Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue October 11, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, Charles Rusch, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Steve Nystrom, Mike McKerrow, Richie Weinman, Planning and Develop- ment Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Jerry Lidz, City Attorney. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, member. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Minutes of July 26, 2004, Meeting II. COMMENTS ON TWO HOUSING TAX EXEMPTION APPLICATIONS III. LAND USE CODE MINOR FIXES IV. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 12, 2004 V. PREP FOR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VI. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue October 11, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, Charles Rusch, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Steve Nystrom, Mike McKerrow, Richie Weinman, Planning and Develop- ment Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Jerry Lidz, City Attorney. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, member. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene. Referring to Agenda Item III, Mr. Biggs requested that 9.8370 and 9.8550 be removed from the requested action items. Ms. Colbath arrived at 11:35 a.m. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Minutes of July 26, 2004, Meeting Ms. Colbath corrected the spelling of Lawrence on page 1, paragraph 4. Mr. Rusch changed the first sentence on page 2, paragraph 5, to read, “Mr. Rusch said his preference was to handle the issue in a different way.” Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Rusch, moved to approve the minutes of July 26, 2004, as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. COMMENTS ON TWO HOUSING TAX EXEMPTION APPLICATIONS Richie Weinman reported that two applications had been received for a ten year property tax exemption under the Multi-Unit Housing Property Tax Exemption Program (MUPTE). He explained the public process, noting that there was a 30-day public comment period for each application following publication of public notice in the local newspaper, The Register Guard. Mr. Weinman added that the City of Eugene’s administrative rules required that the Planning Commission be given an opportunity to comment on the applications prior to City Council action, scheduled for December 6, 2004. Mr. Weinman distributed a packet of information entitled, Multi-Unit Housing Property Tax Exemption Program, Revised June, 2004, Application Packet, that contained a copy of the application for The Tate. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2004 Page 1 Mr. Weinman described the first application, a copy of which was included in the agenda packet, for The Patterson House, located at 979 Patterson Street. He said that the project consisted of 27 rental units. He added that the developer had built apartment structures in Eugene in the past. Mr. Weinman said that the second application for a 47 unit condominium project called The Tate, that would be located at 1375 Olive Street. He said that the developers felt that without the property tax exemption, the project would not go forward. Mr. Weinman said that the City Council required that each application needed to meet the following quality standards: • Sustainability features. • Responsiveness to adjacent historical structures. • Use of higher quality materials that contribute to longevity, durability, or enhanced building de- sign. • Prominent entry facing the public street. • Number of units by which the minimum density is exceeded. • Number of available ADA accessible units. • Responsiveness to neighborhood character and safety. • Number of units designed for home ownership. • Solicitation of comments from relevant neighborhood association. Mr. Weinman opened the floor for comments from Planning Commission members. Mr. Lawless commented that the applications were an interesting first test of issues such as the higher level of quality previously discussed by the Planning Commission. He noted that use of vinyl windows on The Patterson House was inconsistent with use of environmentally friendly and sustainable products and measures. He added that he would prefer that the developer consider other options, but understood it was an economic issue and a minor point. Mr. Rusch expressed concern about the manner in which The Patterson House covered almost the entire site. Mr. Weinman responded that the Floor Area Ration (FAR) in the City Code encouraged this type of development. He added that parking on the first floor was incorporated into the project. He stated that there was no requirement for green space on the site that was located in an urban, high-density area. Referring to the financial analysis for The Patterson House, Ms. Colbath asked if the debt service referred to both principle and interest. Mr. Weinman replied he presumed that it did. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Weinman said that the City Council did not require that any of the units be lower income units. He said that particular exemption was designed to create multi-family housing, but not necessarily designed to create low-income housing. Again referring to the financial analysis for The Patterson House and the pro forma for The Tate, Ms. Colbath expressed concern that the equity for the owner of the projects was funded through the property tax exemptions. Ms. Levis replied that this was one way to meet the City Council and community goal of developing downtown housing. Mr. Weinman said that both lots, one of which was publicly owned, were currently vacant, and generating very little tax revenue. He added that foregoing revenue for ten years would result in substantial revenue generation after ten years, as well as providing the benefit of more MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2004 Page 2 people living downtown. He added that there was also the potential of benefit for the developer taking the risk. Mr. Belcher asked if there was an implied assumption that if the developer’s construction costs went down, the rents would also go down. Ms. McMillan noted that the role of the Planning Commission was not to critique the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption previously adopted by the City of Eugene, but to comment on whether the proposed project met the established criteria. Mr. Belcher expressed frustration over the process of evaluating the applications. Mr. Weinman said that the City Council had debated the quality standards issue and could decide if individual projects met the Council’s overall requirements, and the Planning Commission was given an opportunity to comment on whether the overall requirements had been met. Ms. Levis noted that MUPTE did not focus on low-income housing, but was designed to encourage downtown housing. Mr. Weinman noted MUPTE was a State of Oregon program with rules found in the statutes, and that there were other low-income housing exemptions that were more attractive than MUPTE for those projects. Mr. Lawless said he did not feel it was necessary for the Planning Commission to make a recommenda- tion to the City Council other than what was reflected in the minutes for the meeting. Ms. Levis suggested that individual Planning Commissioners could forward individual comments to the City Council. Mr. Weinman asked that any comments be forwarded to him by Thanksgiving. Ms. Muir added that comments from the minutes could also be summarized and included in information forwarded to the City Council. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Weinman replied that there had been 12 MUPTEs in the last 25 years. Mr. Belcher said that he had contacted the neighborhood association chair, who said the association was supportive of the projects. 11:55 a.m. Ms. Levis and Mr. Weinman left the meeting. III. LAND USE CODE MINOR FIXES Mr. Nystrom introduced the topic. He said this was the first in a series of minor fixes previously introduced to the Planning Commission. He said there were ten different topics on the list for considera- tion at today’s meeting. Mr. Nystrom reviewed a proposed process for reviewing and accepting the recommended amendments. Mr. Belcher asked if it would be possible to address Mr. Biggs’ concern regarding public notice for proposed changes. Ms. Muir discouraged the Planning Commission from doing a piecemeal, selective outreach, noting that the Planning Commission would be reviewing proposed amendments on a weekly MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2004 Page 3 basis that did not include soliciting public feedback. She said the packets were available to the public at the same time they were available to the Planning Commission. She encouraged public input at the end of the process. Mr. Nystrom noted that there were approximately 200 proposed amendments for Planning Commission review, 150 of which were very minor in nature and were not intended to raise new policy issues. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Muir replied that there were not staff resources available to update the webpage on a regular basis. She added that staff was committed to soliciting comprehensive public input and would undertake whatever outreach activities were necessary to achieve that goal. Ms. Levis returned at 12:20 p.m. Following a lengthy discussion regarding how items would be prioritized and reviewed, Ms. Levis noted there was a head nod acceptance for a majority vote to accept items on the list. In response to Mr. Lawless’ request, no Planning Commissioner wished to remove any proposed amendments put forth today for further discussion. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to accept the list of proposed amendments accompanying the Agenda Item Summary, Subject: Minor Fixes: 2004 Land Use Code Tune-Up, included in the agenda packet. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. IV. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 12, 2004 Ms. Levis said she would not be able to attend the October 12, 2004 public hearing. Ms. Muir showed a video of the April 18, 2004 City Council meeting discussion regarding requirements for cell tower siting. Ms. Muir said the City Attorney’s office had drafted an amendment to the ordinance for Planning Commission and City Council review. She said the Planning Commission was scheduled to have public hearings on October 12, 2004 and November 8, 2004. Jerry Lidz from the City Attorney’s office referred Planning Commission members to the Agenda Item Summary, Amendments to Cell Tower Siting Ordinance, and opened the floor to questions from Commissioners. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Lidz replied that it was clear that Federal law prohibited cities from adopting regulations that either “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,” adding that the intent of the City Council to extend setback for new cell towers up to 1000 feet from the nearest school and 800 feet from the nearest residences was most likely an aesthetic concern. Referring to a wall map, Mr. Lidz said it illustrated the location of schools in relation to cell tower locations. In reply to a question from Mr. Belcher about stealth design, Mr. Lidz replied that it referred to some type of visual screening for cell towers, such as behind the false front of a building. Mr. Belcher asked what was the future need for additional cell towers. Ms. Muir said providers would be at the public hearing and would be able to answer that question. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2004 Page 4 Ms. Muir said that it appeared there would not be a quorum for the Planning Commission October 12, 2004 public hearing and suggested canceling the meeting. By consensus, the Planning Commission decided that it would hold one public hearing on November 8, 2004, that would include the new Planning Commissioners. V. PREP FOR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Ms. Muir distributed copies of the Eugene City Council Agenda Item Summary for the October 20, 2004 annual Joint Meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission. In the interest of time, Ms. Muir asked for three Planning Commissioners to work with her to plan for the session. Commissioners Belcher, Lawless and Levis volunteered to serve in that capacity. Mr. Lidz left at 1:00 p.m. VI. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff There were no other items from Staff. B. Other Items from the Commission Ms. Colbath said she liked the article about Eugene in Planning Magazine. Mr. Lawless adjourned the meeting at 1:05 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc041011.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2004 Page 5