Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue September 20, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, Charles Rusch, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Nan Laurence, Kurt Yeiter, Ken Guzowski, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development De- partment. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Minutes of May 11 and June 9, 14, and 28, 2004, Meeting STATUS REPORT: DOWNTOWN AREA HOUSING POLICY ANALYSIS PREP FOR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Other Items from Staff 2004 Lane Use Code Tune Up Concept Other Items from Commission SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 20, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue September 20, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, Charles Rusch, members; Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Nan Laurence, Kurt Yeiter, Ken Guzowski, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department. Mr. Lawless called the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission to order. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There was no one present wishing to offer public comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Minutes of May 11 and June 9, 14, and 28, 2004, Meeting Ms. Colbath pointed out a formatting error on page 1 of the May 11, 2004, minutes. Ms. Colbath pointed out a formatting error where a struck through phrase was not deleted on page 2 of the June 9, 2004, minutes. Mr. Belcher pointed out an incomplete section with editing comments in parenthesis at the top of page 4 of the June 9, 2004, minutes. Ms. McMillan corrected the name of Ginevra Ralph on page 2 of the June 14, 2004, minutes. Mr. Lawless noted that the name of his firm was TBG instead of TGB as shown on page 2 of the June 28, 2004, minutes. Ms. Levis, seconded by Ms. McMillan, moved to approve the minutes of May 11, June 9, 14, and 28, 2004, as corrected. The motion passed unanimously. STATUS REPORT: DOWNTOWN AREA HOUSING POLICY ANALYSIS Senior Planner Ken Guzowski noted that Adell McMillan would be leaving the Planning Commission and the Historic Review Board (HRB) and solicited interest from other members of the commission to fill her position on the HRB. Ms. McMillan reported that she had recently attended the dedication of the restored train depot and there were many commendations about the efforts of Mr. Guzowski and other City staff. Mr. Guzowski and Associate Planner Nan Laurence presented a status report on the Downtown Area Housing Policy Analysis (DAPHA) update. Mr. Guzowski said that the text was completed, and MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 20, 2004 Page 1  pictures and maps were being finalized, and the report was being put into a graphic format. He re- minded commissioners that the purpose of the project was to encourage retention of residential use in existing housing abutting the downtown commercial core and the primary task was to review adjacent neighborhood plans and recommend policy amendments to promote housing preservation. He used a map to illustration the boundaries of the study area and noted that there was a high quantity of resi- dential uses in the study, primarily in the four residential areas of West University neighborhood, Whiteaker neighborhood, and Jefferson and Westside, which were now a combined neighborhood. Mr. Guzowski cited key policies from the Eugene Downtown Plan to encourage residential policies: Stimulate multi-unit housing in the downtown core area and on the edges of downtown for a variety of income levels and ownership opportunities. Reinforce residential use in neighborhoods abutting the downtown commercial core to help contain commercial activity in downtown and maintain the historic character and livability of adjacent neighborhoods. Continuing, Mr. Guzowski related that there was a large quantity of historic residential architecture in the study area and staff had completed analytical review of policies with the applicable neighborhood refinement plan to determine if the residential uses of existing residential structures was being re- tained, how increased density was accommodated, and if the neighborhoods’ unique characters were being preserved. He said that staff conducted the analysis with a key question in mind: Are commer- cial uses replacing residential uses in the study area, and are we losing the residential character of the downtown neighborhoods? He said it was the conclusion of staff, based on extensive field work, that plans were working and that residential development was incremental. Mr. Guzowski related historic land use issues and the implementation of zoning in 1948. He illus- trated various zoning issues on a map and said that staff had determined that the zoning was working. He remarked that the neighborhoods represented in the study area each had unique characteristics and exemplified the principles of smart growth. He said that the report was being finalized and a public workshop was scheduled for October 28, 2004, and the HRB would also review the report on that date at its regular meeting. He said the report would come before the commission on November 8, 2004. Ms. Laurence listed the study’s four major conclusions: The study area had great residential neighborhoods that retained their value and represented desirable downtown living. No zone or plan mandated or protected continued residential use of existing residential structures. While the use would still be residential, nothing prevented an owner from demolishing a residential structure that was lower density than the zoning allowed and replacing it with another higher density residential structure. Neighborhood refinement plans and existing zoning were working and policies that addressed land use issues were being used to support or deny land use applications, although expressions of neighborhood character and values in the plans were not utilized. There were opportunities for infill in every neighborhood. Ms. Laurence said that in order to assure that infill was compatible with the character of the neighborhoods one of the study recommendations was to examine whether multi-family standards are MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 20, 2004 Page 2  working, did site review help with issues of compatibility, and were any code amendments necessary to address design compatibility for new infill in neighborhoods. She said that the conclusions and recommendations from the study would be compiled and made available to the public in time for the workshops on October 28, 2004. Mr. Lawless asked staff to provide the commission with a summary of the four main points and information about the lack of code protections related to character and compatibility for residential structures that were replaced with residential structures of higher density, to include some hypotheti- cal examples. Mr. Coyle arrived at 12 p.m. Mr. Duncan commented about conflict between the desire to increase density in and near downtown and the need to retain character and compatibility and said that there should be some guidelines or assistance for property owners. He said the study and recommendations could help frame that discus- sion and while there was little of that type of development occurring at the present, it was likely to increase in the future as land became more expensive. Mr. Guzowski commented that the report would discuss multiple-unit property tax exemption (MUPTE) and contain a map of infill opportunities on vacant land and parking lots. He said that the study area contained a high percentage of rental property. Mr. Duncan said that another characteristic in effect in the West University neighborhood was pre- serving and renovating historic residential properties for commercial use, which saved the residential character of the neighborhood. He suggested that aspect be addressed in the report. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Laurence said the percentage of renter-occupied units in the Jefferson/Westside neighborhood was 75.9 percent. Mr. Belcher asked that the study include a discussion of how character and compatibility compli- mented the neighborhood along with the discussion of how they could present disincentives. He said a question for the Jefferson/Westside neighborhood was whether the mixed-use zone was working in terms of the retaining residential character and residential use. Referring to Ms. Laurence’s observation that there was no mechanism to implement refinement plan policies related to neighborhood character and values, Ms. Levis said that the commission shared those frustrations and hoped there would be an opportunity to discuss how those expectations could be fulfilled. Mr. Lawless remarked that often when refinement plans were applied to a zone change or site review staff had brought those character and value issues forward into findings and recommendations as part of the public record and discussion as non-codified criteria for approval. Mr. Belcher replied that it was difficult to apply policies to land use decisions. Ms. McMillan remarked that the study did not seem to support the perception that West University neighborhood rental housing was in poor condition. Ms. Laurence responded that the housing stock in the study area were good examples of interesting, urban structures and while some were in need of repair, the neighborhoods were close-in and desirable with high occupancy rates that were the resi- MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 20, 2004 Page 3  dential component to the downtown commercial node. Ms. Colbath asked staff to provide information on whether the Whiteaker refinement plan was work- ing to the benefit of the conversions and reuse adaptations of industrial properties in the Mixed Use Zoning. Mr. Belcher asked for clarification on the lack of protection for residential structures. Ms. Laurence replied that the zone protected the residential use, but did not mandate continued use of a residential structure. Mr. Rusch observed that characterization of housing in the West University neighborhood in DAHPA seemed to contradict the report by the West University Neighborhood Task Force that housing stock in that neighborhood was deteriorated. He suggested that staff review that report with respect to housing and ownership concerns. Mr. Guzowski said that DAHPA was more focused on land use issues than the social issues raised by the task force. Mr. Duncan said that concern with the requirement that a conversion of residential properties to commercial/office use maintain 65 percent of the square footage in residential uses could be compli- cated by the fact that the second floor of older residential structures was typically smaller than the first floor and even reducing the requirement to 50 percent would present a challenge. He suggested that a more flexible approach could address floors rather than square footage. Mr. Guzowski agreed and said that staff was exploring various approaches to facilitate compliance. Mr. Duncan left the meeting at 12:15 p.m. PREP FOR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Planning Manager Susan Muir reviewed the draft outline for the commission’s joint meeting with the council, scheduled for October 20, 2004. She said that the major discussion item was likely to be the role of the commission from the council’s perspective and the commission’s relationship with the council. She asked for feedback on the draft outline. The commission discussed the format and content of a joint meeting with the City Council and identi- fied the following issues: A less structured meeting format that would allow for more open discussion and exchange of ideas. Each commissioner could present a specific topic for general discussion and brainstorming with the council, similar to the format of the council’s joint meeting with the Lane Transit District board. Focus on two or three topics for discussion. Suggestions for issues were: What does the council want from the commission; what are its priorities for the commission and why. How could the commission’s role change? Help the council understand the commission’s role and create trust in the commission’s deci- sions and recommendations. How the commission can become involved in the public discussion of major or long-range planning issues, such as hospitals. Does the commission’s responsibility for adjudicating land use disputes (quasi-judicial hearings), which was typically done by city councils in other communities, prevent its earlier involvement in issues. Could a committee be established to handle appeals, freeing the commission to participate in long-term planning activities such as MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 20, 2004 Page 4  hospital siting, Region 2050, and similar initiatives? Discussion of why over 50 percent of the commission’s decisions are overturned by the council. Provide information about activities and accomplishments in writing and focus the discussion on larger issues. Schedule two joint meetings per year with the council. Request another session in early spring with the new council. Mr. Belcher asked if there was a distinction between the Planning Department’s work program and the commission’s and if there was no distinction, what role did the commission have in setting the work program. Ms. Muir replied that the department’s current work program consisted of high prior- ity items that were mandated by the State and addressing those used all available resources. She said that other items were only added to the work program when required by the council and supported by an allocation. She suggested that the commission could be involved in identifying priorities when the work program was developed next year for council approval. Ms. McMillan observed that it appeared the separation of planning and development functions in the department prevented issues such as the hospital or Region 2050 from coming before the commission. Mr. Coyle responded that the role the commission had expressed an interest in with respect to long- range planning and development was embedded in the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC). He said that illustrated the broader question of whether the Planning Commission was reactive rather than proactive with the inception issues, which tended to emerge from the develop- ment functions. Ms. McMillan commented that the commission should remain involved in the appeal process and not delegate that function to another body. Mr. Lawless stated that it should be made clear how redevelopment is supported by broad planning goals and the commission should be involved in the discussion of those goals. Ms. McMillan offered the example of the review of proposals for the Sears Building in which the commission was involved three years ago. Mr. Lawless remarked that few bodies were involved in all aspects of planning, development, and implementation. Mr. Coyle said that staff could do a better job of reporting back on how the commis- sion’s work had influenced policies. Ms. Colbath commented that the Planning Commission +3 process was initiated by the council to provide feedback on major issues and suggested that re-establishing a process for dialogue with the council might be helpful. Mr. Belcher suggested that the commission could meet periodically with ERAC in order to stay informed about development and redevelopment activities. He said that the commission should determine whether the council found value in the Planning Commission +3 process. Ms. McMillan commented that the participation of councilors in commission meetings changed the tone of those meetings and did not assure support by those councilors of commission decisions when they were before the council. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 20, 2004 Page 5  Mr. Belcher expressed his support for a topic-oriented approach and the commission’s continued involvement in the appeals process. He suggested that field trips be used to introduce new councilors and commissioners to the work of the commission. Ms. Muir said the question of the commission’s closer connection to long-range planning and devel- opment was probably not an issue for the council. She said that staff would come back with recom- mendations to address the concern instead of changing the commission’s primary role. Mr. Coyle added that the council could determine if it wanted the commission to consult on a major land use issues, such as code updates. With respect to the issue of overturned decisions, Ms. McMillan suggested that staff could develop a case study of recommendations that were not accepted by the council to use as a basis for that conver- sation. Referring to the work program, Mr. Belcher asked if new items could be added to the emerging issues category and did the commission have a role in framing new issues. Ms. Muir said that the council had established the prioritized list. Mr. Coyle said that for emerging issues, the planning function would be consultive in nature, such as on the region-wide commercial and industrial land survey or new neighborhood analyses. Ms. Muir said that the commission would be involved in developing a list of issue in the next work program. Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter said that Ms. Muir made it clear to the council that if there were new issues it wanted the department to work on that would have to include a discussion of funding and what issues were removed from the priority list. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Other Items from Staff 2004 Lane Use Code Tune Up Concept Principal Planner Steve Nystrom said that a tune-up of the Land Use Code adopted three years ago was on the list of funded mandates from the council. He said that implementation of the code during the past three years had revealed many issues that needed to be resolved in the tune-up process. He said the intent was to address those issues that were relatively minor first through a consent calendar process with the commission and then move to larger issues at a later time. He said that $60,000 had been allocated for consultant work on key amendments and listed examples some of the minor issues already identified: Definitions Requirement that planned unit developments (PUD) include an American Institute of Certified Plan- ners (AICP) certified planner on the design team Adjustment review process was not available in some sections of the code and should be added Landscape standards for parking lots Prohibition against modification of a tentative PUD approval Mr. Nystrom asked for feedback from the commission on the project. There was general support among commissioners for the project. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 20, 2004 Page 6  Mr. Lawless asked if commissioners could talk to members of the design and development commu- nity to solicit feedback on issues they had identified. Mr. Nystrom encouraged that feedback, but cautioned that some issues raised could be substantive and would not be immediately addressed. In response to a comment from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Nystrom said that he perceived two pieces to a thoughtful audit: an audit by users to identify issues and a policy review to determine if the code was accomplishing its purpose. Mr. Belcher asked if the commission would review proposed code language. Mr. Nystrom said the proposed process did not currently include that. Ms. McMillan asked if the concept of an alternative path would be included in the review. Ms. Muir noted that an alternative path process was a separate track and listed as priority #7 on the work pro- gram. Other Items from the Commission There were no other items. Mr. Lawless adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040920.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 20, 2004 Page 7