Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue December 13, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Hudspeth, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Allen Lowe, Mike McKerrow, Heather O’Donnell, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Mark Schoening, Public Works Department; John Huberd, Patty Boyle, Glen Svendsen, Central Services; Carol DeFazio, Esther Foss, Paul Conte, Chambers Node Reconsidered Neighbors; Linda Swisher, Neighborhood Leadership Council; Phil Carroll, Eugene Tree Foundation; Greg Brokaw, Powell Brokaw Architects; Kevin Matthews, Friends of Eugene; Ann Vaughn, guests. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 8, 2004 Ms. Colbath moved, seconded by Mr. Belcher, to approve the minutes of the November 8, 2004, meeting as amended. The motion passed unanimously. II. LAND USE CODE MINOR FIXES III. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF DECEMBER 14, 2004 IV. CHAMBERS RECONSIDERED PROGRESS REPORT V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Planning Commission Schedule B. Historic Review Board Appointment C. Other Items from Commission and Staff 1 SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue December 13, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Hudspeth, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Allen Lowe, Ken Guzowski, Mike McKerrow, Heather O’Donnell, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Mark Schoening, , Public Works Department; John Huberd, Patty Boyle, Glen Svendsen Central Services; Carol DeFazio, Esther Foss, Paul Conte, Chambers Node Reconsidered Neighbors; Linda Swisher, Neighborhood Leadership Council; Phil Carroll, Eugene Tree Foundation; Greg Brokaw, Powell Brokaw Architects; Kevin Matthews, Friends of Eugene; Ann Vaughn, guests. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. Mr. Lawless convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:36 a.m. He welcomed Phillip Hudspeth, who had just been sworn in, to the Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Carol DeFazio, 1437 West 10th Avenue, called herself an investor in the Chambers Node Neighborhood as she had been a resident there since 1978. She said her investment had been in terms of her heart and soul. She had bought a rental house, fixed it up, and given birth to and raised a child in it. She had been involved in the Chambers Node Revisited project. She felt the neighborhood was fragile and expressed her hope that the project would do something to address the problems associated with infill. Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway Street, spoke as president of the Friends of Eugene. He complained that the public meetings calendar had not been updated and the Planning Commission meeting had not been posted. He also complained that Planning Commission activities were difficult to find through the City Web site. He said indexes linked him to Planning applications. He underscored that he was an expert Web user and Web developer and had not been able to find any Planning Commission information. Continuing, Mr. Matthews said his main reason for speaking was to express serious concerns about the Land Use Code minor amendments process. He noted he had been able to find a page on the City Web site on Land Use Code amendments and the bold red text indicated there were no such amendments being considered. He called this a serious legal problem. However, this was not his main point. He alleged that the main process, as conceived, did not allow either public input or Planning Commission consideration commensurate to the content of the code amendments. He commented that he had heard statements that indicated the proposed minor amendments were going through a screening process and then directly to a public hearing because they only dealt with corrections. He asserted this was not true MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 1 citing, as an example, a proposed change that would redefine allowable canopy trees to include some coniferous trees. He said while this may be a good idea, it clearly represented a policy change. He felt that in many of the small amendments one could not tell from the information provided how much of the change might be a correction and how much might be a policy revision. He averred that, by getting these amendments in “little batches,” with conceptual language, there was no way for the Planning Commission or involved citizens to understand the cumulative effect. He suggested a situation was being set up with this process wherein there would be a large amount of code language on a large amount of small changes with unintended consequences and angry people. He opined it was not a constructive process. He wanted the commission to “get out the changes, look at the Code language, and have interaction along the way.” He suggested that with many small changes “you guys don’t know what you’re getting.” Esther Foss, 1457 West 10th Avenue, thanked Allen Lowe and his design team for providing an open and constructive public forum as part of the Chambers Node Reconsidered project. She noted it was the third time this had been addressed and expressed hope that it would be the last. She said she had been an architect for over 15 years and had served as a facilitator for planning projects not unlike this project. She commented that being on the other side of the process had clarified for her the challenge capturing fully the concerns of affected residents presented. She thought the design preference survey process was objective, showing respondents a set of inputs for images and providing a set of outputs for feedback. She felt this limited the process. She conveyed the neighborhood’s wariness of participating in the survey as they felt their responses could be misinterpreted as a level of acceptance for impacts to the neighborhood that could “ultimately destroy it.” She said the neighborhood’s participation was only one of the ways they hoped to provide public input on how Eugene’s current infill policies were contributing to the decline of older, established neighborhoods. She related that a group of families from the neighborhood had undertaken the task of filling in some of the missing pieces from the consultants’ report, for presentation in the initial report from the neighborhood. She hoped the Planning Commission would support the collaborative effort by neighbors and the project team to establish design standards intended to protect the quality of the neighborhood. Paul Conte, 1461 West 10th Avenue, submitted his testimony in writing and read it into the record. He thanked Allen Lowe and the consultants working on the Chambers Node Revisited project. He related that the project team had impressed many of the neighbors with what seemed to be a genuine good faith effort to create effective input standards as part of this project. He averred that the destructive impact of infill in the Westside Neighborhood had been an issue for many years. He conveyed the neighborhood’s hope that the project would be an opportunity to prevent, or at least reduce, bad infill. He said a group of households had been collaborating to identify infill impacts and to identify standards for infill development. He stated that the neighborhood had set up a Web site with examples of “good, bad, and ugly infill in Eugene.” He commented that there were three areas in the Chambers Node area that needed special consideration, though some solutions might work for all three. Mr. Lawless asked staff to respond to assertions about the Web page. Ms. Muir stated that the Planning and Development Department (PDD) now had a new Web page at www.EugenePlanning.org and most of the links contained in it were working. She said she could not speak to the Meetings Calendar, which was administered by the City Manager’s Office. Regarding the small amendment “clean-ups,” Ms. Muir stated that there was a list of over 200 and one of the suggestions had been that they would come before the Planning Commission in small batches. She said there would be a citizen review process, the plan for which would come before the Planning Commission for review and approval. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 2 Ms. Colbath asked that staff convey the concern expressed about the Meetings Calendar to the City Manager’s Office. The minutes recorder agreed to do so. Ms. Colbath conveyed her appreciation to the neighborhood representatives who spoke for their work on this project. Regarding the Land Use Code, she asked what the process would be should significant policy changes be uncovered during the review. Ms. Muir responded that it would be part of the commission’s review and the commission could add or subtract items, should it be felt that some required more substantive review. Mr. Belcher asked if there was a link to the new Web site on the City’s Web page. Ms. Muir replied that there was a link by Services. She noted that the Information Services Director had testified before the City Council regarding a complete update to the City’s Web page. In response to another question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Muir said staff wanted to be able to print all of the minor code amendments on the Web page, but at the moment was pleased to be able to keep up with Planning Commission agendas and minutes. She reiterated that having adequate staff to meet the demands of all aspects of the Planning Division was an ongoing challenge. Mr. Belcher asked if there was a mechanism by which citizens and people other than staff could recommend minor code changes. Mr. Nystrom replied that staff had discussed different approaches, one of which was to split the process into two pieces and begin with the more minor elements of the changes. He said the commission could choose how it wanted to handle the situation beyond this and what sort of outreach it would want to pursue. He underscored that no one was rejecting changes to the code change process, but staff was unprepared, prior to the ascertainment of how public involvement would be defined, to receive an abundance of citizen comments. Ms. Muir added that the City Manager’s and the City Recorder’s offices had a laser fiche which enabled them to scan in the City Council packet and other documents and place them onto the Web page. She said staff had been looking for funding for similar equipment and hoped to be able to publish the Planning Commission packets on the Web at a future date. When this could be afforded, it would greatly enable staff to maintain the Web site in addition to their other duties. Mr. Lawless stressed that it was not the intent of the Planning Commission to exclude input from anyone through the minor code amendment process. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 8, 2004 Mr. Lawless noted that Adell McMillan had been incorrectly listed as absent when, in fact, she was no longer serving on the commission as of October 21. Mr. Belcher expressed concern that it was not clear from the minutes on page 6 that language from a friendly amendment had been incorporated into the main motion. The friendly amendment should be indented four inches and the main motion restated with the amendment. Mr. Belcher offered the following correction to page 7, bottom paragraph: • “Mr. Belcher noted that he lived less than 100 feet from the Faith Center 500 feet from the subject property owned by the Faith Center and did not wish to participate in any MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 3  deliberations that might occur.” Mr. Lawless offered the following correction to page 5, paragraph 9: • “In response to a question from Ms. Levis regarding whether an evening hearing should be held…” Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Belcher, to approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 8, 2004, as amended. The motion passed unanimously. II. LAND USE MINOR CODE FIXES Mr. Nystrom explained that three years earlier the Land Use Code had been “overhauled.” Since then, he related that staff had been cataloging areas in the code that contained minor conflicts, unclear language, and some minor scrivener errors. He said there were a little over 200 areas which had been broken into two groups, the first of which were those that, though minor in nature and though they did not raise major policy concerns, hindered the ability of the code to meet its intent. Approximately two-thirds of the minor code amendments fell under that category. He stated that staff intended to bring batches of these amendments forward in order to utilize the Planning Commission as a sorting mechanism. He underscored that staff was deliberately not bringing forward precise code language at this point. He said the discussions at hand were the precursor to the public process. Any items determined by the Planning Commission to have more significance, meriting a different level of discussion and action, would be pulled from the queue. He averred that some of the code changes were in the “grey area” and staff was uncertain of what level of scrutiny was warranted. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Nystrom affirmed that the other third of the amendments would require a greater level of consideration and discussion. He said staff would determine, with help from the Planning Commission, how to address the public process for these amendments. Ms. Colbath asked when the legal implications of the code amendments would be known. Mr. Nystrom responded that staff was in contact with the City Attorney’s office and would send copies of all of the proposals as they were sent through the Planning Commission. Mr. Hledik requested copies of the previously covered issues. Staff agreed to provide both new commissioners copies. Mr. Lawless cautioned staff regarding the revised minimum setback for rowhouses. He recommended they talk to the development and design community prior to setting a firm number for it. Mr. Belcher recalled a significant discussion on the present requirement that such lots be 50 feet wide. He felt this could be a larger policy question and not a minor amendment. Mr. Nystrom commented that a rowhouse by definition is attached to the house next to it. He opined that making rowhouse lots 50 feet wide would make a very wide rowhouse. He said if one looked at the R-1.5 zone, it set forth similar provisions with a 20-foot width that made sense. He felt that the retention of language regarding a 50-foot lot width had been an oversight. Mr. Duncan wondered if the 50-foot lot actually dealt with the development lot. Mr. Nystrom replied that MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 4 it was couched in the table that discussed new lot standards on rowhouse lots. Moving on, Mr. Duncan was concerned that eliminating the 13,500 square feet flag lot size as if it was insignificant did not make sense given the “enormous” amount of discussion the Planning Commission had on the topic. Mr. Nystrom responded that staff was not proposing to eliminate the maximum lot size. Rather, staff had run into “sidebar issues,” such as how to apply it to property line adjustments to existing lots with existing homes. He conveyed staff’s suggestion that the 13,500 square foot requirement be maintained for new lots but relaxed for existing lots. He said there were existing standards for flag lots and the 13,500 square foot requirement did not jive with those standards. He suggested that, should the Planning Commission feel those standards were wrong, they should make recommendations as to how they should be changed. He stressed that, as written, the two standards conflicted. Ms. Colbath commented that her “acid test” for whether an item was a minor code amendment or a policy change was whether something that could not be done would be enabled by the code change. Mr. Nystrom said the number difference, in terms of how much land was needed for a flag lot partition versus the 13,500 square foot standard, was not a wide gap. He noted that if one did the math one would arrive at circa 12,500 square feet of driveways and lot areas to do the minimal amount for a flag lot partition, but occasionally parcels came in with a number that was between the two. Ms. Muir suggested, given the weighty agenda, that this item be tabled until the next meeting. The Planning Commission was amenable to this. III. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF DECEMBER 14, 2004 Patty Boyle, senior financial analyst for the Financial Services Division, highlighted the Draft Capital Improvement Program FY 2006-2011. She said the plan contained both funded and unfunded programs within all areas with the exception of the airport. She noted that the largest unfunded project was the second phase of the City Hall building. She underscored that the process was open to community input. She related that in the past staff held public forums and they had not been successful. She stated that draft plans had been sent to the neighborhood councils along with an invitation to have a staff group attend a neighborhood meeting and gather input to bring back to the City Council. She said this was also to inform the public where they could get involved in the process earlier on, adding that most of the projects had been subjected to the public review process on an individual basis. Mr. Lawless suggested the commission ask questions that would help it prepare for the pending hearing, scheduled for the following evening, December 14, 2004. Ms. Colbath commended staff for not extending the City’s debt to the debt service limit. Regarding page 46, the airport terminal building expansion, Ms. Colbath asked what sort of survey had indicated there was a need for the expansion. Mark Schoening, engineer for the Public Works Department, responded that he did not have a specific response, other than it was in the Airport Master Plan. He said he would consult airport management and provide her with a more specific answer. Ms. Boyle related that projects such as the airport expansion and others like it tended to be refined as they were undertaken. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Belcher recalled that he had asked this same question six years earlier when reviewing the Airport Master Plan as a Planning Commissioner. Ms. Colbath noted there was much ongoing discussion regarding the proposed land swap between the McDougal brothers’ development firm and the City for land in the Santa Clara area. She said she had not seen any funding for it included in the CIP. She asked if this was an omission. Ms. Boyle explained that if it was funding that was approved in a prior year it would not appear in the draft CIP. Mr. Duncan interjected that given that it was still under discussion and the City had not committed to go ahead with the swap. Mr. Schoening noted that funding for a park in the Santa Clara had been included in the Parks and Open Space bond. Regarding the Patterson underpass project, Ms. Colbath asked where this idea had come from. Mr. Schoening responded that this had resulted from a council directive to aid the hospital in locating on the EWEB property. He said the hospital had specified that it needed another access way. Ms. Colbath related that she had attended the architectural design charrette for the new City Hall. She commented that, while the CIP indicated it would be built on 8th Avenue, the majority at the charrette had not wanted it to be situated there. She thought there might be more discussion on the appropriate location for it. Division Manager for Public Works Facilities Division, Glen Svendsen, responded that the council had indicated after the vote that it wished to see a proposal for a master plan process for this project. He said the focus was on developing a community consensus. He called the project in the CIP a “flag” to indicate the City’s wish to continue movement toward constructing a new Civic Center. Ms. Colbath recommended using the charrette as a resource. In regard to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Svendsen explained that existing deficiencies were immediate needs and pending deficiencies were things that needed to be addressed within two to five years. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding funding for transportation projects, Mr. Schoening said in transportation there was an assumption that Eugene would be successful in competing for federal funding, allocated through the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). He cited, as an example of federal money that was anticipated, that some of the funding was in the transportation bill that was stalled prior to the presidential election and would be taken up in 2005. Mr. Hledik stated that he was with a contracting firm that did some Public Works projects and so he had consulted with Ms. Muir and the City Attorney to determine if there was a conflict of interest. He related that the City Attorney thought there was a potential conflict of interest, but that as the commission was only making recommendations to the council, it would not preclude him from weighing in on the item. Ms. Muir noted that the attorney had indicated that Mr. Hledik was not legally required to disclose anything in this regard. Mr. Hledik asked what the status of the Chad Drive project. Mr. Schoening replied that it had been previously funded and the City was proceeding with the design. He said ODOT was acquiring property for the Beltline Road/Interstate 5 interchange which would affect the amount of money the City would pay for the right of way. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 6 In response to another question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Schoening said the north side of the Judkins Point project was a City project and would be built in the coming spring and the piece on the south side was a condition of approval for the Moon Mountain project. Mr. Hledik asked it there were any City rights of way that needed to be constructed prior to the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) construction. Mr. Schoening responded that nothing was needed in Phase 1 of the project. IV. CHAMBERS RECONSIDERED PROGRESS REPORTS Mr. Lowe introduced Greg Brokaw, a member of the consultant team working with the Chambers Node Reconsidered project. He provided a brief historical overview of the process for the two new commissioners. From the first community process in developing a node, which had not gone forward, Mr. Lowe related that staff had developed a good relationship with a lot of the area residents. He said staff had isolated a few issues mentioned by neighborhood residents, themselves, that staff thought might successfully be moved forward. He averred there was some support for development of compatibility standards for infill and redevelopment projects, support for creating guidelines for development in the neighborhood, and support for potential projects that would improve pedestrian conditions in the neighborhood. Mr. Lowe called attention to the Visual Design Preferences Survey contained in commission packets. He shared staff’s hope that most of the issues would be resolved prior to preparation of the final report. He said the neighbors had reviewed the survey and provided a great deal of feedback. He reported that staff and the neighborhood had a productive dialogue. He stated that staff would be returning to the commission in February with a recommendation that 24 people be selected to participate in a design charrette and focus group process that would enable staff to test the design standards that Mr. Brokaw’s firm was working on. Mr. Lowe noted that the Planning Commission had discussed the Alternate Path at its previous meeting. He said staff would attempt to formulate a solution, if not the solution, to the Alternate Path problem. Mr. Lowe indicated the different zones on a map. He stated that the primary issue in planning was that the Metro Plan designated this neighborhood as having higher density residential development than currently existed there. He described the area as having primarily 1930s-1940s housing which had a certain character defined by the grid street system, the existence of alleys, and lot sizes. He said inappropriate infill would change the character of the neighborhood. In recognition of this, he related that staff and the neighborhood group were working to identify where the current standards created the issues of incompatibility that neighbors were concerned about. Mr. Duncan commented that there had been approximately 35 to 50 members of the public at the meeting. He asked if there had been a cross section of the neighborhood represented at the meeting. Mr. Brokaw responded that, while he was uncertain statistically, he had observed there to be mostly neighborhood residents present. Mr. Lowe added that staff understood there was not enough adequate input from the business interests or the development community and was planning some specific outreach to such stakeholders. Mr. Duncan remarked that he was always amazed at the number of people that would show up at a public hearing and state that they had not been informed of the subject at hand. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 7 Mr. Lawless noted that, initially, 1,700 notices had been sent out. He said one idea had been to divide them into subgroups so that a followup could be conducted. Mr. Lowe responded that, at this point, staff was limited by resources and currently only working with the people who had indicated an interest in the subject, but that there would be outreach to the businesses and their tenants. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Brokaw thought the survey, as a tool, had worked well, but not by itself. He said the neighborhood meeting was crucial to the success of the process. He noted, as an example, that the survey did not provide an adequate opportunity to provide feedback on landscaping issues. He related that primary concern expressed by neighbors that participated had to do with the R-1 development in the R-2 zone and their concerns about infill development. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Lowe stated that the grant did not include a marketing survey, though staff had information from a similar survey conducted five years earlier. He said there would be a meeting in the coming month that sought to bring together a group of bankers, developers, and real estate professionals to discuss the limitations of the code and the administrative processes on infill. Mr. Hledik noted that the metro residential density goal was six units per acre and asked if it was higher for this area. Mr. Lowe replied that the code required a minimum of ten and a maximum of 20 units per acre. He commented that the mixed use development concept had roots in the TransPlan and had intended to facilitate transportation. He added that how long the current urban growth boundary (UGB) could remain intact had a direct relationship to the City’s ability to develop compactly and that infill and redevelopment were critical components of compact development. Mr. Hledik asked Mr. Lowe to give his sense of how a development similar to the Broadway Place development would be received and whether such a mixed use development would be acceptable to the neighborhood. Mr. Lowe replied that he had not heard any objections to mixed use development, only concerns as to how it would be executed. Mr. Brokaw added that the scale, use, and density would not be an issue if developed in an “ugly” area. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Lowe said there had been “solid” involvement by those residents who lived east of Chambers Street and some involvement by those who were west of Chambers Street. Mr. Belcher asked if people felt they were being heard in the process. Mr. Lowe asked neighborhood member, Paul Conte, to speak to this. Mr. Conte said it had been a good process. He also recognized that the City was limited by time and money. He thought it interesting that there had been a history within the neighborhood of wariness and negative views of the City because of things that had transpired in the past. He felt that Mr. Lowe’s process had done much to mitigate this. Mr. Lawless asked if staff had found anything in the visual survey that was not intuitive. Mr. Brokaw responded that he had been surprised at some of the things that were thought to be obvious and those things that were not. He commented that perhaps he and staff members should have taken the survey first to see if their responses were similar to those of the neighborhood participants. Ms. Colbath commented that it did not seem that there was enough park space in relation to the number of people who live in that area. She underscored the importance of having adequate parkspace. Mr. Belcher left the meeting at 1:17 p.m. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 8 Mr. Lowe recalled that this had come up within discussions held in 1997 and 1998. He stressed that the current process was limited to how the code could be amended to enable infill and redevelopment projects to happen in a satisfactory way. He said should this process be successful, the neighborhood may take the next step forward to fully implement mixed use development and, at that point, parks would need to be addressed. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Yeiter said the landscape was one of the features that defined that area. He recalled from the first round of planning in the area that the lack of park space had not been as much of a concern as public safety in the park had been. He pointed out that many of the people who lived east of Chambers Street preferred the park by Patterson Elementary School and even Monroe Park. Mr. Lawless commented that he considered the public spaces to be more of an urban park if they were constructed well. Mr. Lowe responded that area residents seemed to be interested in the landscape qualities of new buildings and in the landscape qualities of the public realm, such as street trees within the street right-of-way. Mr. Hledik opined that the research memorandum would help with future examination of the Alternative Path. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Planning Commission Schedule Ms. Muir called attention to the memorandum regarding the scheduled meetings for the Planning Commission in 2005. She indicated her commitment to keeping the meetings to twice a month. B. Historic Review Board Appointment Ms. Muir suggested this item be postponed until the full commission could be present. Mr. Lawless asked Mr. Guzowski to provide a brief overview of the Historic Review Board (HRB). He explained that it met on the 4th Thursday of the month at 8 a.m., approximately nine months a year. He noted that one upcoming project slated for the coming year was a historical project on the River Road area. Mr. Hledik asked if the Planning Commission representative position could be a rotating position. Ms. Muir indicated she would refer to the bylaws and bring the discussion back to the Planning Commission. C. Other Items from Commission and Staff Ms. Muir reported that the City Council had approved several minor surgical revisions to the Cell Tower Ordinance, requiring an independent consultant to be hired for every new cell tower application and that the consultant shall be paid for by the applicant. She said the council had instructed the City Manager to return with the scope of work that a review of setbacks and a few other sections would require. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 9 Ms. Muir also reported that the Laurel Hill application had been denied by the City Council. She was uncertain at this point if there would be an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Ms. Muir stated that staff had gone before the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) on Friday in regard to a pond located on private property. She said the City was remanded to exclude the pond from the Goal 5 inventory, with the exception of the half of the pond that lay within the City limits. She predicted the entire pond would be pulled from the Goal 5 inventory. Ms. Muir related that there were no Ballot Measure 37 claims thus far, though all of the forms and applications had been taken. Continuing, Ms. Muir registered her intent to continue the Planning Commission’s “Council Buddies.” She said once the new councilors were seated and the full commission was present, buddies would be picked or assigned. Mr. Hledik requested further information regarding mixed use centers. Mr. Lowe responded that the City’s Web site would have information about this. Mr. Duncan offered to discuss this item with Mr. Hledik. Mr. Lawless welcomed the new commissioner and then adjourned the meeting at 1:32 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc041213.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 10