Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue July 11, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, , members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Neil Björklund, Gabriel Flock, Ken Guzowski, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development De- partment staff; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department staff; Janice Gotchall, Kevin Matthews, guests. ABSENT: John Lawless, Anne Marie Levis PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. PREPARATION FOR JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING Staff: Steve Nystrom, 682-8385 II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue July 11, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, , members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Neil Björklund, Gabriel Flock, Ken Guzowski, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development De- partment staff; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department staff; Janice Gotchall, Kevin Matthews, guests. ABSENT: John Lawless, Anne Marie Levis Mr. Belcher convened the meeting at 11:37 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, Eugene, Oregon, identified himself as president of the Friends of Eugene. He said he appreciated the continued work and discussion the Planning Commission had around the Public Comment rules, and hoped the commission would continue to do so. At a recent meeting, he said the City Attorney comments made it clear that the current rules were relevant to quasi-judicial matters, but policy related to legislative matters was not being referred to, that was the majority of the commission’s work. Ms. Colbath arrived at 11:40 a.m. and presided over the rest of the meeting. Referring to the Eugene Planning Commission Operating Philosophy, that was included in the draft annual report included in the agenda packet for the meeting, Mr. Matthews said it did not adequately address the commission’s role in citizen involvement. I. PREPARATION FOR JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING • Mr. Nystrom drew the commission’s attention to a handout entitled, Joint Meeting Outline City Council/Planning Commission Work Session July 27, 2005, as an overview for the discussion on July 27. Referring to the annual report included in the agenda packet, Mr. Nystrom said the annual report would be included in the City Council agenda packet for the joint meeting. He said key items would be work tasks and high priority work program items, in support of the City Council’s approval of the fiscal year 2006 (FY06) Planning Division Work Program. Mr. Nystrom explained the process used to develop the annual report. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting • Operating Philosophy Ms. Colbath noted Mr. Matthews’s comments, asking if the Operating Philosophy derived from the commission’s bylaws. She wanted to ensure that the commission’s Operating Philosophy was the one that the commission followed. Mr. Nystrom said that review of the bylaws was included as a task in the draft work program. Ms. Muir suggested that commission may want to conduct a bylaws review after new Planning Commis- sioners were appointed in October. • Overview Mr. Hledik opined that page 4, paragraphs 1 and 3 in the Overview were factual, but felt paragraph 2 was somewhat pessimistic. He said since he joined the commission in November 2004, existing frustrations had been overcome and progress had been made. Mr. Nystrom replied that the statement reflected some of the frustrations from last year, but had heard some similar frustrations for FY05. Ms. Muir noted that there had been no budget cuts in operating staff, as paragraph 2 stated. Ms. Colbath understood that staff felt frustration, and asked how commissioners felt. She said she felt frustrated, not by appeals, but rather by not seeing the comprehensive picture. She said the appeals challenged the refinement plans that were outdated and out of synchronization with the Metro Plan. Mr. Belcher still struggled with the Planning Commission’s internal role, but not amongst the commis- sioners, which was not reflected in the Overview. Mr. Duncan struggled to have a definable position for the Planning Commission in its advisory role to the City Council. He added that he wished to talk more about that role, and global issues, were not being addressed at the present time, in the next joint meeting with the council, that. Ms. Colbath also struggled with defining a relationship with the City Council, and not with staff. Mr. Belcher suggested raising the Planning Commission’s desire to look more globally with the City Council at the July 27, 2005 meeting, as preliminary to the January 2006 joint meeting. Mr. Nystrom noted Planning Commission consensus that the internal struggle issue had been rectified, but that it wished to continue to work on the relationship with the City Council. Mr. Duncan supported Ms. Colbath’s proposal to identify a theme for the January 2006 joint meeting with the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission had been discussing the issue for several years. Ms. Colbath noted Planning Commission consensus to develop a theme for a future joint meeting with the City Council. Mr. Belcher noted there were fewer meetings during the past than there had been in the preceding year. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 2 Regular Meeting • FY05 Accomplishments Mr. Duncan asserted that the citizen involvement in the East Campus and Chambers Reconsidered processes may lead to reshaping citizen involvement across the community. He noted that the residents in the River Road/Santa Clara annexation transition area had expressed an interest in being actively involved in the citizen involvement process. Mr. Belcher noted the Crest Drive residents had also demonstrated a heightened interest in citizen involvement. Following a brief discussion, the Planning Commission reached consensus that the FY05 Accomplish- ments were accurate. • FY05 Project Summaries Mr. Nystrom noted that the projects included on the FY05 Project Summaries included only the high priority tasks identified in the FY05 Work Program. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom said the items listed under Emerging Issues had been identified by the City Council. Mr. Sullivan corrected page 6, paragraph 4, the third sentence to read: “The ERAC departmental advisory committee provided report and recommendations of potential amendments regarding downtown zoning.” • City Council Priorities/Planning Division FY06 Work Program Noting there were 38 Mixed Use Centers (MUC), Mr. Hledik asked how they had been prioritized and if there were plans to complete all of the MUCs. Mr. Nystrom replied that there had been a high level of interest by the neighbors in the Chambers Reconsidered plan, which impacted the changing priorities. Mr. Yeiter said the priorities, which had been established prior to adoption of TransPlan, had changed over time. Thirty-eight projects had originally been identified, with the intention of completing all of the projects. He said Chambers Reconsidered and Royal had been selected as study sites, as examples of a green site and an established neighborhood. Project selection had since become opportunistic, due to funding limitations. The City Council had chosen eight priorities in conjunction with the ND overlay that had been shelved until funding became available. Mr. Yeiter said Walnut was not one of the original 38 sites, but became a node in conjunction with the Lane Transit District (LTD) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. He said the failed attempt of the ND overlay in the residential portion, the proposed University of Oregon arena, and a potential freeway off ramp, highlighted the need to focus on the commercial activity. Mr. Yeiter said staff was in the process of updating the MUC report that was eight or nine years old, which would be available in the fall. Mr. Belcher said that the original eight priority MUCs that had been supported by the City Council were abandoned as citizen concerns arose. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 3 Regular Meeting In response to concerns expressed by Ms. Colbath regarding TransPlan, BRT and other transportation issues, Ms. Muir said transportation issues would be addressed in site specific MUCs. She added that there were some transportation issues that were not within the Planning Commission’s purview. Although the Planning Commission would take no direct action on BRT, the commission would meet jointly in the near future with LTD. Mr. Sullivan said that all of the two-way recommendations for streets in the downtown core were included in the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) in which the Planning Commission partici- pated. Mr. Yeiter said planning participation in BRT had dropped significantly following the City Council’s moving BRT to the number 19 priority, noting that projects higher than 6 were mostly unfunded. The Planning Commission’s involvement in Coburg Road would be minimal unless additional resources were provided or something was taken off the high priority list. Ms. Colbath expressed frustration that comprehensive planning was inadequate. She said number 34 on the work plan list, should have a higher priority. Mr. Nystrom said it was important to honor the council’s list, and suggested raising it as an issue for the joint January 2006 meeting. Mr. Belcher opined that 2050 was a growth management tool, and concurred with Mr. Nystrom's suggestion to address the issue at the January 2006 joint meeting. He noted that the plan was a regional one with participation by City of Eugene representatives. Ms. Muir reviewed the Planning Commission’s role in the 2050 Plan to date, noting that the commission had received updates and provided feedback, with the public involvement phase starting soon. The priority of the 2050 Plan, of which the Lane Council of Governments (L-COG) was the lead agency and project manager, was not regulatory plan and would not be impacted by its priority on the FY06 Work Program. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Nystrom said number 40, Wellhead protection, had been on the list before, and was a significant issue for the City of Springfield. Mr. Yeiter said the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) was considering using groundwater as a back-up water supply. Some of Springfield’s drinking water came from the west side of Interstate 5 (I-5) under the City of Eugene. There was concern about regulating contaminants entering the drinking water system that raised a number of land use issues for the City of Eugene, such as the types of business, types of building construction, use of chemicals, and other related issues. Referring to Emerging Issues, Buildable Lands Supply, Mr. Duncan averred that land inventory studies that identified what was available, rather than buildable lands supply studies, would contribute to growth management decisions. He agreed to identify it for the City Council as a big picture question. Related to Goal 5 (Natural Resources) associated projects, Mr. Duncan said he supported revisiting the Wildlife habitat study in the South Hills comprehensively with a South Hills Refinement study. Although the South Hills Study had previously been on the list, the City Council recently redefined it, as one comprehensive plan. Mr. Belcher said the South Hills Study included visual aspects as well as natural resource issues, and suggested the South Hills Study and Goal 5 should be brought together. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 4 Regular Meeting Mr. Nystrom said the priorities reflected a very specific motion from the City Council. Mr. Sullivan left at 12:33 p.m. Ms. Muir said the next draft would reflect grammatical and other minor corrections to the FY06 Work Program. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Muir said number 30 Housing Standards, was in place and being implemented by PDD Building and Permit Services Division (BPS) staff. She added that the housing standards model adopted by the City Council was very close to the City of Corvallis model. Mr. Belcher expressed his appreciation to staff for the good work they did. • Operating Philosophy Ms. Colbath suggested that the Planning Commission bylaws discussion scheduled for October 2005 should be deferred until new commissioners were appointed. Ms. Muir said new commissioners would be appointed by the City Council on October 4, 2005, for terms commencing November 1, and would likely attend the second Planning Commission meeting in October. Mr. Duncan proposed inviting appointees to attend all of the October meetings following their appoint- ment and developing a mentoring program for new commissioners. Ms. Colbath noted that Mr. Lawless and Ms. Levis’ terms were ending October 31, 2005. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Nystrom said staff hoped the commission would deliberate and take action on the Chambers Reconsidered project on July 26, 2005, noting that action could be taken at the August 8, 2005 meeting if necessary. Mr. Belcher asked if there had been a commitment from the City Council for a meeting in January 2006. Ms. Muir said the Mayor and the City Manager had already agreed to the meeting, clarifying that the meeting was tentatively scheduled for February 2006, rather than January. • Looking Ahead Mr. Duncan said it was important for clear direction from the City Council on the big picture items that the commission needed to address. It was important to stress the importance of refinements, noting that cities were growing all around Eugene, and it was critical for the largest city in the county to take an active role in how it would approach other jurisdictions in the future. Mr. Belcher said it was important to bring the big picture related to increased density needs to the City Council because they were often more responsive to politics than the actual issues. Ms. Colbath emphasized the need to begin a discussion about the big issues such as water rights, energy policies, transportation issues, affordable housing ownership issues and land trusts, 2050, and population growth. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 5 Regular Meeting Mr. Nystrom said Looking Ahead had been intended to identify emerging issues. He added that there may be other issues more suited to the winter joint meeting with the council. Ms. Colbath said she saw the winter joint meeting as an informal retreat with the City Council. Mr. Belcher said the last census showed that homeownership in the community was shrinking rather than growing. Some scenarios in the 2050 Plan demonstrated people living further from the urban core while working in the city, which was part of energy and land use issues. He averred the issues needed to be raised with the City Council. Ms. Muir suggested adding sustainability to the Looking Ahead list. Mr. Duncan said there was a conflict between affordable housing versus increasing land and home prices, as well as open space issues versus buildable lands, which was exasperated by a not in my neighborhood attitude. He wanted the council to understand the commission’s concerns related to developing policies at the Planning Commission level without having an overall picture from the council on how it wanted to move forward. Mr. Belcher stated that although the commissioners may not agree on solutions to problems, they did agree on the problems, and it was important to convey that message to the City Council. Ms. Muir said there were many affordable housing tools in place that did not necessarily come to the Planning Commission, which could be brought to the Planning Commission. Ms. Muir said that staff would make the amendments to the annual report proposed by the commission and draft a position paper to identify critical issues for the Planning Commission. • Eugene Historic Review Board Work Program July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 Ms. Colbath noted consensus to accept the Historic Review Board’s (HRB) Work Program for July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2005, with minor modifications. • Referring to handout entitled Joint Meeting Outline City Council/Planning Commission Work Session July 27, 2005, Ms. Muir directed the attention of the commission to the item entitled, Joint meeting with Council. Mr. Nystrom reviewed Winter 06, Questions for joint meeting, noting that the July 27, 2005 meeting was the time to start a preparatory discussion for the winter joint meeting. Following a brief discussion, he noted consensus by the commission to adopt the three questions proposed for the joint meeting. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Muir said the August 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting would be the last until September. He reviewed the schedule following the commission’s recess. B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 6 Regular Meeting Mr. Belcher said the Chambers issue had a bigger question related to how this issue related to managing density in Eugene. It was important for him to have the discussion as part of the deliberation. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:27 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050711.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 7 Regular Meeting