Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue March 14, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice President;, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, Acting in Capacity for Tom Coyle, ex offi- cio member; Denny Braud, Nan Laurence, Mike McKerrow, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Phillip Carroll, Candace Nelson, Kevin Matthews, Terry Connolly, Charles Biggs, guests. ABSENT: Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, members. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Colbath, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to approve the minutes of December 13 and 14, 2004, and January 10, 2005, as amended. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. LAND USE CODE MINOR FIXES Ms. Colbath, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to approve the proposed mi- nor code amendments with clarifications identified for Code Section 9.2795(3)(a) by the Planning Commission as presented by staff. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 6:0. III. DISCUSSION: DOWNTOWN ZONE UPDATE IV. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT POWERPOINT PRESENTATION V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 1  Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue March 14, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice President;, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, Acting in Capacity for Tom Coyle, ex offi- cio member; Denny Braud, Nan Laurence, Allan Lowe, Mike McKerrow, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Phillip Carroll, Candace Nelson, Kevin Matthews, Terry Connolly, Charles Biggs, guests. ABSENT: Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, members. Mr. Lawless convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:33 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Lawless introduced the item and explained the process for public comment. He asked speakers to limit their statements to three minutes each. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, expressed concern about the process being used by Planning staff related to the neighborhood meetings for mixed use development. He perceived that the meetings were contentious. He asked for more public involvement with open discussions that were not so adversarial. In response to Mr. Lawless, Mr. Biggs said Allen Lowe and Nan Laurence were the staff present at the meetings Mr. Biggs had attended. In response to a question from Ms. Levis, Mr. Biggs had no suggestions for improving the process at the present time, but agreed to do so at her suggestion. Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, Eugene, identified himself as president of Friends of Eugene. He said he was quite unhappy with the minor land use code fixes process. He said there had been zero response from feedback to the Planning Commission. He said he had been told a list of potential fixes was not available. He said it was not clear what was a policy issue and what was not a policy issue, and the threshold of what constituted a minor fix was unclear. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Colbath offered the following corrections: December 13, 2004, page five, paragraph eight should read: “Ms. Colbath commended staff for not extending the City’s debt to the debt service limit.” December 13, 2004, page six, paragraph five, first sentence should read: “Ms. Colbath related that she had attended the architectural design charrette for the new City Hall.” MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 1 Mr. Hledik offered the following correction. January 10, 2005 minutes, page six, paragraph four, the first sentence should read: “Planning Commis- sioners Hledik, Lawless and Belcher asked for information on the Planned Unit Development.” Ms. Colbath, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to approve the minutes of December 13 and 14, 2004, and January 10, 2005, as amended. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. LAND USE CODE MINOR FIXES Ms. Muir introduced Mike Sullivan, who was acting in capacity as Executive Director, Planning and Development Department, and ex officio Planning Commission member. Mr. Nystrom introduced the Land Use Code Minor Fixes agenda item, and noted that the process would be completed at the March 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Nystrom said approximately 90 minor fixes would have been considered. Referring to Eugene Code 9.2795(3)(a) in the table of proposed amendment included in the agenda packet, Ms. Colbath asked staff to explain the proposed change and to respond to Mr. Matthews’ question. Mr. Nystrom said that section of the code was related to solar setbacks for adjoining lots rather than solar access for individual lots. He said the current language related to orientation for solar access was ambiguous, and appeared to provide an exemption for casting shadows on neighbors’ property, which was not the intent of the original language. He said a second problem was related to the practical issue of concern for dealing with the highly constrained nature for construction in steeply sloped areas, noting that it was not always possible to protect all of the factors equally in developing property. Mr. Lawless expressed concern about the either/or, all or nothing approach, since from a practical view, an east or west facing slope would provide almost the same flexibility as a flat lot in terms of the effect of the solar access to the adjoining properties. He was concerned about exempting all lots with a 20 percent slope regardless of their orientation. He said he was not concerned about north/south orientated slopes, but was opposed to exempting all east/west facing slopes. Mr. McKerrow stated this issue arose infrequently. He said the solar code was written using 12:00 noon on December 21 as the reference. Mr. McKerrow explained the challenges of building on sloped lots. He said staff saw this as an opportunity to simplify the code in response to Planning Commission and City Council direction to provide feedback on parts of the code that were difficult to administer and confusing for the public and staff. He said the only slopes currently exempt were true south facing slopes. Mr. Lawless said he the north facing slopes were problematic and he supported exempting them from solar setback requirements while retaining the other three compass points. Mr. Lawless noted consensus among Planning Commission members to accept code section 9.2795 (3)(a) with the agreed upon change. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 2 Referring to Code Section 9.5500(9)(a)4, 9.5500(9)(a)5, and 9.5500(9)(c)2, Mr. Lawless said it was difficult to deal with the minimum dimensional issue addressed in these sections of the code. He encouraged providing as much flexibility as possible. Mr. Nystrom said it appeared clear to staff that they were following the original intent of code to address square feet rather than dimension. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to approve the proposed minor code amendments with clarifications identified for Code Section 9.2795(3)(a) by the Planning Commission as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. In response to Ms. Levis, Mr. Nystrom said the information on the minor code fixes would be on the website before the public hearing, and noted that Mr. Matthews was on the interested parties list and received Planning Commission agenda packets. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Nystrom said regardless of whether proposed changes would lower the standard, it was important to try to determine the original intent of the code and if the Planning Commis- sion was comfortable with the proposed changes that did not raise policy concerns. III. DISCUSSION: DOWNTOWN ZONE UPDATE Ms. Laurence reviewed the status of the Downtown Zone Update, noting that the Downtown Vision, and Key Next Steps had been adopted by the City Council on April 9, 2001, and the Downtown Plan had been adopted by the City Council on April 12, 2004. Ms. Laurence said the concept for the project came from the Downtown Vision, with direction from the Planning Commission to use the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) to review the zoning issues effecting downtown in detail and return to the Planning Commission with recommenda- tions. Referring to a map entitled Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone, 1.0 and 2.0 Floor Area Ratios on the wall, she said a series of thoughtful discussions had occurred at the ERAC that identified problem areas in four categories: • C-2 Community Commercial which required a non-residential ground floor component. • C-3 Major Commercial that required any surface parking over 20 spaces must be structured. • /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay problems with the floor area ratio (FAR) require- ment, that presented difficulties in satisfying and making changes to the FAR, and general lack of flexibility. • Bike Parking. Ms. Laurence said in response to the issues identified, ERAC members recommended a strategy focused on revising the existing /TD overlay to serve as a Downtown Overlay District. ERAC agreed that this district should extend over the entire Downtown Plan area and recommended that the downtown Parking Exempt area coincide with the Downtown Plan area. The desired changes to the /TD overlay included provisions to address the issues identified and provide desired flexibility for properties within the overlay district include: 1. Removing the requirement for nonresidential uses on the ground floor for properties zoned C-2 MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 3  within the Downtown Plan area. 2. Modifying the limitation on 20 surface spaces for downtown properties zoned C-3. 3. Reducing the FAR required, for both the 2.0 area and the 1.0 area. 4. Changing the criteria for modification of FAR requirements through the Adjustment Review process, such as by allowing a taller first floor to count instead of FAR. 5. Revising the /TD boundaries to correspond with the Downtown Plan area. 6. Extending the Parking Exempt area to correspond with the Downtown Plan area. 7. Modify the code to allow for more flexibility in terms of meeting the bike parking requirement. 8. Adding language within the revised /TD regulations which address the Great Streets concept. Ms. Levis was concerned with the lack of details in number three. She expressed concern that we would not get what was desired, and would get more of what was not desired. She was concerned that unintended consequences that occurred during the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) discussions would not be adequately remedied, adding that the code often kept more desirable development out. Ms. Laurence said the ERAC conceded that it did not know what the right FAR was, but that density, height and urban form appropriate for a downtown area was desirable. She said Mr. Braud had provided information to the ERAC that explained the FAR philosophy for downtown. Mr. Weinman said that loading zones and bicycle parking, among other uses, reduced the actual size of the FAR. Ms. Colbath said it was important to explicitly indicate what was desired versus analytically applying a number to what was desirable, to prevent discouraging desirable development in the future. She asked what type of financial and economic data was used by the ERAC to reach the conclusions that the proposed changes would work for the size of Eugene’s downtown versus what the future downtown would look like. She expressed concern that the Planning Commission was responding to the current situation but not necessarily looking at what the situation will look like 20 years out, and what the impacts of the kind of things that will occur over the next 20 years. She asked if other cities were contacted to help determine if both short and long term changes would ultimately be beneficial. Mr. Sullivan replied that the ERAC members represented a broad base of experienced professionals who were drawn from private interests that own and develop property in cities, both inside and outside of this region. Their direct experience with dealing with this specific set of code requirements in this market was added to their experience in development in other markets with other codes. Ms. Laurence said ERAC members consisted of downtown property owners, downtown residents, a member of the voter pool, and several developers. Ms. Colbath was concerned about developing at lower densities that would prohibit higher intensity development in the future knowing there was limited land downtown. Mr. Lawless noted there were a number of other projects that went sideways in the past two or three years due to the FAR requirements. He said there was a significant amount of land available in the form of surface parking lots in C-3 zoned parcels acting as a land bank and holding places. He asked if we were going to continue to set the bar higher than the market would bear, and cross our fingers and hope development space would be preserved for 20 years, essentially allowing the current potential opportuni- ties to be lost. He was more interested in examining the economy of holding places in surface parking lots than with maintain FAR requirements that could result in lost opportunities in the urban core. He MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 4 added that caution should be used when setting artificial goals. Mr. Hudspeth said he was uncomfortable amending the code to reduce the bicycle parking requirement, noting that it would discourage bicycle use. He asked if the proposed code change was related to amending the code for the proposed hospital at the current Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site. Ms. Laurence replied the only thing in terms of EWEB was that after the changes were made to the /TD for downtown, the changes would be extended to the EWEB property so that EWEB would also be covered by the /TD requirements. Currently, the fact that there was no alley on the EWEB property that provided grounds for an adjustment review specifically on that property. Approximately one-half of the EWEB property was included in the /TD. She added that ERAC recommended flexibility in applying the bike parking standards. Ms. Levis suggested that the code language be amended to provide for greater flexibility in applying the bicycle parking requirement. Mr. Sullivan said approximately 1,300 square feet of bicycle parking, the equivalent of a residential unit, or a well configured commercial space, was required for the Aurora Building. He asked if it would be possible to look at parking as a utility which was what the parking exempt zone did, since those buildings do not need to provide vehicle parking. He asked if it would be possible to incorporate bicycle parking into the same utility function, pulling it out of buildings and into projects. He added it was a big financial and configuration issue for developers. Ms. Colbath asked if property brought into the Riverfront would be parking exempt under the proposed /TD adjustments. She also asked what the impact of taking away commercial use on the ground floor and related foot traffic would be. Ms. Laurence replied there was a map entitled Select Downtown Zoning on page III-9 of the agenda packet that illustrated the current parking exempt areas, noting that one-half of EWEB was already in the parking exempt area, and mirrored the /TD. She said there was an expressed value that having more people living downtown was desirable, while at the same time, there were ground floor commercial spaces that were not leased. She said having more people living downtown was one way of bringing value and income and activity downtown. Referring to the Great Streets concept, Ms. Laurence stressed requiring what you really want where you really want it. There were areas downtown that had that requirement that were not in core of downtown, but more of a neighborhood area at the edge of the core, where commercial uses, particularly at a higher FAR, did not need to be required. Ms. Colbath suggested making the requirement more flexible rather than an absolute value. Mr. Lawless noted there was consensus that the proposal was generally the direction the Planning Commission could support. Ms. Levis asked Ms. Laurence to get comments from Planning Commissioner Rick Duncan who was a member of ERAC. IV. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT POWERPOINT PRESENTATION Ms. Laurence offered a PowerPoint presentation entitled Mixed Use Development in Eugene Tools for MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 5 Livable Communities that had been developed to be shown to neighborhood groups. She said the presentation had been developed through a collaborative effort with the State of Oregon and the presentation would be modified to meet the needs of Eugene residents. Mr. Hledik asked what the ultimate objective for the mixed use development process was. Ms. Laurence said that as the community developed in the next 50 years was the goal would be to develop into mixed use areas that were almost like mini-city centers. She added that the ultimate goal would be to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled and create livable, sustainable neighborhoods. Code amendments and infrastructure were being examined to support the goal. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Laurence said there were 38 identified mixed use centers in Eugene, 31 of which were identified as infill and redevelopment sites, while the other 7 were greenfield sites. Ms. Colbath left at 1:05 p.m. Ms. Levis said she was glad that people were attending the neighborhood meetings, and did not view contentious discussions necessarily as a bad thing. She said people demonstrating their passion for issues demonstrated that people cared about what was going on in their neighborhoods. Mr. Lowe opined that the contentiousness was based upon the group’s desiring more information and more meetings to answer all of the questions posed by the neighborhoods. Ms. Levis asked Mr. Lowe to provide a schedule of the neighborhood to Planning Commission members. There was a brief discussion about the strategy for neighborhood meetings on the mixed use topic. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Commission In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Lowe said the last hour of the Chambers Focus Group meetings would be a good time for Planning Commissioners to drop by. B. Other Items from Staff Ms. Muir reviewed the upcoming needs and issues for the Planning Commission. Mr. Yeiter said the G5 timeline for developing the draft ordinance was slipping two weeks. Ms. Muir said that the April Planning Commission meetings would be cancelled, in lieu of additional meetings scheduled in May and June for the G5 work. Ms. Muir said she would send an email to Planning Commission members with the details for the event for former Planning Commissioner Charles Rusch. Ms. Muir said she was still working on scheduling a trip for the Planning Commission to Wilsonville. Ms. Levis reminded Planning Commissioners to talk with their Council buddies. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:28 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050314.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 14, 2005 Page 7