Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue September 12, 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; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Gabriel Flock, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Mike McKerrow, Planning and Development Department staff; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department staff; Pat Zimmerman, State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee; Terry Connolly, Rob Handy, Zachary Vishanoff, Jim Welsh, guests. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – May 23, June 28, and July 18, 2005 Ms. Colbath, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to approve the May 23, June 28, and July 18, 2005 minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. DELIBERATION/ACTION: MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS (CA 04-4) Staff: Steve Nystrom, 682-8385 Ms. Levis, seconded by Ms. Colbath moved to change the rowhouse lot standards to establishing a 15 foot lot width rather than an 18 foot lot width. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Hledik moved to recommend to the City Council to approve the draft ordinance amending Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code dated August 26, 2005, as amended, with clarifications discussed at the September 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. III. DISCUSSION: RASOR PARK MIXED USE CENTER PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN Staff: Kurt Yeiter, 682-8379 III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue September 12, 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; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Gabriel Flock, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Mike McKerrow, Planning and Development Department staff; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department staff; Pat Zimmerman, State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee; Terry Connolly, Rob Handy, Zachary Vishanoff, Jim Welsh, guests. Mr. Lawless convened the meeting at 11:38 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, commented on an article in the September 12, 2005 Register Guard, regarding smart growth. He said smart growth was related to eminent domain, corporate welfare, the smaller schools initiative and gentrification. He asked the Planning Commission to initiate a smart growth discussion in the community. He suggested that the Planning Commission read The Folly of Smart Growth, and The Curse of the Creative Class. Rob Handy, 455 ½ River Road, thanked the Planning Commissioners for participating in the recent walking tour of the proposed Rasor Park mixed use project. He said the project was in the early stages of its maturation process. Ms. Levis thanked Mr. Handy for emails he had sent to the Planning Commission on the Rasor Park project. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – May 23, June 28, and July 18, 2005 May 23, 2005 • Ms. Colbath corrected page 1, attendance to read: PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Anne Marie Levis, Randy Hledik, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department staff. • Ms. Colbath corrected page 6, paragraph 4, sentence 2 to read: She suggested letting people donate their testimony time, as had been done at previous public hearings, to someone else to cre- ate an opportunity for longer testimony without going out of established guidelines. June 28, 2005 • Mr. Lawless corrected the footers in the minutes. • Ms. Colbath corrected page 13, paragraph 3 to read: Ms. Colbath asked to have the hearing be MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting  held open through Tuesday, July 26, 2005. • Ms. Colbath corrected page 13, paragraph 6, to read: She asked that the Planning Department consider applying the CAFHN proposal on a city wide basis. July 18, 2005 • Ms. Colbath corrected page 4, paragraph 2 to read: Ms. Colbath wanted to ensure that the council knew that they had the option versus saying this was what we absolutely believed ought to be done. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to approve the May 23, June 28, and July 18, 2005 minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. DELIBERATION/ACTION: MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS (CA 04-4) Mr. Nystrom reported that no new information had been received since the May 17, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing. He said following the public hearing, the commission did not direct staff to make any specific changes to the proposed ordinance, but did leave open the amendment related to rowhouse lot width. Mr. Nystrom said staff proposed an amendment to EC 9.2760 regarding lot width for rowhouse lots in R- 1. Staff had proposed 18 feet as the minimum lot width. While this figure would likely account for typical rowhouse design, staff acknowledged that there could still be some rowhouse designs that would be as narrow as 15 feet. Since there was no ability to request an adjustment review for lot width in the R- 1 zone, a reduction below the 18 foot requirement could only be considered through a variance applica- tion, PUD or cluster subdivision. Given these factors, Mr. Lawless asked staff and the commission to consider establishing a 15 foot lot width. Mr. Nystrom asked the Planning Commission to provide direction on this matter. Mr. Nystrom said that except for a few minor clean-up edits, the ordinance attached to the agenda packet for today’s meeting was the same as that reviewed at the May 17, 2005 public hearing. Mr. Lawless said that he still felt that the 18 foot requirement would make it more difficult to be more creative and compact with housing designs. Ms. Colbath said the commission had been striving to provide situations where housing could be more compact, and Mr. Lawless’ proposal offered that opportunity. Ms. Levis, seconded by Ms. Colbath moved to change the rowhouse lot standards to establishing a 15 foot lot width rather than an 18 foot lot width. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Lawless facilitated a review of 80 Proposed Minor Code Fixes included in the agenda packet. The proposed changes were reviewed on an exception basis. EC 9.0500 • In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Nystrom said the proposed language allowed for certain types of conifers to be included as allowable types of canopy trees. He said the current definition prohib- MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 2 Regular Meeting  ited all conifers. • In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. McKerrow said the change would allow Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir trees to be used. Table 9.2170 EC 9.2171(5)(c) • In response to Mr. Lawless, Mr. Nystrom said this was intended to fill in a gap between the current code language for C-1 and C-2. He added 60 percent was not scientific, but rather a rea- sonable option. Mr. Nystrom affirmed Mr. Lawless’ statement that flexible pedestrian amenities still applied. EC 2761(5) • In response to Mr. Lawless, Mr. Nystrom replied that the exception to maximum lot size would be granted through the adjustment review process. EC9.5350 • Mr. Lawless stated this change was initiated by the City Council as a result of concerns about parking for home occupations on flag lots. The code did not permit home occupations on flag lots. Mr. Nystrom affirmed Mr. Lawless’ statement that the code was very explicit with this, as well as many other standards related to flag lots, and that no adjustments or variances were al- lowable. Mr. Lawless expressed frustration that such a blanket statement would assume that every home business would generate a significant amount of traffic, noting that many types of home businesses would not generate any traffic. • Ms. Colbath said she was aware of a half-way house that provided housing for twelve residents and a day care center on flag lots. She asked if these types of home occupations would be prohib- ited on flag lots under the proposed standards. Mr. Nystrom explained that federal and state laws addressed family unit descriptions. He said the examples Ms. Colbath cited would not be consid- ered home occupations, and would typically require conditional use permits. • Ms. Colbath asked if businesses that did not generate traffic, such as accounting firms, were prohibited under the code. Mr. Nystrom said the City Council wanted a tight regulation on non- residential use on flag lots. Mr. McKerrow stated that response to this type of code violation was complaint based. • Ms. Levis suggested that the Planning Commission advise the City Council that the council needed to more thoroughly review issues related to flag lots that could not be addressed in the minor code fixes process. In a straw poll, the commission voted 6:1, with Mr. Belcher abstaining, to forward that suggestion to the City Council. EC 9.5800(5)(b) • Mr. Hledik questioned why limitations should be placed on temporary uses in commercial zones. Mr. McKerrow explained the current language could allow a continuous parking lot sale, adding that typical parking lot events used parking spaces. The City Council intent was to allow for spe- cial events but not continuous events, noting that the proposed code language of allowing three special events annually met the comments and intent of the City Council. Mr. Hledik stated that the proposed language was too restrictive. Mr. Sullivan said if parking was the issue, downtown was a parking exempt zone, and questioned how the code would be interpreted for downtown businesses. • In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. McKerrow said the current code language was not clear on the definition of temporary use. Mr. McKerrow said that special events rather than MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 3 Regular Meeting  an accessory use would be the standard under which the code would be interpreted, noting that enforcement of this would be complaint based. • Ms. Colbath stated that proposed changes to EC 9.5800(5)(b) should not be included in the list as the language was very clear. Mr. Nystrom said because the code language was ambiguous, a lib- eral interpretation could allow for virtually constant temporary uses. • Ms. Levis proposed flagging this issue for the City Council as a judgment that three times annu- ally was the maximum number of events permitted. She suggested that the Chamber of Com- merce may want to ask retailers to provide feedback on this proposed change. In a straw poll, the commission voted 7:0 to forward the suggestion to the City Council that the council take a more in-depth look at this issue, noting that the commission had no consensus on how many times a year temporary uses in commercial zones were as appropriate. EC 9.6105(4) table EC 9.6410 (table) • Mr. Hudspeth asked for clarification on the difference between long term and short term bicycle parking. Mr. McKerrow said long term parking was intended for employees, and included safety features such as lighting and enclosed spaces. Short term parking, generally consisted of a bicy- cle rack, was intended for customers, and required to be located near the main entrance of busi- nesses. Mr. McKerrow said the code currently did not require signage to distinguish between employee and customer parking. Mr. Hudspeth asked if any employer feedback had been re- ceived in support or opposition to the proposed language, and expressed concern that providing secure bicycle parking could be a burden to some businesses. EC 9.6610(1) • Ms. Colbath expressed concern that this provision would clarify that election dates in other coun- ties do not qualify for the exemption. EC 9.6709 • In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Nystrom said the proposed change in the code language was intended to conform to changes in the federal law, which the city was required to adhere to. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Hledik moved to recommend to the City Council to approve the draft ordinance amending Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code dated August 26, 2005, as amended, with clarifications discussed at the September 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Muir thanked the Planning Commissioners for their work on the minor land use code amendments. Ms. Levis said staff did a very good job on developing the language and explaining it to commissioners. III. DISCUSSION: RASOR PARK MIXED USE CENTER PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN Mr. Yeiter distributed copies of a handout entitled, My thoughts on the proposed Citizen Involvement Process for the Rasor Park Mixed Use Study, by Jon Belcher. Mr. Yeiter said he had received an email from the chair of the Whiteaker Community Council (WCC) MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 4 Regular Meeting asking that no action be taken on this agenda item. Ms. Levis noted that the commission generally accommodated requests to delay taking action on items. Mr. Yeiter explained the process for mixed use centers, noting that a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant had been awarded by the State of Oregon to explore an implementation strategy for the Rasor Park Mixed Use Center. The objective of the grant-funded study was to hire expert consultants to work with staff, the public and property owners to provide the following: • Education about mixed use centers. • Opportunity scan of the larger lower River Road study area. • Recommendations for the number, type, and location of feasible mixed use centers in this area. • Recommendation for one mixed use center for further study. • Conceptual development plan and implementation strategy for the chosen mixed use center. • Recommendations for improvements to facilitate pedestrian crossings of River Road. Mr. Duncan left at 12:30 p.m. In response to Ms. Levis, Mr. Yeiter said the chair of the WCC was upset because the WCC had not received a copy of the staff report that had been distributed to the Planning Commission, noting that the WCC asked that no action be taken on the Rasor Park mixed use study until the appropriate level of citizen involvement had been addressed. Mr. Nystrom said this was a unique opportunity in that the city did not usually have the opportunity to advocate to the State on projects and influence related decisions. He added that the Planning Commission would still have an opportunity to address citizen involvement within current budget constraints. Mr. Belcher said it was not clear in the staff note that future citizen involvement opportunities would be available to the Planning Commission. Based upon the staff explanation, he was willing to assume that there would be an opportunity for formal approval of the citizen involvement component of the project in the future. Mr. Belcher said eventually the ND overlay, one of the most broken pieces of the code, needed to be addressed. Mr. Yeiter said review of the ND overlay had not been identified as a separate work program item. Ms. Muir suggested keeping this as a topic for the next joint meeting with the City Council. Mr. Belcher said it would be important to get feedback at the end of the process from the public and the participants regarding what did and what did not work. He stressed the need to examine who would participate in the process, including minorities and students. Ms. Muir said minority representation on city boards and commissions was currently under review by the City Council. Mr. Yeiter said that preparing a post-project report, and having the materials on the city’s webpage, at the Eugene Public Library and at the Permit and Information Center (PIC), as proposed by Mr. Belcher would occur. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Belcher said there used to be an established Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC), noting that land use issues had been assigned to the Planning Commission. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 5 Regular Meeting Ms. Muir said she would ask Beth Bridges to conduct a briefing for the commission on citizen involve- ment. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Yeiter said although steering or advisory committees were routinely used for most projects in the past, they were very resource intensive. A charrette process that provided participation by all who wished to be included was used as a pilot project with the Royal Avenue and Chambers Reconsidered processes, and would likely be used for the Rasor Park process. He said the neighborhood organization would be used to develop the process and the interested parties list, adding that all who were interested would be invited to participate. Ms. Levis suggested inviting neighborhood organizations that had already been through the process to participate in the process. Commissioners suggested several corrections and additions to the interested parties list to staff. Ms. Colbath suggested having more workshops rather than multi-day charrettes, to encourage participa- tion by more people. Mr. Lawless concurred with Ms. Colbath, adding that a more disbursed calendar would provide greater public participation. Ms. Levis suggested having the consultants prepare a report at the end of the process would be beneficial. Mr. Lawless said that feedback at the end of the process should be solicited from staff as well as the consultants. Mr. Belcher suggested soliciting feedback from the citizen participants would be helpful. Mr. Yeiter said the state would issue the Requests for Proposals (RFP) within a month. Mr. Belcher offered to meet with the River Road Community Organization and WCC chair persons. Mr. Yeiter said the proposal submitted to the state would be include all of the necessary information. Mr. Sullivan opined that the ability to change the parameters of the study would be very limited after it was adopted by the state. Ms. Colbath said the ND overlay component was a critical issue that the Planning Commission needed to address. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Mr. Nystrom reviewed the Planning Commission’s calendar for September and October. Ms. Muir said staff was providing the City Council with a PowerPoint presentation tonight regarding code amendments. Mr. Yeiter said the process with Chamber Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFNH) had gone well. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 6 Regular Meeting Mr. Nystrom introduced Pat Zimmerman, the Chair Person of the State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee, as a guest at the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Zimmerman asked Planning Commis- sioners to stay for a few minutes after the Planning Commission meeting to talk with her about citizen involvement issues. B. Other Items from Commission There were no items from the Commission. Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:19 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050912.doc) MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 7 Regular Meeting