Planning Commission

MINUTES Planning Commission Sloat Room – Atrium Building – 99 West 10th Avenue July 26, 2004 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: John Belcher, Rick Duncan, John Lawless, Adell McMillan, Charles Rusch, Members; Tom Coyle, Ex officio member; Planning Director Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, City of Eugene Planning and Development Department; ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, Anne Marie Levis, Members; I. PUBLIC COMMENT Steve Gilbert spoke about the Gilbert Center on Highway 99. He said he was in favor of alternative transportation. He said the problem with the nodal development plan was not its name but its application. He said presuming that a new name would increase public favor was a huge mistake. He said there were many problems using a general approach to nodal development. Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, spoke on behalf of Friends of Eugene. He said renaming nodal development was a bad idea because nodal development was a legal term already imbedded in documents.. He said renaming nodal development to ‘mixed use development’ was a blunder. He said this was a term already used in the development community that had an entirely different meaning. He said this meaning would be what people perceived. He said ‘Urban Village’ would be a better name that conveyed its own meaning. Regarding the three kinds of nodes, Mr. Matthews said the history of the definitions was much more specific. He said employment and commercial nodes were not real nodes. He said the definition of nodes needed to be tighter and more specific and not a vague general name. David Hinkley, 1350 Lawrence, said the discussion of a node should not be limited to its residents. He said the impact of a node reached beyond its boundaries. He said comments from outside the node needed to be weighed by the commission as well. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding how far to extend the request for input, Mr. Hinkley said the surrounding neighborhoods needed to be included and added that timely public notice also needed to be sent to the rest of the City. II. APPROVAL OF MAY 24, 2004 Ms. McMillan, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to approve the minutes of May 24, 2004. The motion passed unanimously. III. WORK SESSION: Nodal Work Program Allen Lowe said that many people in the community did not know the meaning of the term “nodal development” and noted that staff had been encouraged to find a new name. He said the name would stay the same in TransPlan and expressed a hope that whatever name was chosen would be similar to that chosen by the City of Springfield. He said any of the concept names that were proposed had deficiencies but noted that the common elements of each of the schemes, regardless of its name, were the mixture of uses and transit orientation. He said the term ‘mixed use’ allowed for more understanding of what nodes were. He said the staff also recommended adding back names for residential, commercial, and employment nodes to distinguish between the types. Regarding the individual names for nodes, he suggested specific place names instead of the intersection locations by which they were current known. He briefly discussed the replacement names suggested by staff. He added that the area residents, or the future developers of an area, were the most likely to come up with a place specific name but noted that the some interim naming scheme should happen immediately so that staff and community residents would know which areas were being referred to. Mr. Lowe showed a map of the proposed mixed use development areas. He outlined his proposal for naming areas. He said all of the renaming work was part of the potential node status report. He said staff would meet with neighborhood associations in the fall to solicit public comment about how to prioritize the work; whether all of the identified areas were still viable as “potential” mixed use development sites; whether there are other areas, not identified on the map, that we should be looking at; and whether the planning process could be simpler than the specific planning process. He said the names he had proposed were an interim step until the neighborhoods or developers had chosen other names. In response to a question from Mr. Rusch regarding the term ‘mixed use’, Mr. Lowe said mixed use was a widely used term in the development community. He acknowledged that no single term that was known could incorporate all of the concepts of nodal development. He said the urban village concept in most cities was primarily an intensification scheme and did not incorporate all of the elements described in the Eugene’s nodal development concept. He also said that “urban village” was, on its face, no clearer in its meaning than “nodal development”. It simply is not a descriptive term for people that know nothing about land use planning or urban development. He stressed the importance of the names being chosen wisely and raised concern over picking a name that would have different connotations in different areas. Mr. Rusch said his preference was to handle the issue in a different way. He said commercial and employment nodes that had no residential aspect did not seem to follow the goal of nodal development. In response to a question from Mr. Lowe regarding whether he endorsed the idea of getting rid of all of the nodes that did not have residential portions, Mr. Rusch said that was his preference. Mr. Lowe said that he was trying to keep true to the concept outlined in TransPlan and adopted in TransPlan policies that were the result of a broad and deep public discussion. In response to a question regarding the history of the renaming, Mr. Lowe said the council had abandoned the ND overlay zone but had not abandoned the idea of nodal development in general. He said staff were still dedicated to fixing those areas that needed fixing in the program. He said the one of the most MINUTES—Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 2 important features of the two year nodal development program was to solicit public input before moving forward. Mr. Belcher said a corporate name change signified a change in process. He stressed the importance of making the public aware that more than just a name change was being proposed. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding going back to residential, employement and commercial nodes, Mr. Lowe said calling them all one thing did not allow for differentiation between areas. He said a node was defined by what it currently was. He said the proposed three classifications were a way to differentiate. Ms. Muir noted that there was nothing preventing a hybrid node. Mr. Lowe said the name was less important than the rules that applied in the specific area. He said many of the nodes did not offer the choice of access to transit or daily commercial services. He said this would result in people having to use their cars to go to lunch or to do lunchtime shopping. He stressed that the original strategy was to reduce vehicle use in the City. He added that the issue had now become one of livability and providing services in such a way that there was not a ever present need to travel to other areas in one’s car. Mr. Duncan said there needed to be a differentiation between nodes. He said there were different goals for employment, residential, and commercial areas. He said he would be happy to wait and see the community input about names before moving forward. Mr. Coyle suggested assessing the public mood around the nodes before doing any specific planning. He said this would help with approval at the end of the process. Mr. Lawless said he had less problems with the residential, employment, and commercial differentiations and using those to form future goals. He said what that process was called mattered less to him than the goals that would be achieved. Ms. McMillan said the commission should stop using the word ‘node’ in its discussions if a name change were to be effective. She expressed her preference for the word ‘center.’ She said she did not object to using the term ‘mixed use’. Mr. Lawless suggested Westmoreland as a name for 18th Avenue and Chambers. Mr. Belcher said he preferred using ‘mixed use residential/commercial/employment center’. Mr. Lawless raised concern that the orientation of a center could change over time so the differentiation would not apply. Mr. Belcher said, at the start of the process, the differentiation would make sense. Mr. Lowe said desired development in a particular area necessitated patience and taking a long view of things. He cited the development around Goodpasture Island Road as a successful example. MINUTES—Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 3  Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. McMillan, moved to change Mixed Use, to Mixed Use Center. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Belcher stressed making the public aware that more than just a name change would be involved. Mr. Rusch stressed his desire to have distinctions for the zones. He said he perceived the goal of the centers as self sufficiency and said the distinction would help identify overall goals for future development. Ms. McMillan agreed and said using that distinction would help keep commission discussion on track. Mr. Lowe stressed the importance of showing the community that the proposed centers were a direct result of its input. Mr. Lawless said he did not have a problem with identifying a particular area with its dominant activity as an initial step as long as it guided the community toward its desired outcome. Mr. Lowe stressed that the proposed names were interim steps for identification. He said it was staff’s opinion that not all areas needed specific area planning; some might need other, simpler fixes, like infill standards or intersection improvements. He said specific area planning was too expensive to use that technique for all areas. He said the neighborhood input would help to identify the needs of specific areas. Mr. Coyle stressed the importance of looking for solutions for specific nodes did not include predevelopment rules so much as knowing the neighborhood issues and addressing them. Mr. Belcher raised concern over differentiating centers when they were constantly evolving. Mr. Duncan said he did not have a problem with making differentiations that helped in recognizing the goals to be worked for in a specific area. He said creating something better for the future allowed for some categorization at the beginning of the process. Mr. Rusch stressed the importance of providing guidance for future development. Ms. McMillan, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to use the concept of mixed use to describe what was previously called nodes. The motion passed unanimously. IV. ACTION: Chambers Reconsidered Citizen Involvement Program Mr. Lowe said the project would involve property owners and residents within the boundaries of the Chambers area directly. He said there were portions of two existing neighborhood associations within the node. He said this interested parties list would broaden the scope of the project so neighborhood organizations would only be a part of the process and not the entire framework for public involvement. He said notice would be sent to interested parties including the 1,300 residents in the node. He said staff were looking to uncover barriers and code regulations that neighborhood development came up against. He stressed that outreach would be very broad. MINUTES—Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 4 In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding whether design standards would be developed, Mr. Lowe said that would be the focus of the project. Mr. Duncan suggested having location specific neighborhood meetings to discuss specific neighborhood issues at that location. Mr. Lawless noted that the outcome of the project might have an effect on future projects. He questioned how much influence the commission wanted on the matter. Mr. Duncan confirmed that the commission members would have notice of all neighborhood meetings. Mr. Lawless suggested regular updates so the commission could keep track of how the situation was developing. Mr. Belcher said it would be appropriate to meet in a central location. He questioned the reduced role of the neighborhood associations in the process. Mr. Lowe said the distance from the neighborhood association was because it was not necessary for neighborhood groups to lead the public involvement. He stressed that neighborhood associations would be notified with other interested parties. Regarding the numbers of the proposed focus group, Mr. Lowe said there were limited staff to work with and said the consultants would pick the numbers of the group. He added that there would be a minimum of five to seven people. In response to a question from Ms. McMillan regarding whether the City Council would hold a public hearing, Mr. Lowe said he did not want to create any obligation to send the matter on to the council or to have an additional council public hearing. He said he was simply complying with the agreement made with the State. He stressed the importance of being consistent with the grant request. Mr. Lowe asked for approval of the citizen involvement process. Mr. Belcher stressed the importance of making a report to the City Council. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Rusch, moved to change the paragraph under the public hearing section to state; “. . . upon release of the draft statement of this project, The Eugene Planning Commission will hold a public hearing report to and make recommendations to the City Council on adoption of the guidelines.” The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Duncan suggested adding Citizens for Public Accountability, (CPA), and the Mayors Parks and Open Space Committee to the interested parties list. Mr. Belcher reiterated his concern over the perceived reduced role of neighborhood organizations in the process. MINUTES—Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Lowe stressed that neighborhood organizations were welcome to participate in the process but would not be the ultimate authority for recommending the makeup of the focus group. He stressed the desire of staff to have input from the entire neighborhood and not just the organizations. Ms. McMillan, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved that the citizen involvement process be approved as submitted by staff and amended by the commission. The motion passed unanimously. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF a. Subcommittee Reports Mr. Lawless called for a further discussion with staff on how to integrate infill subcommittee work in a more effective matter. He noted that there had not been much support from outside organizations. b. Other Items from Committee and Staff Ms. Muir noted that Gabe Flock and Alissa Hansen were new senior planners for the organization. She added that the most recent copy of the meeting calendar had been distributed. Mr. Lawless said there was a City Council work session on the Downtown Civic Center and the Police Bond Measure. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 pm. (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES—Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 6