Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue January 10, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis ,members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Mark Schoening, Public Works Department; John Huberd, Patty Boyle, Glen Svendsen, Cen- tral Services. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, member. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – October 11, November 16, and December 6, 2004. Ms. Colbath moved, seconded by Ms. Levis, to approve the minutes of the Octo- ber 11, 2004 meeting as written, and to approve the minutes of November 16, 2004 and December 6, 2004 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. II. LAND USE CODE MINOR FIXES III. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIVERATION/ACTION: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Mr. Hledik , to recommend to the City Council that funding for traffic calming, residential street lighting and residential street trees be moved from the unfunded category to the funded category. Mr. Lawless offered a friendly amendment to the motion to include traffic pedestrian access ramps, and to prioritize mixed used pedestrian amenities in the funded category. Mr. Belcher and Mr. Hledik accepted Mr. Lawless’ friendly amendment. The motion passed 4:0:2, with Ms. Colbath and Ms. Levis abstaining. Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Mr. Hledik , to recommend to the City Council that the Neighborhood Needs Analysis be reinstituted as part of the CIP. The motion passed 4:0:2, with Ms. Colbath and Ms. Levis abstaining. 1 SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2005 Page 1  Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Mr. Hledik , to recommend approval of the CIP to the City Council with the recommendations made at the meeting. The motion passed 4:0:2, with Ms. Colbath and Ms. Levis abstaining. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission 2 SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2005 Page 2  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis ,members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Depart- ment; Mark Schoening, Public Works Department; John Huberd, Patty Boyle, Glen Svendsen, Central Services. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, member. Mr. Lawless convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:30 a.m. Ms. Colbath and Ms. Levis said they had not attended the December 14, 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Capital Improvement Plan, and would neither participate in the discussion nor vote on the issue at today’s meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Lawless noted that there was no one from the public present who wished to comment on non-agenda items. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – October 11, November 16, and December 6, 2004. There were no corrections to the October 11, 2004 minutes. Mr. Lawless offered the following correction to page 1, paragraph 5 of the November 16 minutes: • “Mr. Lawless called the called the meeting to order and welcomed newly sworn in Plan- ning Commissioner Randy Hledik.” Mr. Hledik offered the following correction to page 3, paragraph 12 of the December 6, 2004 minutes: • “Mr. Hledik, referring to the city density average of 5.7 units per square acerage net acre cited on page 57, asked if the overall metro goal was 6 units.” Mr. Belcher offered the following correction to page 1, paragraph 4 of the December 6, 2004 minutes: • “Mr. Belcher noted several references to the Westside Neighbors or Jefferson Neighbors should be corrected to read “Westside-Jefferson Neighbors” Jefferson-Westside Neighbors as the two associations had been combined.” Mr. Belcher offered the following correction to page 2, paragraph 7 of the December 6, 2004 minutes: • “Mr. Belcher expressed apprehension requested that the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors’ concerns about the effectiveness of the Westside mixed use area’s protection of residential MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2005 Page 1  use be accurately conveyed if by the October 28, 2004, meeting minutes were incorpo- rated in the DAHPA. Mr. Belcher offered the following correction to page 3, paragraph 4 of the December 6, 2004 minutes: • “Mr. Belcher stated that the document should indicate that the neighborhood boundaries and refinement plan boundaries did not coincide.” Ms. Colbath moved, seconded by Ms. Levis, to approve the minutes of the Octo- ber 11, 2004 meeting as written, and to approve the minutes of November 16, 2004 and December 6, 2004 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. II. LAND USE CODE MINOR FIXES Mr. Lawless explained the process for Land Use Code Minor Fixes. Referring to Eugene Code 9.2760 (table) proposed amendment, Mr. Lawless expressed concern that the proposed solution of minimum lot width for R-1 rowhouse lots of 20 feet was too wide, and that 14 or 15 feet was quite common and fairly efficient. Mr. Nystrom responded that 20 feet came from the existing R 1.5 zoning standard. Referring to Eugene Code 9.6610(1) proposed amendment, Ms. Colbath asked if staff had checked with the City Attorney regarding the legality of the proposed change. She said in addition to free speech issues, there were enforcement issues regarding how long political signs could be posted. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding Eugene Code 9.2760 proposed amendment, Mr. Nystrom replied that the minimum standard already existed for lots in the Code, and that the existing requirement was duplicative. Ms. Levis said the size had been a contentious issue in the past, and 13,500 square feet had been a negotiated settlement with the City Council. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Lawless noted consensus by the Planning Commission to pull Eugene Code 9.2760 and 9.2775 from the Minor Fixes list. III. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM In response to a question from Mr. Lawless, Ms. Muir read from the Planning Commission By-Laws, noting that the role of the Planning Commission was to review the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) each year for consistency with the General Plan. Additionally, Ms. Muir read from the December 9, 2002 Planning Commission minutes, noting that in the past the Planning Commission had been asked to make a motion to recommend the CIP to the City Council. Ms. Muir distributed copies of the written public testimony that had been received from David Hinkley, Lauri Segel, and Kevin Matthews. Patti Boyle, senior financial analyst for the Financial Services Division, distributed copies of a December 7, 2004 memorandum to City Councilor David Kelly from Ms. Boyle, regarding Responses to Questions Regarding the FY06-FY011 Capital Improvement Program. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Muir stated that Ms. Boyle and Mark Schoening, City Engineer, were available to answer Planning Commissioners’ questions. Mr. Lawless commented that it was important that the proposed expenditures reflect the long held goals of the City that each of the expenditures be tested against whether or not they would contribute to the forward progress of the goals. He added that it was unclear to him that replacing capital investments such as air conditioning for a higher level of efficiency was better for the City than replacing antiquated or broken systems. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik about the concerns of the Friends of Eugene regarding the Patterson Street Underpass and 1000 Friends of Oregon about the Pedestrian Improvements at Bus Stops, Mr. Schoening replied that the Patterson Street Underpass was linked to the City Council goal of siting a hospital in downtown. He said the Council had adopted a supplemental budget that provided funding for preliminary design in the CIP. He added that the project was in the regional transportation plan that was amended December 9, 2004 and in the 2005-2007 metropolitan transportation improvement program adopted December 30, 2004. Mr. Schoening said that the pedestrian improvements were funded by an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) grant. He added the pedestrian improvements were not in a master plan, but rather were operational projects intended to improve safety at bus stops. Mr. Belcher expressed frustration that there were projects included in the CIP that were not through the City Council deliberative process. He added that it was not the role of the Planning Commission to comment on the process but it was confusing to recommend approval on projects that had not yet been approved. He suggested that the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council include a comment that the Planning Commission recognized that the projects had not been approved. Mr. Belcher expressed his ongoing concern about the proposed expansion of the airport. Mr. Schoening replied that the six year CIP was both a planning and programming document, with the first and second years of the CIP folding into the annual budget, while the last four years served more as a planning document. He said that the Airport Master Plan demonstrated the need for the proposed expansion, adding that there was a requirement for the airport to submit a plan to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to compete nationally for federal funds through the FAA. Mr. Belcher expressed concern about the elements of the Airport Master Plan and said he would continue to follow the issue. Mr. Belcher said the Planning Commission had consistently recommended funding for sidewalks, street lighting and street trees. Mr. Lawless stated his wish to support funding mixed use pedestrian amenities. Mr. Hledik asked if a lighting plan existed. Mr. Schoening clarified that the distinction was not between residential and commercial, but rather between the street classification of local street versus arterials and collectors where transportation system development charges (SDCs) could be used. He said there was an item in the CIP to fund street lights on arterials and collectors using transportation SDCs. Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Mr. Hledik , to recommend to the City Council that funding for sidewalks, residential street lighting and residential street trees be moved from the unfunded category to the funded category. Mr. Lawless offered a friendly amendment to the motion to include traffic calming devises and pedestrian access ramps, and to support mixed used pe- destrian amenities in the funded category. Mr. Belcher and Mr. Hledik ac- cepted Mr. Lawless’ friendly amendment. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2005 Page 3  The motion passed 4:0:2, with Ms. Colbath and Ms. Levis abstaining. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Schoening replied that capital projects had not been funded from the road fund since 2002, thus there was not a source to fund mixed use pedestrian amenities in residential areas. He noted the road fund was used to fund operational expenses such as striping and electrical costs. Mr. Schoening added that the transportation maintenance fee had been available for a short period of time before it was repealed. In reply to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Schoening stated that the NeighborWoods Volunteer Program, currently funded through the storm water, is used for street trees. Referring to the December 9, 2002 Planning Commission minutes, Mr. Belcher noted that Ms. Colbath had requested that a list of projects dropped from the CIP be developed for use as a reference tool in future CIP planning cycles. Following a brief discussion, Ms. Boyle proposed that she would develop such a list for review by the Budget Committee this year, and evaluate its effectiveness for future use. Referring to the testimony of the Friends of Eugene, Mr. Hledik asked for clarification on the projects listed as part of the Royal node. Mr. Schoening replied that the Roosevelt extension to Royal Avenue was necessary regardless of whether or not the area was a node. Mr. Hledik asked for clarification of a proposed $950,000 Santa Clara Community Park. Mr. Schoening responded that the community park master plan for the Santa Clara/River Road area had been funded. Ms. Boyle added that $950,000 had been incorporated into a prior CIP for park development. Mr. Hledik asked that regional projects be included in the next CIP process to demonstrate how local projects fit into the bigger picture. Mr. Belcher recalled that in the past, the CIP included the Neighborhood Needs Analysis, which included projects the neighborhood groups felt were important. Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Mr. Hledik , to recommend to the City Council that the Neighborhood Needs Analysis be reinstituted as part of the CIP. Ms. Muir reminded the Planning Commission that it’s role in the CIP process was to review the CIP for consistency with the General Plan. Mr. Belcher affirmed his wish to have the Neighborhood Needs Analysis become part of the CIP process. Mr. Hledik asked what happened to the Planning Commission 2002 request that reinstituted the Neighborhood Needs Analysis. Ms. Boyle responded that the request had been forwarded to the City Council at that time. She added that it was in part a resource issue and that the City’s approach to public input may have changed, in that the City encourage public input to plans that are then used to develop the CIP. Ms. Colbath explained that the Neighborhood Needs process had been used effectively through 1996 or 1997, and it had not been used since. Mr. Lawless said refinement plans were not effective as funding tools. Ms. Boyle said the CIP had been distributed to all neighborhoods as well as the Neighborhood Leaders’ Council, and that she had not received any requests for staff to attend neighborhood meetings to explain MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2005 Page 4 the CIP. Mr. Belcher stressed the importance of helping the neighborhood groups to remain effective by taking issues such as the CIP to them. The motion passed 4:0:2, with Ms. Colbath and Ms. Levis abstaining. Ms. Muir summarized the four motions the Planning Commission was working on: 1. The Planning Commission wanted the City Council to pay close attention to long held goals of the City in reviewing the CIP. 2. The Planning Commission wanted the City Council to acknowledge that not all of the projects in the CIP were completely through the deliberation process. 3. The Planning Commission had passed a motion that residential street trees, traffic calming de- vices, street lighting, access ramps be included as a priority to mixed use areas. 4. The Planning Commission had passed a motion that the Neighborhood Needs Analysis process be included in the next CIP process. Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Mr. Hledik , to recommend to the City Council that funding for traffic calming, residential street lighting and residential street trees be moved from the unfunded category to the funded category. Mr. Lawless offered a friendly amendment to the motion to include access ramps, and to prioritize mixed used pedestrian amenities in the funded category. Mr. Belcher and Mr. Hledik accepted Mr. Lawless friendly amendment. The motion passed 4:0:2, with Ms. Colbath and Ms. Levis abstaining. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKPLAN Referring to the DRAFT Planning Commission Work Program January 10, 2005, Ms. Muir briefly summarized the recent joint meeting with the City Council, noting the City Council would review the revised Work Program in February 2005. She said staff was cautioning against making too many changes due to the uncertainties related to Ballot Measure 37. Ms. Muir referred to the Planning Commission Tentative Schedule as of January 1, 2005 table, that had been requested by the City Council. She added that there would be an informal briefing on the Parks and Open Space update at the January 24, 2005 meeting. Ms. Muir said the Work Plan packet was going to the City Council on January 19, 2005, adding that staff anticipated the most discussion on Goal 5. Ms. Muir explained that to complete Periodic Review by July 1, 2005, based upon the Senate Bill 920 petition that was filed against the City, the notification process would begin in February. She explained the complexities of the process that needed to take both Ballot Measure 56 and Ballot Measure 37 into consideration. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Yeiter said the Chambers Infill/Redevelopment Code task MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2005 Page 5 would be substantially completed by June 30, 2005, adding that the project was funded with a grant from the State of Oregon. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Muir responded that the alternate path may be an opportunity to explore how Ballot Measure 37 claims were processed. Planning Commissions Hledik, Lawless and Belcher asked for information on the Planned Unit Development process, including what discretion the planners had and what criteria the planners would use in a PUD review. Ms. Muir suggested including the topic at a future meeting and the Planning Commis- sion offered issues to include in the discussion. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Muir said the City Council would be reviewing how often it wanted to meet with various advisory groups, and would determine when it wished to meet with the Planning Commission. Ms. Colbath said she would not be able to attend the January 24 and February 1, 2005 meetings. Ms. Muir reviewed the Task/Project Descriptions and explained the related duties and responsibilities of the Planning Commission and staff. The Planning Commission reviewed and revised the priorities. Planning Commissioners identified several topics as emerging issues, including McArthur Court, Williams Bakery, and the Southern Pacific rail yard. Mr. Yeiter cautioned the Planning Commission against having the emerging issues become a dumping list. Ms. Muir said that the audit of the refinement plans would highlight issues that should be included on the list or as topics for future refinement plans. Ms. Muir affirmed that the City of Eugene had received no Ballot Measure 37 claims to date. There was a brief discussion about potential conflicts of interest for Planning Commission members for future work program issues. Ms. Muir said routine elements of the Zucker Report that were not generally brought to the Planning Commission continued to be incorporated into the regular work of staff. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Muir distributed copies of the contact sheet of CITY OF EUGENE OFFICIALS January 4, 2005 handout. Ms. Muir introduced the topic of Council buddies. Ms. Levis explained that the concept was originally created to foster closer informal relationships between the Planning Commission and the Mayor and City Council. Ms. Muir summarized the discussion, noting the following goals: • Create closer relationships between the Planning Commission and the Mayor/City Council. • Provide an avenue for informal communications. • Provide an opportunity to be proactive on issues. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2005 Page 6  • Decide when Planning Commissioners contacted their buddies. The following buddy assignments were established: Planning Commissioner Mayor/City Council John Lawless Kitty Piercy Mitzi Colbath George Poling Ann Marie Levis David Kelly, Jennifer Solomon Jon Belcher Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz Randy Hledik Gary Papé Phillip Hudspeth Bonnie Bettman Rick Duncan Chris Pryor The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to check-in with their City Council buddy within one week, and would contact their buddy as individual Commissioners deemed necessary in the future. Commissioners agreed that they would speak with their buddy as an individual, and not a representative of the Planning Commission. Tom Coyle left at 1:30 p.m. Ms. Muir said that a remand from the Court of Appeals had been received by the City of Eugene regarding the hospital ordinance. She said the City Council would be deciding how to proceed with the issue. B. Other Items from Commission Ms. Levis volunteered to host an event for Charles Rusch at her place of business. Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:33 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc041206.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2005 Page 7