March 29, 2004, as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. III. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA OF MAY 11, 2004 Mr. Lawless asked to be recused. He said he was uncomfortable in proceeding as he had played a role in the pre-land use change application. Mr. Rusch conceded it was a legitimate concern. Mr. Duncan felt he had faced a similar situation, but the City Attorney had advised him that if no current monetary gains or perceived gains were involved as a result of the land use decision, there would be no conflict. Ms. Muir did not feel there was a conflict, but recognized that it was within the bylaws for a commis- sioner to request recusal. Ms. Colbath commented that she did not oppose allowing Mr. Lawless to recuse himself. Mr. Belcher said, from a practical perspective, that it would not result in a loss of quorum. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved to recuse Mr. Lawless. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0:1; Mr. Lawless abstaining. Mr. Lawless left the table. Ms. Adams brought Hearings Official Virginia Gustafson to the table to respond to questions on the appeal that was being brought before the Planning Commission in a public hearing on May 11. She explained that the commission’s task in this issue was to affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Hearings Official. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Ms. Adams stated that, to the degree that the City Attorney had an opinion, it had been incorporated in the agenda item summary. Ms. Muir stated, in response to a question from Mr. Belcher, that the MetroPlan update was slated to go to Lane County on May 12 and to the City of Springfield the following week. She noted that the Planning and Development Department (PDD) had just received a waiver on the 120-day time limit from the appellant. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Rusch asked Ms. Gustafson to speak to the issue. Ms. Gustafson was not sure it was appropriate to give an overview of the whole hearing. She explained that at the basis of the dispute was that the MetroPlan had designated the property in question residential rather than commercial. She stated that, in a conflict between an area refinement plan and the MetroPlan, the MetroPlan controlled the outcome. She had, however, determined that the Willakenzie Area Refinement Plan was not in conflict with the MetroPlan and had also indicated the subject property was residential. Ms. Colbath asked if the Hearings Official had taken into consideration any changes that may have taken place with this resolution. Ms. Gustafson responded that the resolution had not been adopted at the time. Ms. Muir added that it had still not been adopted. Ms. Gustafson stressed that, when considering an issue, it was inappropriate to look at something that was “in the works” that the City may or may not do in the future. Mr. Rusch inquired as to whether a delay in the land use change application would have swayed the item to the opposite outcome. Mr. Nystrom reiterated that it was not legitimate to presume the outcome of the MetroPlan update when considering this appeal. He said one thing looked at when updating the plan was consideration for areas along borders of land use areas, but the discussion had been kept more open and vague in order for the many circumstances that arose in land use decisions to be taken into consideration. Mr. Rusch opined that it seemed this was another public hearing that did not need to happen. Mr. Belcher asked the Hearings Official to comment on the land use decisions made in the past that had designated the land bordering the subject property Commercial on one side, General Office on another, and Residential on the third. Ms. Gustafson responded that she did not know how or when certain decisions were made that affected the land use in that area. Mr. Rusch determined there were no more questions for Ms. Gustafson. Mr. Lawless returned to the table. IV. DISCUSSION: REGION 2050 Mr. Lowe introduced Carol Heinkel, Principal Planner for the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). He explained that all of the jurisdictions were participating in the Region 2050 Group in order to discuss the different growth scenarios and to develop a regional growth management strategy. Ms. Heinkel gave a power point presentation entitled Region 2050, Sustaining Quality of Life in the Southern Willamette Valley. Commissioners received a handout of the presentation. She said Region 2050 is a voluntary, collaborative long range planning project to develop a regional growth management strategy for the Southern Willamette Valley. The project is one of four projects state-wide that have been accepted by the state as a Regional Problem Solving project or RPS. State law provides that RPS projects may design solutions that do not meet the letter of administrative rules, as long as all participants at the state and local level agree. She said this gives our region a great deal of flexibility in addressing growth management needs. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 3 Ms. Heinkel explained that the region is 1,000 square miles, about the size of Rhode Island; and contains eight small cities and 15 rural unincorporated areas, in addition to the Cities of Eugene and Springfield. She said Region 2050 was initiated in 1999 by resolutions adopted by the 11 local elected bodies endorsing the concept of a regional growth management strategy and directing LCOG to seek resources for the project. She explained that all 10 cities and Lane County have actively participated in Region 2050 since it began by serving on a Regional Policy Advisory Board (elected officials) and a Regional Technical Advisory Committee (local government planning and management staff, LTD, utilities, League of Women Voters). She said Lane Transit District also serves on the Policy Advisory Board as well as a member of the Governor’s office as a liaison to state agencies. She said over the last four years, a lot of information has been prepared to help inform the growth management strategy, including models and a “base case scenario” which projected past trends and current policies out 50 years; and that all materials have been posted to the web site www.Region2050.org. Ms. Heinkel said the project has received funding from EWEB, Springfield Utility Board, Emerald Peoples’ Utility District, Eugene Public Works, the City of Coburg, Lane Transit District, the Oregon Departments of Land Conservation and Development and Economic and Community Development, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Sony Disc Manufacturing. She said additional resources are being sought to continue the project to its completion, now targeted for the end of next calendar year. She said that in March 2003, seventy experts from throughout the region were invited to participate in an interactive workshop to allocate residential and employment land uses on a base map to accommodate growth in the region over the next 50 years from the perspective of their area of expertise; for example, the economy group set out land uses in the region in a manner that best met the economic needs of the region. The workshop produced seven maps reflecting the ideal region from the perspective of land use and development, housing, economy, transportation, natural resources, community facilities and services, and education (K-12). Staff and the policy makers then analyzed the results to identify common elements and unique qualities to help narrow down the alternative growth patterns. She said that through this process, three alternative growth scenarios were prepared: compact urban growth, satellite communities, and rural growth. Examples of common elements incorporated into all three maps included the expansion of the Eugene UGB to include the LCC basin and not expanding the UGB into the Spencer Creek basin due to the high cost to extend services to that area. Ms. Heinkel pointed out that one of the most significant aspects of this exercise is that the allocations occurred over a base map that showed constraints to development such as floodway, floodplain, wetlands, slopes over 25%, etc. She said this is very significant in this region because much of the land is highly constrained by these physical features and opportunities for expansion are more limited than might be believed. She said the maps also showed opportunities for expansion, particularly rural lands that are already developed or partitioned, areas that are more desirable for urban expansion than productive farm and forest lands. She said there was some expansion shown in the alternatives on farm and forest lands, and that this would be looked at more closely in the development of the Preferred Growth Scenario. She said state law required that a Resource Lands Committee be appointed to make determinations and recommendations about development on resource lands. Ms. Heinkel said the purpose of developing the alternative growth scenarios was to allow for evaluation of their relative impacts on quality of life in the seven categories she named earlier and to get public input on the alternatives in order to help guide the development of a preferred growth scenario. She said the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 4 Preferred Growth Scenario would reflect regional agreement on the distribution of population and employment over the next 50 years; this in turn would inform agreement on a timetable for UGB expansions that is consistent with the wishes and public facility capacities of the local governments and their consistencies; that urban reserves could be designated in areas that would not be allowed under current law, such as the LCC basin in Eugene; and that master planning for these urban reserves and growth areas could occur prior to urbanization, providing maximum opportunity for the cities to grow in a manner that is consistent with community goals. Ms. Heinkel said the end result of the project was a Regional Growth Management Strategy that would be submitted to each of the 11 local governments for adoption. The Strategy would also be approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Ms. Heinkel said the Strategy, to this point in time, has been discussed by the participants as a tool to achieve local and regional objectives and interests rather than an overarching plan that would amount to a state mandate. She said the Strategy will contain goals, objectives, and implementation actions in each of the seven quality of life categories; it will be implemented by each local government; and participants believe this will occur because the strategy will result in each community being better off in the future as a result of implementation of the agreed-upon actions. She gave the example that, if the City of Eugene identifies the LCC basin as a desirable growth area, and it identifies this area as an urban reserve in the Strategy, and sets a timetable for including the area in the UGB, the Metro Plan amendment process for both the urban reserve designation and the UGB expansion would involve a finding of consistency with the Regional Strategy and this would facilitate approval by LCDC. Ms. Heinkel said that staff and officials working on the other three Regional Problem Solving Projects in the state are meeting with LCDC in November to clarify how this process will work to the greatest benefit of the regional partners. She said the new DLCD Director, Lane Shetterly, met with Region 2050 elected officials and other RPS project staff and officials and said he is committed to facilitating any needed rule changes or legislative changes needed to make this a smooth and predictable process for local governments participating in RPS projects. Ms. Heinkel said the reason the local governments initiated Region 2050 is that they recognized that the region will grow and that this growth will present challenges and opportunities that can only be effectively addressed at the regional level. She said the current scientific projection was for the region to grow by 55 percent by 2050 to 463,000. Ms. Heinkel discussed the three growth scenarios, the Compact Urban Growth Scenario, the Satellite Communities Growth Scenario, and the Rural Growth Scenario and the evaluation of the scenarios now underway. She said that the evaluation criteria for all evaluations were derived from the Regional Goals and Objectives in the seven categories unanimously approved by the Regional Policy Advisory Board early in the process. She said that the land use and housing evaluation was completed and the environ- mental evaluation was complete except for farm and forest lands and air quality. She said the RTAC completed an economic evaluation and presented it to the Policy Board. She said that, to better inform this evaluation, she and Allen Lowe and Marguerite Nabeta, DLCD, gave a presentation to the Eugene Chamber of Commerce and asked that they complete the economic evaluation. Ms. Heinkel said she planned to do a similar exercise with the Lane Economic Committee and that staff will be doing outreach to all of the chambers in the region. Ms. Heinkel said that the evaluations in the other categories, water and wastewater and transportation capacity and cost impact, are underway as well as K-12 education. She said the state is awarding the project over $100,000 to develop a regional transportation impact analysis model and apply it to the three scenarios. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 5 Ms. Colbath asked if different types of soils were looked at in the process of looking at different land uses. Ms. Heinkel responded that this had not been considered yet, and as development of the preferred growth scenario unfolded soils would be considered in greater detail. Ms. Colbath asked in the University of Oregon economic department had been involved in the project. Ms. Heinkel said that they had not but that she would be happy to extend the information to them. Ms. Heinkel said she has co-taught classes in Regional Planning with Professor Hibbard for the past three years and that they have used Region 2050 as a planning exercise with the students. Regarding the rapid population growth in Veneta, Ms. Heinkel said the Highway 126 transportation problems would have to be addressed. Mr. Lowe added that what was being sought was an improvement to the highway, rather than expansion, given the serious environmental conflicts along that road. In response to a question from Ms. McMillan, Ms. Heinkel stated she invited superintendents and other administrative staff from all 12 school districts in the region to a meeting to review and comment on preliminary evaluation results; eight of the 12 districts were represented at the meeting, including George Russell from Eugene 4J; they had a very interesting discussion and the minutes from the meeting are on the web site; they agreed to meet again this summer to review revised results and said they wanted to bring school board members with them to join in the discussion. Mr. Rusch asked where vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fit into the discussion. Ms. Heinkel said the transportation modeling would provide that as well as other data on transportation impacts. Mr. Lowe commented that VMT had been a focus of discussion during the TransPlan process, but it was not the primary or sole consideration in transportation planning. Mr. Duncan said he had participated in the housing workshop for Region 2050 in which the group had been charged with figuring out how to allocate residential and employment growth in a limited amount of space. He commented that it had been quite a challenge. He felt it was very important to educate the public as to the ramifications of not expanding the urban growth boundary (UGB), primarily that it would mean densification of the development within the UGB. Ms. Heinkel agreed that opportunities for residential redevelopment, particularly in the metro cities is more limited than might be perceived, given the pre-development patterns. She noted that 86 percent of the residential land in the Southern Willamette Valley region was designated low density residential (LDR). Ms. Colbath asked if any long-term energy policy had been discussed and incorporated into the 50-year plan. Ms. Heinkel replied that the seven categories were determined at the start of the project and that it was really a scope issue on where to draw the line. She said that energy issues were addressed indirectly with the assumptions about regional commuter services and the Policy Board’s goals and objectives for natural resources, transportation, and land use. Mr. Lowe pointed out that the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) was a member of the RTAC for Region 2050 and a sponsor of the project; EWEB has formed an Integrated Energy Resource Portfolio Group that was focused on energy planning. Ms. McMillan asked how the work of the Region 2050 Group related to the TransPlan. Ms. Heinkel responded that she worked with the LCOG modeler, Bud Rieff, the person who did the modeling for TransPlan and coordinated with him on the data and assumptions used in the Region 2050 project. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 6 In response to a question from Mr. Lawless, Ms. Heinkel said the assumption was that the small towns would develop at small town densities. Mr. Lowe clarified that eight dwellings per acre was considered to be urban density in the compact scenarios, but for the satellite assumptions it was projected to be approximately six dwellings per acre. Mr. Lawless asked for a chart that indicated how the land use of the area was planned. Mr. Belcher wondered if a community’s objection to changes in density would be heard. Ms. Heinkel said the question will be posed during the public outreach process in all communities. She said that one of the benefits of this process is that it clearly presents the trade-offs among densities, growth, and the associated challenges and opportunities. She said one of the greatest challenges is addressing the issue of residential redevelopment in a region already developed at relatively low residential densities. Mr. Lowe added that one needed to be clear on the difference between what the community found as acceptable and what the City Council adopted as policy. Mr. Belcher noted that the most densely developed community in all three scenarios was the Town of Coburg. Ms. Heinkel responded that Coburg seeks to increase its population in order to boost its enrollment in the grade school and to support more localized goods and services, but since it is surround- ded by prime farm land, the community recognizes that to achieve those population levels, it would need a drastic increase in residential densities. In response to another question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Heinkel said the Preferred Scenario would be decided by a consensus process. She stressed that the goal was to have all of the affected communities feel like they would be better off with the preferred growth scenario. Mr. Belcher remarked that the public of Eugene still needed to be educated so that they understood that growth will happen. Ms. Muir shared her struggle with what the result of the Region 2050 will be. While she supported the process, she questioned the value of the end result if it was not regulatory. She wanted to see clarification of the slide that said “evaluation + public input = preferred scenario” when this presentation is given to the public. She said she would like to have more discussion of this and its relationship to the metro plan. Mr. Lowe commented that this was a collaboration and consensus process among communities with no predetermined outcome. Ms. Colbath asked, given that it was a general overview of what the different communities wanted to do with the region, what would be done regarding a conflict with something that was in an actual plan. She wondered at what point the policies and plans that were in place were going to interact. Ms. Heinkel replied that Regional Growth Management Strategy agreed to by the Policy Advisory Board would be submitted to the 11 local governments for adoption as well as to LCDC. She said the Strategy would contain a prioritized list of actions, including UGB expansions and urban reserve designations, that the local governments could rely on in amending local comprehensive plans, including the Metro Plan. She said staff and officials from the various Regional Problem Solving projects now underway across the state are working directly with DLCD to provide very clear expectations on how the Regional Strategy will be used as a tool for the participating local governments to achieve their growth management objectives at the regional level. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 7 Mr. Belcher predicted that this work would raise the issues and make it clear that something needed to be done. In response to a question from Ms. McMillan, Ms. Heinkel stated that the Preferred Growth Scenario would not likely look exactly like any one of the three alternative growth scenarios but most likely would be a hybrid of all three. V. DISCUSSION: DOWNTOWN AREA ZONING Ms. Laurence provided an overview of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) regarding Downtown Zone Analysis. She asked the commission to consider the following questions: • Were the existing zones easy to use or were there too many zones? • Were zoning regulations applied consistently? The purpose of this zoning review was not to make a map that was easy to look at but rather to put in place the regulations to sim- plify and facilitate where the kind of development that the City wanted to achieve was being sought; • Were the zones effective? Did the zoning regulations lead to the development that was desired? Ms. Laurence said she had attempted to map the zoning regulations in the zoning area. She cited examples of zoning and overlay complexities in the Downtown Area. Mr. Duncan commented that there were six layers to the map. He opined that the simple answer was to simplify it. He felt addressing the layers of requirements did not even begin to take into account the lack of siting space in the Downtown Area and logistical problems posed by placing heavy machinery there to construct buildings. Mr. Belcher observed that there were more layers in the central area. He asked if they conflicted with one another. Ms. Laurence said the complexity lay in determining which layer had been adopted more recently and which had the higher priority. Ms. McMillan asked if part of the conflict could be attributed to the fact that overlays were on top of zones. Ms. Laurence replied that it became more complicated the issues as overlays became more and more specific. Ms. Colbath related that she had seen difficulties with parking issues and difficulties with refinement plans and how they relate with other plans. She wondered if it would be possible to conduct a more formalized process in order to determine where ways to simplify the zoning could be found. Ms. Muir noted that the commission was handing a solution to staff that was described in the AIS. Ms. Rusch remarked that the Downtown Area should not be referred to as a node as it should be acknowledged that it was a unique area. Ms. Laurence mentioned that Planning staff, was working with Development staff, and was trying to make the connections between the two projects. She said at a work task level some separation was MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 8 necessary it had to remain separate. Mr. Belcher recommended involving the neighbors as much as possible in the process. IV. OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from the Commission and Staff Ms. Muir said she would like to place on a future agenda a debrief of the public hearing process. Mr. Duncan noted he was the Planning Commission representative on the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC). He described the committee’s make up. He said the committee did not formally convene until November, but was meeting to learn about its charge and had heard a presentation on the Urban Renewal financing. Ms. Muir clarified that the committee was advising the commission. Mr. Belcher reported that the subcommittee on infill and redevelopment had met and was seeking to meet with Mr. Lowe for a discussion on nodes. Mr. Rusch adjourned the meeting at 1:32 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040426.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 9