Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue November 15, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Anne Marie Levis, members; Randy Hledik, Planning Commissioner appointee; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Gabe Flock, Kent Kullby, Mike McKerrow, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Richie Weinman, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Terri Harding, visitor. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS II. LAND USE CODE MINOR FIXES Ms. Levis, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved to approve the proposed amendments to the land use code as presented in the agenda packet. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. III. BRIEFING: MEASURE 37 IV. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF NOVEMBER 16, 2004 V. DISCUSSION: HOUSING DISPERSAL POLICY Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to recommend to the Eugene City Council (1) the repeal of a free-standing Housing Dispersal Policy, while adding language in the HUD Consolidated Plan that encouraged low-income housing dispersal throughout the City of Eugene; and (2) recommend that the City Council require the Housing Policy Board to re- port back in five years on all impacts of repealing the policy. The motion passed unani- mously, 5:0. VI. ALTERNATIVE PATH VII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission 1 SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue November 15, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Anne Marie Levis, members; Randy Hledik, Planning Commissioner appointee; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Gabe Flock, Kent Kullby, Mike McKerrow, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Richie Weinman, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Terri Harding, visitor. Mr. Lawless introduced Randy Hledik, a newly appointed Planning Commissioner. Ms. Muir said that Mr. Hledik would be sworn in at the November 16, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners and staff introduced themselves and briefly described their interests and experience. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There was no one present wishing to speak. II. LAND USE CODE MINOR FIXES Mr. Lawless explained the recently adopted procedure for processing Land Use Code Minor Fixes. He said this was a regular agenda item whereby Planning Commissioners had an opportunity to excise any of the proposed changes from a housekeeping update. Ms. Colbath, referring to code section 9.2160, asked how Recreational Vehicle (RV) sales compared to automobile or motorcycle sales in intensity. Mr. Nystrom replied that staff did not see the proposed change as a policy issue, but rather an equity issue among similar types of uses. Mr. Lawless, referring to code section 9.2171(5)(b), asked if a definition had been developed for the term internal private way. Mr. Nystrom responded that a definition had not been developed, but said the term internal private way was intended to describe internal street systems within large commercial centers that had large buildings with internal streets, citing Oakway Center as an example. He explained the types of components they would look for included pedestrian amenities, sidewalks, other access ways within the center, well defined vehicular access ways defined by curbs, sidewalks, and landscaping that created a street system. Mr. Lawless asked if the intent was for the internal streets were intended to be a true substitute for a typical public street. Mr. Nystrom confirmed that was true, adding that without a definition it was difficult to apply the current language on a case-by-case basis. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Page 1 Ms. Colbath asked if the proposed change would allow for more infill to occur. Mr. Nystrom replied that the term addressed practical issues at large developments, of how to deal with building placement and orientation. He added that better infill could occur if developers were striving to do the right thing with internal street systems. Mr. Belcher asked if the code addressed siting that required buildings to face the public street rather than the internal street, adding that he wanted to increase buildings facing the public street. Mr. Nystrom responded there few examples that could be used. Referring to code section 9.6885(2), Mr. Belcher underscored that he wanted the code to specify that the term landscape architect meant landscape architect registered in the State of Oregon. Mr. Nystrom replied the current code specified State of Oregon registration was required. Mr. Duncan, referring to 9.5250(1)(b), asked by the proposed code change restricted the definition to one lot. Mr. McKerrow responded that there had been cases where owners had multiple lots used as one development site. He added that the intent of the proposed language was to provide clarity. He noted the standard could be per development site rather than per lot. He said staff understood the current intention of the code was to read per lot rather than development site. Mr. Nystrom stressed the Planning Commission could review the decision at a later time. Mr. Duncan said the current situation in the River Road/Santa Clara area was that property owners typically owned more than one tax lot that was considered one development site. Ms. Levis, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved to approve the proposed amendments to the land use code as presented in the agenda packet. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Ms. Levis commented that she liked the new process for minor code amendments and felt it was working well. III. BRIEFING: MEASURE 37 Ms. Muir said that the Measure 37 Briefing scheduled for later in the meeting had been pulled from the agenda, noting that the item had been put on the agenda before last week’s City Council public hearing on the item had been postponed. She said there was nothing new to report, and that the City Council would conduct public hearings on November 15 and November 22, 2004, with a possible decision on November 22, 2004. III. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Mr. Kullby distributed a letter from Terri Harding, Satre Associates, the representative of the current owner of the Johansen-Moody House, 370 River Road that contains Amelia’s Antiques store. He noted that Ms. Harding was present. He said that the Planning Commission would conduct a public hearing on November 16, 2004 to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a code amendment and zone change for the property. Mr. Kullby said there were a couple of differences between the draft ordinance prepared by the City Attorney and the ordinance proposed by the applicant on page nine of the agenda packet. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Kullby said that the applicant had requested that the final ordinance contain provisions for specialty retail, and specialty food and beverage uses and had requested that the proposed zoning allow the gravel parking lot to be used. He added that the way the ordinance currently read, allowance to use the gravel parking lot would require an Adjustment Review Process during the building permit process. Mr. Kullby stated that the allowed uses of the proposed one-lot zone were a truncated version of C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning that would not allow all of the uses of a C-1 zone. He reported that the most intense use allowed on the lot would be the specialty food and beverage category because it required the most parking. The limit of 850 square feet for specialty food and beverage uses was the largest area that could be accommodated given the limited parking provided on the site. Allowing 850 square feet is more than the property owner requested. He added that the limit would not allow the entire house to be used for the specialty food and beverage. Mr. Kullby said he had received no public comments on the issue, and had received a telephone call from Rob Handy representing the River Road Community Organization, that indicated general support for the proposal. Ms. Colbath thanked Mr. Kullby for including the historical background on the property in the packet. She asked when the Planning Commission would receive information regarding the historic alteration review timeline. Mr. Kullby replied that staff would wait for the submittal of the building permit to determine if exterior modifications to the building would be required noting that only proposed modifica- tions to the exterior of the building would require the Historic Alteration application. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Kullby clarified that a change of occupancy permit or changes in the interior would not trigger Historic Alternation Review, but changes to the parking lot would trigger a Historic Alteration application. Responding to a question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Kullby stated that the applicant intended to use approximately 600 square feet for specialty food and beverage, adding that approving 850 square feet would allow for some future expansion that would not require additional parking. Mr. Duncan asked if the proposal posed any difficulty with future road improvement projects on River Road. Mr. Kullby replied that the portion of River Road abutting the property had already been improved, and there are no plans for further improvements of River Road in this location. Ms. Muir advised the Planning Commission that arrangements were being made to have a representative from the City Recorder’s office at the November 16, 2004 Planning Commission public hearing to swear in Mr. Hledik, so that a quorum would be available for the hearing. Ms. Muir said she would confirm the meeting with Planning Commissioners. IV. DISCUSSION: HOUSING DISPERSAL POLICY Mr. Weinman provided a brief history of the Housing Dispersal Policy (HDP). He reported that the HDP was adopted by the City of Eugene in 1968 as a result of the first community goals conference. He added that it had been updated on three occasions, most recently in 1996 to make policy changed and to incorporate the 1990 census data. He said the issue came up recently in conjunction with the 2000 census, noting the policy must be updated if it was to be retained. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Page 3 Mr. Weinman said the HDP was the only policy of its kind in Oregon and quite possibly the United States. Referring to a map showing affordable housing sites, he said the policy had served the city well over the years in that housing dispersal had been significantly accomplished. Mr. Weinman said the HDP consisted of two policies: • Policy 1 discouraged city assistance for new rental family housing in census tract block groups that were either predominantly low-income (over 50 percent of all families) or have significant concentrations of subsidized housing (over 20 percent of total housing units). • Policy 2 discouraged city assistance for new rental family housing developments that were larger than 60 units. The City Council could balance the two policies against other city concerns, and allow city assistance to new development that would otherwise violate the HDP. Mr. Weinman reported that the Housing Policy Board (HBP), an intergovernmental group that advised local governments on low-income housing, had recommended that the policy be repealed. Mr. Weinman said he was bringing the HPB recommendation to the Planning Commission because the Planning Commission had provided input on the 1996 HDP update. Mr. Weinman said there were a number of reasons, several of which he cited, for repealing the policy, as noted in the Agenda Item Summary. • When the HDP was created there were very few assisted housing units and there was no signifi- cant dispersal throughout Eugene. Subsidized housing was now located throughout the commu- nity, and the City had a supply of landbanked sites for future housing distributed in a variety of neighborhoods. • The need for low-income housing was acute and the land supply was limited. All opportunities to create new low-income housing should be on the table for examination. Dispersal Policy 1 actu- ally limited site choice, and prevented use of some of the most affordable sites. • Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits were a critical funding source for many subsidized housing projects. Due to changes since the 2000 census, most of Eugene was not eligible for in- creased funding. Ironically, the very areas that were tax credit eligible for a 30% bonus in Fed- eral tax credits, were the areas excluded by the HDP. • The HPB provided an adequate filter to examine developments and their locations and to make recommendations prior to subsidy allocation. Most subsidies were offered after a Request for Proposal (RFP) process that offered ample opportunities for evaluation. The HDP, put into place before the HPB or the RFP process were created, was adopted at a time when most affordable housing development was done by the federal government, with little city support. Now, little af- fordable housing for very low-income families is built without city assistance and HPB support. • The 1968 Community Goals Plan, adopted by the City Council, first proposed a dispersal policy as an aspirational goal, not a prohibition. The plan stated: “Dispersal will, inevitably, be limited by certain considerations and must be tempered by common sense.” Hopefully, that is where the HPB comes in. • New low-income housing has generally proven to be an asset to its neighborhood when properly constructed and well maintained. HPB supported projects historically were well-designed, con- structed, maintained, and managed. Based on experience, new affordable housing developments enhance their neighborhoods. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Page 4  • The policy conflicted with other city goals that encouraged greater density, especially in city- center neighborhoods. • The policy was potentially limiting in some neighborhoods, such as downtown, where there were few total housing units, but where the existence of one or two subsidized developments made the area ineligible for future assistance – even though it was zoned for higher density housing. • The policy may be an impediment to Fair Housing law, in that the policy discriminated against families with children, by singling them out for limitations. Mr. Weinman said there was a minority opinion on the HPB in favor of retaining the policy, citing several reasons: • If it was not broken it does not need to be fixed. • It was a tool that should be held on to. • Over time there was a risk that there would be less dispersal without the policy. Mr. Weinman stated that staff was proposing that the concept of housing dispersal had merit and it should be incorporated into the City Council adopted Consolidated Plan that is submitted to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Referring to the October 4, 2004 HPB minutes, Ms. Levis observed that Ms. Cuellar and Mr. Van Landingham questioned whether the HDP was a tool to stop projects or enable projects to move forward. She added that the policy had become outdated and had been replaced with more effective tools including the HPB. She supported the elimination of the HDP as proposed by the HBP. Mr. Lawless opined that he liked the idea of keeping the spirit of the policy, and supported folding it into another policy, noting that the results of the HDP over more than 20 years had been very successful. He felt confident this was the right action. Mr. Belcher asked what was the percentage of the substantial tax bonus in eligible areas. Mr. Weinman said it was almost one third more money. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Weinman stated that the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program is a complicated IRS tool provided a significant tax shelter for corporations that owned low-income housing and in the process provides substantial equity for new developments. Mr. Weinman added that the State of Oregon allocated tax credits through a competitive process for projects that created an infusion of capital into low-income housing projects that allowed for lower rent payments. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding concentration of low-income housing, Mr. Weinman replied that repeal of the policy would potentially allow some housing to be built in neighbor- hoods such as Whiteaker and Trainsong, although there were landbanked sites all over Eugene. Mr. Weinman added that some neighborhoods would be enhanced by new investment in rental housing. Mr. Belcher said he agreed with Mr. Doppelt, a member of the HPB, that the HDP was a good policy that had served the city well, and should be retained. Anecdotally, he added that as a member of the City Club racism sub-committee, he had participated in discussions about the unfortunate leafleting that recently occurred in the Churchill neighborhood. He said some members of the sub-committee felt that the high densities of R-3/R-4 housing in the neighborhood contributed to development of those types of attitudes. He added that George Russell, Superintendent of the Eugene School District 4-J, recently spoke to the City Club regarding issues of economic segregation in the school district. Mr. Russell said it was beginning to look like unintentional segregation by race was occurring in the community. Mr. Belcher emphasized the need for the Planning Commission to seek ways to help the community remain heteroge- MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Page 5 neous. Mr. Duncan said he understood that the nature of the tax credit program resulted in large projects due to the complexity of the tax credit process. He added that there was not sufficient land in the Whiteaker or Trainsong neighborhoods that could be used for larger projects. He noted that the literature indicated the tax credits had created a positive impact in some low-income neighborhoods, due to requirements that units be well constructed and had moved away from cinder block buildings. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Weinman explained that the shaded area on the Housing Dispersal Policy Eligibility Map 1990 Census indicated block groups that were not eligible for family subsidized housing due to existing low-income concentrations. He added that he believed that Mr. Doppelt supported the notion of not having a sixty unit limit in the policy. Ms. Colbath supported low-income housing that was integrated into the neighborhoods. She asked if the Woodleaf Village would have been built without the HDP. Mr. Weinman explained that there was a lot of pressure to develop low-income housing in south Eugene that was certainly reinforced by the HDP. Ms. Colbath expressed concern that there would not be enough teeth in a policy that was folded into the Consolidated Plan. Mr. Weinman explained the existing HDP precluded low-income housing develop- ment in some neighborhoods, citing the recent purchase of several Eugene School District 4-J properties for landbanking sites. He said the City did not purchase Whiteaker School because the HDP prohibited development of additional low-income housing in that neighborhood. He said some neighbors argued that it would have been a positive move to have new, higher quality, low-income rental housing in the neighborhood. In response to Mr. Belcher’s concerns, Mr. Weinman suggested that the Planning Commission motion could contain specific language regarding dispersal of low-income housing throughout the community for inclusion in the Consolidated Plan. Ms. Levis remarked that the HPB did not exist when the HDP was developed. She said things had changed and an outmoded plan prevented the city from doing good things. Mr. Lawless expressed concern that a viable project would be turned down due to the current HDP, adding that he supported eliminating the specific barriers to desired development. In response to a concern expressed by Mr. Belcher, Mr. Duncan observed that land costs generally represented approximately one percent of project costs, noting that the value of real estate in the community was growing rampantly. Mr. Duncan said he did not want to have a policy that precluded purchase of available land. Mr. Belcher saw both sides of the argument compelling, and he wanted to recommend to the City Council that the HPB report to the City Council in five years on the effectiveness of eliminating the HDP as a stand alone policy, while incorporating the concept and intent into The Consolidated Plan. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to recommend to the Eugene City Council (1) the repeal of a free-standing Housing Dispersal Policy, while adding language in the HUD Consolidated Plan that encouraged low-income housing dispersal throughout the City of Eugene; and (2) recommend that the City Council request the Housing Policy Board to re- port back in five years on all impacts of repealing the policy. The motion passed unani- MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Page 6  mously, 5:0. V. ALTERNATIVE PATH Ms. Muir distributed a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated November 15, 2004, Subject: Alternate Path, for use as a discussion starting point in a brainstorm session initiated at the October 20, 2004 joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. She explained the goal was to answer the following questions: • What was the alternate path? • What problem were we trying to solve by this? • What opportunity were we trying to create? • What were the goals of the alternate path? Ms. Muir said the Planning Commission had agreed to provide a memorandum to the City Council describing some options with a recommendation on what the commission would do to come up with an alternate path. She noted the goal was not to embark on the solution, but rather to develop a set of recommendations for council consideration. She added that there would be further discussions for moving forward on recommendations. The Planning Commission engaged in a lively discussion and developed the following list in response to the questions identified by Ms. Muir: • Not able to achieve the densities we want. • Current codes and plans have no vision (extend to City). • Not enough flexibility in code to achieve vision. • Process for community to agree. • We need to identify facts about what we may lose. • We are pushing development outside of Eugene because it is too difficult to build/buy in Eugene. • No creativity in housing design (design materials). • Don’t balance competing values with public support. • Current path pushes opposition to back of process without anything to stop it; we often don’t know what real problem is. • Timeframe for developers is prohibitive to consensus process when problems arise. • Need early buy-in on permitting process. • Lack of community understanding that growth is coming (2050). • We have an “if” mentality not “when”. • No incentive to work with neighborhoods. • Don’t have any good examples or even consensus on what is “good”. • Eugene is stuck. • Process is currently very easy to stop by neighbors. • We lack an ability to negotiate when disagreement occurs between developers/neighbors. • Perception that most controversial projects are “high density”. • Neighbors’ perception is too much too fast. • Lack of involvement at early stages. • Opportunities MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Page 7  o We want to gain support for new ideas about increasing density to stay within UGB • Need mandatory engagement by neighbors. • We don’t do neighborhood by neighborhood codes with buy-in. • Good projects may never have community/neighborhood buy-in. • No ability for give and take with developers. • Easier to do bad development. • Fear that change diminishes quality of life. • No sense of certainty in current code. • GMS was just first step, we don’t know what that means on the ground. Need to answer “how”. • Engaged Community • Engaged and worried • Range Engaged and not worried • Don’t care – majority of community • Our community doesn’t care about planning, on the whole (competing priorities.) • Need to move with what we have. • Have no examples of this, could mixed use be the solution • Setting numerical standards is not facilitating “good” development in our city. • Tools are identified, vision is not • Excess protectionism waters down what we want • Lack of balance for competing quality of life issues (in-fill vs. UGB expansion) • Sense that there is no desire for change/development even after conceptual buy-in. • Lack of trust that change can happen and can be accepted. • Bogged down in minutia Ms. Muir explained that staff was researching alternate path visioning in other communities. She added that staff would distill the brainstorm information into a problem that could be articulated to the City Council. She said staff would bring forward options to the Planning Commission for discussion on clarifying the alternate path. Mr. Duncan expressed a desire to have the information far enough in advance of the meeting to allow to adequate time to study the material. VI. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Mr. Lawless inquired about the City Council meeting scheduled for later this evening. Ms. Muir replied that the Planning Commission issue was first on the agenda at 7:30 p.m. and explained the procedure. Mr. Lawless said he would be present to serve as a resource if needed. Ms. Colbath reported that the University of Oregon/City of Eugene liaison committee would meet in December. She asked that Planning Commissioners forward any questions or concerns to her in advance. Mr. Duncan reported that the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) met two weeks ago, and had discussed changes in downtown zoning and parking issues, that would be coming to the Planning MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Page 8 Commission in the near future. Ms. Muir reminded the Planning Commission that it needed to appoint a Historic Review Board (HRB) liaison. Ms. Muir reviewed the upcoming Planning Commission calendar: • November 16, 2004 Planning Commission meeting would be held in the Sloat Room. • The November 22, 2004 Planning Commission meeting had been cancelled, with the next Plan- ning Commission meeting scheduled for December 6, 2004. • Downtown Housing Policy Analysis had been rescheduled for December 6, 2004. • Appeal tentatively scheduled for December 6, 2004 with public hearing tentatively scheduled on December 7, 2004. • Retirement party for outgoing Planning Commissioners Adell McMillan and Chuck Rusch on December 8, 2004 at the Downtown Athletic Center (DAC). B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Duncan observed that the November 16, 2004 Planning Commission public hearing conflicted with a major neighborhood meeting regarding the Chambers project at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Muir thought the public hearing may be over in time to allow interested Planning Commissioners to attend the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Lawless adjourned the meeting at 1:35 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc041115.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Page 9