Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue August 8, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Allen Lowe, Gabriel Flock, Nan Laurence, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Devel- opment Department staff; Jennifer Smith, Planning and Development Intern; Lisa Gard- ner, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department staff; Joseph Readdy, Marcy McInelly, Patty Wong, Urbsworks, Inc.; Marion Walter, Dan Herbert, Charles Biggs, Phillipp Car- roll, Carol Heinkel, Terry Connolly, Dan Goldrich, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio member. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – April 12, 18, and June 6, 20, and 27, 2005 Ms. Colbath, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to approve the April 12 and 18, and June 6, 20, and 27, 2005 minutes as amended. The motion passed 7:0. II. WALNUT STATION CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Staff: Allen Lowe, 682-5113 Ms. Levis, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved to approve the Citizen In- volvement Program for Walnut Street Mixed Use Development Plan as amended. The motion passed 7:0. III. DISCUSSION: GROWTH MANAGEMENT Staff: Susan Muir, 682-6077 IV. 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 August 8, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Allen Lowe, Gabriel Flock, Nan Laurence, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Devel- opment Department staff; Jennifer Smith, Planning and Development Intern; Lisa Gard- ner, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department staff; Joseph Readdy, Marcy McInelly, Patty Wong, Urbsworks, Inc.; Marion Walter, Dan Herbert, Charles Biggs, Phillipp Car- roll, Carol Heinkel, Terry Connolly, Dan Goldrich, Zachary Vishanoff, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio member. Mr. Lawless convened the meeting at 11:35 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, expressed concern about nodal planning, related to identified nodes that might be considered regional, mixed use centers opposed to nodes as a concept, such as small walkable villages with local characters, rather than the center of a regional attraction. He suggested developing language to differentiate between the various types of nodes. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, said he had a number of issues related to the Walnut or Fairmount nodes. He said the Joe Romania site contained a neat building, and he was unaware of any public discussion about keeping the building. He said Mayor Kitty Piercy had agreed to try to help him put together an interagency, regional forum on the basketball arena in the University of Oregon area, to talk about financing, siting, and impacts on the community. This would deprioritize the Walnut node and transfer the funds to the Willamette node that had been put on the back burner. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – April 12, 18, and June 6, 20, and 27, 2005 The Planning Commission reviewed the April 12, 18 and June 6, 20, and 27, 2005 minutes. April 12, 2005 no corrections, additions or modifications. April 18, 2005 Mr. Belcher corrected page 7, paragraph 3 to read: “Mr. Belcher said if the purpose of the increased lot size was to protect trees or to reduce the visual impact of the development, then it did not serve to preserve trees. He said it appeared that the applicant’s proposal called for removing 80 to 90 percent of MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting the trees.” Mr. Belcher corrected page 13, paragraph 3, the first sentence to read: “Mr. Belcher said if you use the logic that you have to look at the area as a whole, the ability to visually impact the south hills areas may have been exhausted.” Ms. Colbath corrected page 23, paragraph 4 to read: “Ms. Colbath said this clearly was recognition of both public and private interest, but what is the balance.” June 6, 2005 Ms. Colbath corrected the attendance on page 1 in the Summary Minutes and page 1 in the Minutes to read: PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Neil Björklund, Gabriel Flock, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department staff; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department staff; Paul Conte, Matt Purvis, Jim Spickerman, Diane Wiley, Terry Connolly, Roxie Cuellar, Kevin Matthews, Debbie Jeffries, guests. ABSENT: Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis. June 20, 2005 no corrections, additions or modifications. June 27, 2005 no corrections, additions or modifications. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to approve the April 12 and 18, and June 6, 20, and 27, 2005 minutes as amended. The motion passed 7:0. II. WALNUT STATION CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Mr. Lowe introduced Marcy McInelly, a principle with Urbsworks, Inc. Urbsworks, a Portland planning and urban design firm, had been selected to work as the primary consultant on the Walnut project. Mr. Lowe said the citizen involvement proposal prepared by Urbsworks and City staff was very comprehensive and included a variety of citizen involvement techniques including stakeholder groups, property owner interviews, a steering committee, a technical advisory committee, newsletters, and internet postings, to reach the public and engage it in discussions. Mr. Lowe said Phase I of the project which would end in February 2006, focused on visioning and selection of a preferred land use strategy for the area. Phase II, a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) funded project, would begin in the spring of 2006 and continue through June 2007. Phase II will focus on development of an implementation plan for the area. Mr. Lowe referred to a map on the wall entitled, Walnut Station Mixed-Use Center Phase I. Mr. Lowe said the Joe Romania site had been discussed and would be included in the public discussions. He entertained questions from the Planning Commission. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Page 2 Regular Meeting Mr. Hledik asked if the first work session had included representatives of commercial property or if it had been primarily attended by residential property owners. Mr. Lowe replied the participants were a mixed group with representatives from both commercial and residential interests. He added that most of the parcels in the area were commercially zoned and occupied by commercial enterprises. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Lowe assured her that sufficient funding had been allocated to complete Phase I of the project. Ms. Colbath said the Joe Romania site had been identified in a Eugene Modernism historic publication, and asked if a historic review of that property had been completed. Mr. Lowe said a historic review of the site had not been completed. He had asked Ken Guzowski, Planning Division and Historic Review Board staff member, to prepare materials about historic properties that would include the Joe Romania site. Noting this was a Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) proposal, Ms. Colbath asked if it was unusual for the Planning Commission to receive a proposal after the project had started. Ms. Muir replied that this was a well defined proposal developed for the current phase of the project. In response to a question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Lowe responded that Oregon Department of Transporta- tion (ODOT) should be on the interested parties list. The University of Oregon (UO) was on the technical advisory committee and would be added to the interested parties list. Mr. Lawless added that the overall plan was very comprehensive although the beginning of the project got off to a fast start. Mr. Lowe said staff had taken advantage of an opportunity, that when it came along, staff needed to act quickly on it or risk missing out on it. Staff acted quickly to find funding to support the project, noting that if the timeline had been extended, the opportunities might well have been less. Mr. Duncan observed that tenant occupants had not been included in the interested parties list, noting that 70 to 80 percent of the commercial spaces were occupied by tenants. While most of the owners lived out of state, many of whom had little interest in local land use issues. Mr. Lowe replied that tenants were being noticed, and a future focus group would include invitations to property owners and tenants. Ms. Levis praised staff for moving quickly to take advantage of opportunities that presented themselves on developing the citizen involvement plan, noting that timing did not always work. The plan as presented was a great plan. She opined that the focus groups appeared to be more discussion groups, as she understood the terminology. From a marketing perspective, focus groups were used to test things, to then persuade people in the future. Ms. McInelly replied that the groups were not focus groups in terms of marketing but rather three groups of people that had similar issues. The purpose of the focus groups was to provide input at the beginning to help determine what the alternatives should consist of. She added that although the focus group meetings were scheduled to be completed by September 29, 2005, some of the participants in the focus groups may be contacted later in the process to provide additional information. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Page 3 Regular Meeting Mr. Belcher observed that while several groups, including the technical advisory committee, focus groups, key stakeholders and interested parties had been identified, the only listing presented to the Planning Commission was the interested parties list. He asked if the Planning Commission would have a role in selecting participants for the various groups, and expressed a concern that there should be a role for the commission in identifying that the proper people were at the table. Mr. Lowe said the technical advisory committee consisted of the agencies that were doing independent projects that would influence the Walnut Station Mixed Use Development Plan, while citizens who would serve on the steering committee had not been identified. He added it would be helpful to staff for the commission to advise staff on how they would like to have the proposal come back to them, noting that the steering committee needed to be set up within the next two weeks. He suggested an informal process that could be accomplished electronically, since the commission was not scheduled to meet until September 12, 2005. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath about the citizen involvement schedule, Mr. Lowe said public workshops would begin after Labor Day, while the issues group work would be completed by the end of September. The proposed schedule listed on page II-4 of the agenda packet would be modified. Responding to Ms. Colbath, Ms. Muir said the span of time between Steering Committee Meeting #3 and Steering Committee Meeting #4 was due to holidays. Mr. Lowe said the role of the technical advisory committee was that of interagency coordination that depended upon input from the steering committee and public workshops. The intent was to have the same information out to all of the groups and gather it back through different forms. He named the technical advisory committee members: UO, UO Foundation, ODOT, State of Oregon Land Conservation Development Department, Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), Lane Transit District (LTD), planning staff, Development Division staff due to the role with the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, and Public Works engineering and parks/open space staff Mr. Lawless expressed concern that the technical advisory committee consisted exclusively of representa- tives technical components of interagency coordination. While important, he hoped that non-technical people could be party to the conversations of the technical advisory committee Ms. McInelly stated that the technical advisory committee and the steering committee would play complimentary roles, with the steering committee playing a broad role, while the technical advisory committee vetted the technical issues. It was the job of staff and consultants to coordinate all of the work of the public, including the workshops, steering committee and focus groups, and to ensure that the steering committee and technical advisory committee had all of the information developed. She recommended appointing a liaison who would sit on both the technical advisory committee and the steering committee. Mr. Duncan supported Mr. Lawless’ concerns and wanted the Planning Commission to have a say in committee membership. Mr. Duncan asked where the outcome would be on the first phase, and expressed concern that someone other than property owners would develop the alternatives for their property. In the past, there had been instances in which the Planning Commission had been involved at a detailed level, and then either nothing occurred or unintended consequences resulted. Mr. Lowe said the alternatives had not yet been described, but the intention was to have sufficiently MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Page 4 Regular Meeting described broad alternatives. He said this was a public process that would include members of the community as stakeholders, rather than one that limited stakeholders to strictly property owners. Mr. Lowe said Phase I would be limited due to time constraints. Phase II would consist of plan implementation. He said staff would provide periodic reports to the commission, and suggested that the Planning Commission may want to have a commission member on the steering committee. Mr. Duncan stated he would support having a Planning Commissioner on the steering committee. Ms. Colbath asked what her role was as a member of the City of Eugene/University of Oregon Liaison Committee, and asked what the Planning Commission’s role was after Phase I of the project. Mr. Nystrom said that the Liaison Committee was an informal, information sharing group composed of UO and city staff, neighbors and other affected parties that met periodically on an as needed basis. Mr. Lowe said in previous nodal development mixed use projects, staff had returned to the commission at key points describing the broad concepts that would drive the rest of the planning process. He said staff could return in January or February with all of the alternatives under consideration, in addition to briefings on input received at the public workshops, focus groups and steering committee meetings. Mr. Belcher said the plan generally was very comprehensive. He asked for a list of the members of the technical advisory committee, how the focus group membership was determined, and who the key stake holders and major property owners were. Noting that the steering committee did not meet until October 5, 2005, Mr. Belcher stated that he wanted the Planning Commission to approve that committee’s membership, and that it should include a member of the Planning Commission. Ms. McInelly proposed that that the term issues groups be used rather than focus groups. There was consensus from the Planning Commission to accept Ms. McInelly’s proposal. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved that the Planning Com- mission would appoint the steering committee members, and that a Plan- ning Commissioner would be appointed to serve on the committee. Mr. Lowe said timeliness would be an issue with committee appointments since this was the vacation season and many people were not available. The steering committee needed to be formed by early September in order to stay within the timeline. He proposed that staff would provide the commission with categories of people to be appointed to the committee for approval rather than specifically identify- ing the individuals, to keep the process moving. In response to a question from Mr. Lowe, Mr. Belcher said he did not have particular guidelines, but did not want that purview to leave the CIC. Ms. Muir said the Planning Commission was not required to adopt or appoint people to the committee, and staff was open to suggestions from the commission. Mr. Belcher said his issue was guidance versus approval for committee member appointments. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Page 5 Regular Meeting Mr. Lawless suggested that the same thing would be achieved if the focus was on specific interest groups rather than specific individuals, and offered that distributing the information electronically would serve that purpose. Ms. Muir proposed sending the information electronically to commissioners. If a problem developed, the issue would be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda. Mr. Belcher withdrew the motion. Ms. Colbath withdrew the second to the motion. Following a brief discussion, the commission reached consensus that Mr. Duncan and Mr. Lawless would serve as members of the steering committee, and Mr. Lawless would serve as liaison to the technical advisory committee. Ms. Levis, seconded by Ms. Colbath, moved to approve the Citizen In- volvement Program for Walnut Street Mixed Use Development Plan as amended. The motion passed 7:0. III. DISCUSSION: GROWTH MANAGEMENT Ms. Muir introduced the topic, directing the Planning Commission to pages III-13 and III-14 of the agenda packet as background information about growth management and opportunity siting, as well as a letter prepared by Commissioners Belcher and Duncan that would be used to frame the issues for the October 2005 joint meeting with the City Council. She suggested that the commission begin its discussion by debriefing the July 27, 2005 joint meeting with the City Council. Mr. Lawless proposed that commissioners prescreen issues with the council buddies so that the commis- sioners could be more prepared at the joint meeting. Ms. Levis suggested it would be interesting for the commissioners to debrief the joint meeting with their council buddies. She said an issue raised in the past by the council was the challenge in clarifying the interrelationship between the Planning Commission and planning staff. Ms. Muir said aside from the cases mandated work performed by staff, the Planning Commission’s work program guided staff work. Some Planning Commission work program items had been transferred to the Building and Permit Services, or the Development Division work programs. Ms. Colbath said the feedback from the City Council was good, and she had hoped for a more informal process at a future meeting. She said she would like to ask the council how it saw the Planning Commis- sion taking more of a leadership role for the council. Mr. Belcher said the discussion this year had been less focused that it had been in the past, and suggested asking the council what it wanted to change about the work program. Mr. Lawless liked the proactive approach, and wished to add more broad-horizon issues. Ms. Muir suggested that commissioners check in with their buddies on the priorities before the joint MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Page 6 Regular Meeting meeting to solicit councilors’ feedback. She added that the Planning Commission could make recom- mendations during the budget process regarding which projects should be funded by the City Council. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Ms. Muir said Kurt Yeiter had told the City Council that staff requests for funding 29th Avenue and Willamette Street work had been denied several times. Without a funding source, it was unlikely the project would move forward. The 29th Avenue and Willamette Street development project implementation occurred before the mixed use rules applied to the area. Further- more, the developers were working with staff to improve some of the identified issues, and had move forward knowing the rules might change. Ms. Levis observed that alternate paths had been seen as important by the council, and asked if it would be part of the October discussion. Ms. Muir said staff was optimistic about securing grant funding for the project. She suggested reviewing the status closer to the time of the joint meeting to make a decision about including it in the discussion. She clarified that the commission would be making a recommendation on what the correct alternate path was, and the October joint meeting could offer an opportunity to advise the council of the commission’s findings. Mr. Hledik asked if the Planning Commission was clear on what was the end objective of the alternate path discussions. Mr. Lawless opined that with the level of detail currently available, council’s direction to the Planning Commission was to figure it out. Ms. Muir offered several options for scoping the project. Mr. Lawless stated that opportunity siting was equally ambiguous and needed more discussion to clarify the issue. He said the commission needed to have a work session on alternate paths and opportunity siting before discussing them with the City Council. Mr. Duncan said it was important to discuss how the various projects brought to the commission, such as Walnut Station, mixed use centers, high density, or parks and open space, fit into the big picture, and how it would play out over the next few decades. He stressed the importance of having direction from the City Council on what was the big picture, and how the smaller pieces fit together. It was important to have policy discussions with the council to help determine the direction of alternate paths. Ms. Levis iterated the need for commissioners to talk with their council buddies about the alternate path issue. Mr. Belcher suggested asking the City Council to attend the Wilsonville tour with the Planning Commis- sion, to enable the council to see the same things that the commission saw, and to provide an opportunity to talk with the councilors one-on-one. Ms. Muir said it was challenging to schedule council meetings outside of their regular schedule. Mr. Belcher suggested developing briefing papers on three issues, alternate paths, opportunity siting and growth management, for discussion with the council. Ms. Levis said it was important to provide background information on the issues and ask the council for direction. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Page 7 Regular Meeting Ms. Muir advised the Planning Commission that it had been allocated 45 minutes at the October 2005 meeting and stressed the importance of being focused on the priority issues. She said the council motion said that the work session would include a discussion on opportunity siting and future population estimates. She explained the council’s operating rules, noting that the council operated in a more structured format than the Planning Commission did. Mr. Hudspeth agreed with the proposal of addressing one or two issues, suggesting alternative path as a priority, and opportunity siting as a second option. He suggested that buildable lands could be included in an opportunity siting discussion. Mr. Hledik suggested scheduling a Planning Commission retreat and inviting councilors to join them. He proposed that the commission take the leadership on discussing the priority topics and developing solutions to the council. Mr. Belcher stated that the council had a big plate with a wide array of issues. He preferred to look at the growth management study and develop an overall vision. Ms. Muir read the council’s motions, as stated on page III-14 in the agenda packet, and suggested that the Planning Commission schedule a third meeting in September to enable the commission to frame the discussion for the joint October meeting. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Belcher encouraged commissioners to attend the Oregon Planning Institute (OPI) meeting at the UO September 15-16, 2005. Ms. Muir confirmed that the city would pay the registration fees for commis- sioners wishing to attend. Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:35 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050808.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Page 8 Regular Meeting