Planning Commission

MINUTES Planning Commission Sloat Room – Atrium Building – 99 West 10th Avenue February 14, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; John Belcher, Rick Duncan, John Lawless, President; Anne Marie Levis, Randy Hledik, Members; Tom Coyle, Ex Officio Member; Planning Director Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Steve Nystrom, City of Eugene Planning and Development Department; ABSENT: Phillip Hudspeth I. PUBLIC COMMENT Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, said that during the last meeting he heard Tom Coyle refer to minor code fixes and adjustments to current regulations. He said Mr. Coyle had referred to an agreement between planning staff and developers about what could be altered in code language. He said he wanted to see the record reflect that agreement. He noted that he had spent significant time preparing his testimony and would not have done so if an agreement was already in place. Kevin Matthews, Friends of Eugene, 1192 Lawrence, commented on the standard agenda item of public comment on items not on the agenda. He noted that the item title was misleading because public comment was often on agenda items and was not supposed to be about hearings taking place at the same meeting. Mr. Matthews said there was confusion over the process to be followed on minor land use code fixes. He said the Planning Director said there would be more public involvement. He stressed his desire to see more public involvement than a single public hearing at the end of the process. He said there should be a comprehensive list of planned fixes available to the public so the public could evaluate the proposed fixes. He said people could not give effective testimony on a hundred proposed code fixes in a single public hearing where they were allowed to talk for three minutes. Paul Conte, Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods, 1461 West 10th, distributed written material into the record entitled “Chambers Node Revisited Interim Neighbors’ Report”. He said the report built on the information submitted the previous December and added two new areas. The first was a discussion of land use goals, priorities and principles that call for protection of existing neighborhoods character. The second was a description of the elements and patterns that defined the residential neighborhood in the eastern part of the Chambers project area. He added there was a preliminary set of recommended solutions which would be provided to Allen Lowe and the project consultants. He called for one or two more meetings between consultants and neighborhood representatives would improve final recommendations. He added that there were concerns over how the scheduled residential focus group would be conducted and how the results would be used. Regarding Eugene’s land use policies, Mr. Conte said there were two points that he would like to convey. The first was that his group was not seeking to create new policy or to retrench from existing policy. He said the policies Eugene had adopted provided a clear and strong direction that established neighborhoods should be protected against destabilization and erosion of their character. He said his goal was to see existing policies implemented. The second point was that there was no inherent conflict between policies to increase density and policies to protect existing neighborhoods. He said the report submitted addressed how the two were interrelated and how successfully achieving compact growth required serious attention to protecting compact neighborhoods. Esther Faus, 1457 West 10th Avenue, spoke as a participating neighbor in the material that had been submitted by Mr. Conte. She said the neighborhood had formed its definitions by beginning with the question; “What was the design characteristic that the existing neighborhood had.” She said volunteers had walked the neighborhood and calculated actual lot sizes and counted dwellings, parking spaces, how many units on a property, and the number of stories. She said they had been looking for residential patterns in the R-2 district. She said there were two kinds of lot sizes; square lots 50’ x 60’ and 50’ x 100’ and added that there was almost always a primary dwelling on the front of the lot. She added that the primary style was the craftsman style of housing. She added that most of the streets were tree lined with vegetation in the yards that provided for wildlife. She said the character of the neighborhood was a combination of all these attributes. Carol DeFazio, 1437 West 10th Avenue, said she had been a resident in the Westside Neighborhood for 30 years. She said it was a constant struggle to protect the neighborhood. She said she had renewed her efforts after attending the Chambers Node Revisited meetings conducted by planning staff. She said the submitted report deserved the commission’s full attention and consideration. She said the neighborhood could not afford to ignore the questions raised by the report much longer. She said truly smart development did not squander the established neighborhoods which created the stability needed for a health urban core. Steve Nystrom responded to Mr. Biggs by saying that the list referred to had been put together from staff generated comments. He said the problems and fixes were minor enough in nature that no serious policy concerns were raised. He said staff were working with limited funds and had attempted to sift out non policy issues that did not involve an extensive amount of policy changes, outreach, and citizen involvement. He acknowledged that there might be minor interest from citizens but not enough to require an extensive amount of work before the public hearing process. He added that a limited amount of outreach would be done with community groups before the hearing. He said if it was necessary to have more than one public hearing to deal with code amendments then more hearings could be scheduled but noted that staff were trying to work in an expeditious manner. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding items that had been moved up from the minor list and the public involvement component of the code fixes, Mr. Nystrom said staff were using the commission to gage the importance of some issues. He said staff would go to various interest groups on a limited basis. He said if it was necessary to have more than one hearing then that could be arranged. He said the second step of he process would be more important since some of those proposed fixes would raise policy concerns. He said public outreach would be done to garner public concerns that might not have been raised by staff. He said the proposed citizen involvement process would be brought before the commission in the next couple of months. MINUTES—Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Levis stressed her support for public outreach done by staff on minor code fixes. She also expressed her preference of keeping an open mind on the need for additional public hearings. She said she would need to take a look at the list again to be certain of her opinion on what staff had listed as minor fixes. . …. Mr. Duncan seconded Ms. Levis’s comments on public outreach and stressed that the commission could pull an item for more review if public comment indicated that it was more of an issue than staff had thought. Mr. Belcher said he was feeling overwhelmed by the number of minor code amendments planned for a single hearing. He said items that might seem like small issues to staff might be a big issue to others in the community. He cited public right-of-way signage as an example. Mr. Nystrom said the meetings were to gauge the comfort level of the commission on the proposed amendments. He said it was premature to commit to a certain volume level of amendments. He said the vast majority would be straight forward issues. He said it would be a much smaller subset that would demand more attention from the commission. Mr. Belcher said putting the planned amendments on a webpage so they would be available to the public would be beneficial Mr. Belcher said there needed to be a way for the commission to bring up issues that needed more review. II. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 15, 2004 MINUTES Ms. Levis, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to approve the minutes of November 15, 2004 as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. III. LAND USE CODE MINOR FIXES Mr. Nystrom asked members for specific questions on proposed items for amendments. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding section 9.1220, Mr. Nystrom said the amendment was for people who wanted to change the nature of a non conforming use without changing the physical nature of the structure. He said that as long as the non conforming use did not intensify the activity of the structure then it would be allowed. He said the intent was to clarify that policy. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik regarding whether dedication of public ways, Mr. Nystrom said the code was not complete in that it did not identify other public-right-of way categories that were captured in other documents. He cited bike and pedestrian path areas as an example and noted that a 20’ foot wide right-of-way was needed. He said there was a need to reference right-of-way requirements as they were listed in the Arterial and Collector Street Plan. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding the dates and adoption of refinement plans and whether the date of the original adoption should be shown, Mr. Nystrom said it was a bookkeeping issue since the code would have to be amended to reference new years. He said, over the long term, it would be MINUTES—Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 3 easier to simply refer to plans by their title and not include dates. He added that dates were sometimes misleading in that the date of implementation was not always the same as the date the plan was adopted. Mr. Belcher said showing the date of the last update would let people know if the document they had was outdated. Mr. Nystrom said if people were using an outdated version of the plan they would find that out quickly by talking with planning staff. He said the proposed amendment was a small item meant to simplify the necessity for code amendments. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding Section 9.803010 and parking reductions or increases, Mr. Nystrom said public works had adopted a new administrative order that would accomplish the language in the code but noted that the code needed to be amended or it could not be enforced. He said there were currently two different areas of the code that discussed parking minimums and maximums. He said the amendment would give the authority to the City to revisit a transportation management plan on a yearly basis to see if it was accomplishing what it was supposed to. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding who would make the decision on adjustment review criteria, Mr. Nystrom noted it was a type two decision process made by the Planning Director and with a public involvement process. Ms. Levis, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to move the amendments forward for final approval. The motion passed unanimously. IV. DISCUSSION: CHAMBERS INFILL/ REDEVELOPMENT CODE Allen Lowe said the Planning Commission had a role in the Chambers Redistricting Project of appointing members of focus groups to be convened in March. He said a few more applications had been submitted than were expected and remarked that this was a sign of a healthy process. He said there was an active group of neighbors that were spending hundreds of hours of their own time. He said the process was proving to be rewarding and very helpful. He said he was asking the commission for approval of all of the neighbors that had applied to participate. He reported that one member had been asked to be removed from the residential focus group since she was already serving on the commercial group and noted that he had communicated with all members who wanted to serve on both groups to confirm that this was actually their desire. He said both groups could have as many as 18 members. Mr. Belcher said it would be an interesting challenge to work with such a geographically focused group that were making recommendations for code changes that would be effective in a specific area. He said he was hoping for guidance on wider code issues throughout the City and asked how this could be provided. Mr. Lowe acknowledged that the groups were concerned with a specific geographic area and said he and other staff were consistent in letting the groups know that there were other areas to deal with as well. He noted that there was much less participation from other areas but stressed that a document had to be created that would provide guidance for the whole study area. He added that the process would help to establish a pattern or way of thinking about infill and re-development in core areas. MINUTES—Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Belcher expressed his regret that the local neighborhood group had not been significantly involved in the process. Mr. Lowe said the neighborhood organization had been invited to participate in the process. He added that there were many neighborhood organization members among the group of applicants for the focus groups being discussed. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding what the commercial group would focus on, Mr. Lowe said it was the plan on March 18, to divide the two groups and have separate discussions on infill and redevelopment in commercial areas and in residential areas. He said there had been little interest from commercial property owners until a letter had been sent to the owners in that area. He said there were now enough people who owned commercial property in that area to have a worthwhile discussion but said he could not yet say what the discussion would entail. Mr. Duncan said his office had received some phone calls from commercial property owners when the last notice was provided regarding what had been going on. He said he did not know why that was. Ms. Levis asked for another effort of involving the City sanctioned neighborhood group. She said if the chance was available to extend a hand and ask for involvement, it should be taken. Mr. Lowe said he would be glad to make another effort at communication. Ms. Levis stressed that leaving a door open for citizen involvement was good policy. She said it was her way to keep inviting until she heard a clear no. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding how that would affect the commission plans for the focus groups, Ms. Levis said if the membership list were approved, pending an expression of interest from the neighborhood group, it would not harm the process to have one or two more people added before the meetings. In response to a question from Mr. Lawless regarding whether there was any limitation on the size of the groups, Mr. Lowe said staff had asked the State to remove the size limitations from the grant agreement, and the State had agreed to do so. Mr. Duncan suggested adding language in a motion that would hold positions open for members from the neighborhood group. Mr. Belcher said there were participants in the neighborhood groups that had significant personal issues. He said he was one of them and did not want to take part. Ms. Levis, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to approve the list as changed by staff by removing BJ Naviski from the residential focus group and leaving a couple of positions open for each of the neighborhood groups in the area. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lowe said he had quickly scanned the applications again and noted that at least eight of the applicants had indicated, on the application, that they were members of the Jefferson Westside or Far West neighborhood groups. MINUTES—Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 5 V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF a. Other Items From Staff Mr. Nystrom said staff were in the process of increasing land use application fees. He said public notice had been provided. He said the fees were increasing to capture 40 percent of costs which would significantly increase some fees. He said the public comment period would close on February 23, 2005. He said staff had not heard from the City Council on the matter and said if no issues were raised by the council then the new fees would be implemented on March 1. Mr. Nystrom said the increase was to address budget shortfalls and was part of a long term plan to increase fees to a 50 percent cost recovery by 2008. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik regarding the average cost recovery percentage at the current time, Mr. Nystrom said 23.8 percent cost recovery was the current rate. Mr. Duncan said fees between the city limits and the urban growth boundary would have 100 percent cost recovery and added that fees within the downtown plan limits were waived. Mr. Nystrom said the increases were based on direct and indirect costs and noted that some of the fees would be comparable with the rates already used by the City of Springfield. He noted that Springfield had adopted new fees during the previous summer. In response to a question from Mr. Lawless regarding whether there had been discussion on putting a maximum fee on something and getting more cost recovery from easier application processes, Mr. Nystrom said there would be difficulties in implementing such something like that. He said one of the challenges was charging an upfront fee and then doing the bookkeeping on fees charged on an incremental basis. He added that more data collection would be done to see if some fees should be raised or lowered. Mr. Lawless said he appreciated the fact that some applications would have greater cost recovery than others. Mr. Duncan said he was amazed at how much of the fees were directly linked to the code as far as who was involved in the process. He noted that some projects required more staff time than others. Mr. Belcher said his concern with flexible fees was that applicants would think that staff were being involved in projects just to increase fees. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding whether the reason for raising fees was because of Council requests for full fee recovery or because of budget shortfalls, Mr. Nystrom said no specific target established. He said the reason for the increase had started with a budget short fall issue but stressed that staff was taking the long term view of increasing cost recovery and cutting costs. b. Other Items From the Commission MINUTES—Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Lawless said the Public Improvement Changes memo had been very helpful to him and said he looked forward to similar memos in the future. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding whether there was a date set to deliberate on the public hearing from the previous week on the Metro Plan Amendments for Special Districts, Mr. Lowe said he did not know. Mr. Duncan said one of the things lost in that public hearing was what the Planning Commission was expected to do. He appreciated the fact that there was a public safety situation that needed to be resolved but stressed that it was not the role of the commission to address that. He stressed the importance of the commission staying on track with its charge. Ms. Levis said she had not been present at that particular hearing and asked to be briefed by Ms. Muir via e-mail as well as reviewing the tapes so she could be aware of all the pertinent issues. Mr. Lawless said a memo from staff on the charge of the commission and how that related to the testimony submitted. Mr. Belcher stressed the political nature of the issue and remarked that the more the commission could distance itself from that the better. Ms. Colbath said she wanted more information on the University Liaison Committee. Regarding communication with Council buddies, Ms. Levis said she had talked to Councilors Kelly and Solomon. Ms. Colbath said she had communicated with Councilor Poling. Mr. Lawless said he had communicated the Mayor. He said there should be a standing agenda item where commissioners could report on their discussions with City Councilors. The meeting adjourned at 1 pm. (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES—Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 7