Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue September 26, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Gabriel Flock, Nan Laurence, Allen Lowe, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Richie Weinman, Kurt Yeiter, Plan- ning and Development Department staff; Emily Jerome, City Attorney; Paul Conte, Erika Seiferling, Janice Gotchall, Carol DeFazio, John Russell, Steve Pethick, Steve Pringle, Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods; Phil Carroll, Alice Parman, Jim Spickerman, Charles Biggs, Angela Rooney, guests. ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, Vice President. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICT – CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Staff: Nan Laurence, 682-5340 Ms. Levis, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to approve the initial phase of citizen involvement for the Downtown Rezoning Review project as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff III. PC DELIBERATION/ACTION: CHAMBERS INFILL/REDEVELOPMENT CODE Staff: Kurt Yeiter, 682-8379 Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to prohibit balconies in side dormers, and that the height of the windows be no lower than four and one-half feet from the floor of the room. Mr. Belcher modified his motion to reflect Mr. Lawless’ correction. The second was amenable to the modification. The motion failed, 1:4, commissioner Belcher voting in favor, and com- MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting  missioners Duncan, Hledik, Hudspeth, and Lawless voting in opposition. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to deny approval of this code unless it was matched with a concurrent opportunity zoning deci- sion in the same area of Eugene. The motion failed, 2:3, commissioners Belcher and Duncan voting in favor, and commissioners, Hledik, Hudspeth, and Lawless voting in opposition. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to recommend that the City Council approve the draft Chambers Reconsidered code amend- ments and zone change proposals, as contained in Attachment A, and the recommended transportation improvements described in Attachments D, E, and F, as well as the proposed revisions in Attachment C distributed during the beginning of the meeting. The motion passed, 1:4, commissioners Duncan, Hledik, Hudspeth, and Lawless voting in favor, and commissioner Belcher voting in opposition. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 2 Regular Meeting  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue September 26, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Gabriel Flock, Nan Laurence, Allen Lowe, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Richie Weinman, Kurt Yeiter, Plan- ning and Development Department staff; Emily Jerome, City Attorney; Paul Conte, Erika Seiferling, Janice Gotchall, Carol DeFazio, John Russell, Steve Pethick, Steve Pringle, Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods; Phil Carroll, Alice Parman, Jim Spickerman, Charles Biggs, Angela Rooney, guests. ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, Vice President. Mr. Lawless convened the meeting at 11:37 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, expressed concern with the Mixed Use Center (MUC) process, noting that the design of some MUCs included the MUC being divided by major arterials that created barriers to their intended purpose. He also was concerned that various groups, such as developers, staff and neighborhoods were playing off each other, adding that he wished they would come together in a consensus forum to share views and reach greater resolution. I. DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICT – CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Ms. Laurence offered the staff report of the Downtown Zoning District Citizen Involvement Process. She referred to two posters on the wall entitled: Transit Orientation Development Overlay Zones 1.0 and 2.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Downtown Vision Key Next Steps (Adopted by Council April 9, 2001). Ms. Laurence said the Downtown Plan implementation strategy called for the creation of a single zone to unify the downtown core and to support downtown development. Following Planning Commission direction, planning staff had requested that the City Council initiate a code amendment to begin the staff work and full public participation. Council action directed staff to solicit a wider range of input on potential issues prior to the initiation of the code amendment process. The Planning Commission, acting as the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) for land use matters, was asked to provide advice about how the public outreach might take place in this unique situation. Ms. Laurence reviewed the process that had been used, as stated in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). Ms. Laurence said the City Council directed staff to begin a public process to solicit public input and to further refine the issues under consideration for initiation of a code amendment for downtown-related MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting regulations on September 12, 2005. The Planning Commission, as the city’s CIC, was asked by the council to provide input on the prelimi- nary scoping phase of this project. Following City Council’s initiation of the code amendments, staff will bring a more extensive citizen involvement plan to the Planning Commission for approval. Ms. Laurence said staff was asking for approval from the Planning Commission of a modified citizen involvement plan that differed somewhat from that in the AIS, that included one citizen workshop and an expanded website that would serve as a virtual public open house. In response to a question from Ms. Levis regarding the City Council concern, Ms. Laurence said staff had presented information including four specific issues at the September 12 City Council meeting, including reviewing the TD overlay and changes related to ground floor residential and limitations on surface parking. Ms. Laurence said the council was comfortable with three of the four proposals, noting that it was not comfortable changing the limits to surface parking. The council noted that citizen involvement had been through the Planning Commission and the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC), but there had been no other citizen participation. In a four to four vote, with Mayor Kitty Piercy casting the tie breaking vote, the council voted to direct staff to solicit additional citizen input before the council initiated a code amendment. Speaking as a member of both the Planning Commission and the ERAC, Mr. Duncan said the parking lot discussion was an interim strategy to provide opportunities to create higher density on commercial properties in the downtown area. The ERAC recognized that phasing might be the economic way to encourage project construction. He said it appeared to him that the City Council assumed that the commission and ERAC were asking for more surface parking lots as the direction, rather than as an interim measure. Ms. Laurence said the argument about timing of interim parking had not been fully discussed at City Council. Mr. Nystrom said the City Council had looked at the process as having too narrow a scope of issues, receiving too little public input, and needing input from a broader spectrum of the public, which was the intent of today’s Planning Commission discussion. Mr. Duncan asked if there were other sources, such as financial feasibility of projects, that needed to be included in information provided to the council. Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Duncan if he had ideas for getting the information out to the public and to the council. He opined that holding a developers forum could provide a meaningful way to solicit informa- tion. He added that Ms. Laurence had explained the information well before the City Council, and that the council wanted a broader range of opinion. Mr. Duncan cited the Portland area as an example where lending institutions and other development related organizations provided the type of information that would be helpful for that area. Mr. Belcher suggested bringing forward information created by Terry Moore of ECONorthwest several years ago regarding development issues in the downtown area. He asked for clarification on what Ms. Laurence’s goal was for the public in the process. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 2 Regular Meeting Ms. Laurence said the goal was to start with the four identified issues, and determine if there were additional issues, as well as determining a priority for the issues. Mr. Lawless liked the idea of starting with a loose framework that was open ended to solicit what other things impacted the community as citizens, developers, and as visitors. He supported the idea of a developer financing educational session, to provide the context of how developments really happened. Ms. Levis said she was concerned with two things, the first being why was there concern at the City Council about initiating this code amendment process, and how could the commission forward the council what it wanted in a timely manner. Secondly, as a downtown business owner/property owner, there was a perception in the community that the current process appeared somewhat unorganized. Ms. Levis asked if major downtown property owners could be brought into the process. She said there was a need to reach out to the key players, and ensure that whatever actions the commission proposed and the council adopted did not hinder the property owners’ development plans. She added that ungrounded perceptions needed to be better managed. Mr. Duncan supported Ms. Levis’ comments, adding that by going to the key downtown players, the list of important items to discuss with council may be expanded, but also may solicit greater clarification on how business people view the city’s proposal and efforts. He noted that large pieces of downtown had not been developed in a long time, and it was important to get an idea from business owners on what issues were important to them. If issues identified by the Planning Commission and City Council were not important to the business people, there may be other areas the city should focus on. The result of soliciting information from business people may be a narrower scope of work. He emphasized that he did not wish to revisit the downtown plan at this time. Mr. Hudspeth asked if there were examples of special zoning in use in other communities. Ms. Laurence replied the research had been done, and it had shown that there were two ways to facilitate the process. The first was to create a special zoning district. The second was to state that existing zoning was adequate and ask if it could be treated better. She opined that Eugene fell in the middle, noting that there were multiple layers of zoning districts. She asked if they could be simplified by creating one downtown district. She said the review revealed that the zones were working pretty well, but they were inconsistent, confusing, and perhaps there was not enough flexibility. Ms. Laurence suggested rather than creating an entirely new zoning district, modifying the existing zoning districts to make them work better may be an acceptable solution. She added that other communi- ties had successfully followed this route using a variety of methods, including how communities required FAR, minimums versus maximums, or where flexibility was offered based upon height or uses. Mr. Hudspeth asked for specific examples or case studies of what other regional communities had done to stimulate their downtown areas. Ms. Laurence noted that zoning by itself was not the cause of development, but rather one tool, coupled with the land use code, to encourage development. Generally those communities that were successful looked at a diverse portfolio, including incentives, codes that encouraged development, and community decisions about what is important to them. She suggested considering this at a future meeting. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 3 Regular Meeting Mr. Hudspeth suggested adding several organizations to the interested parties list, including: University of Oregon, Lane Community College, PeaceHealth, and Triad Hospitals, Inc. Additionally, he suggested including Eugene arts community organizations that drew visitors into the downtown area, such as the Oregon Bach Festival, Eugene Ballet Company, Eugene Symphony, and the Downtown Initiative for the Visual Arts (DIVA). As a board member of the Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI) for many years, Mr. Lawless suggested using an aggressive approach by invitation to encourage representation by interested downtown property owners, both inside and outside of the DEI membership, and outside of the identified downtown boundary, such as the Fifth Street Public Market and the Midtown District, to solicit participation, as stake holders. Mr. Belcher said some members of the City Council said the original approach had been too focused on downtown people and their interests. He encouraged staff to ensure that input from users was also solicited. He asked if there was value in having this issue come back to the Planning Commission before it went to the City Council, if the Planning Commission would be involved with a forum. Mr. Lawless stated it was important for all involved to have a good understanding of the political issues surrounding the process. Additionally, it was important for all to have a good understanding of what the City Council wanted, the direction of the Growth Management Study (GMS), and what the Downtown Vision encompassed. He added that the council needed to be clear with its intents and political views to enable the process to be successful. Ms. Levis said DEI may be willing to provide information about the process by including information about it through the DEI newsletter, as well as facilitating participating with property and business owners. She added that the proposed website virtual open house was a creative way to solicit feedback. She reiterated that it was important to clarify what result the City Council was looking for, and suggested that commissioners should check with their council buddies on this issue. Ms. Laurence summarized the commissioners’ comments, noting that one-on-one contacts with property owners, DEI, neighborhood groups, and downtown users, in addition to the website proposal and a citizen meeting, were desired components. Mr. Lawless said it was important to include feedback from various groups to provide broad coverage in a concise manner as a springboard to provide informative feedback. Mr. Sullivan supported Mr. Duncan’s proposal of bringing forward material notions of developability and finance to the table. It needed to done in a clear manner, if not formally, to ensure that it was recognized as a legitimate element of the process. He suggested this could be accomplished in a variety of ways, such as through a forum, or with information from Terry Moore. Mr. Sullivan said significant teams were working with two prospective downtown developments, and opined it would be beneficial to have input about the future from those developers. Ms. Levis, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to approve the initial phase of citizen involvement for the Downtown Rezoning Review project as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Levis encouraged Planning Commissioner’s to talk with their council buddies about this issue. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 4 Regular Meeting Mr. Duncan proposed revising the agenda, and moving II. A. Other Items from Staff, to the next item on the agenda. Mr. Lawless noted consensus from commissioners to do so. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Muir reported that on September 12, 2005, the City Council unanimously adopted a motion to direct the City Manager to immediately begin a swift, high-priority initiative to discuss a signable purchase option on PeaceHealth property and that of other property owners in the vicinity of 12th Avenue and Willamette Street. The City Manager should call on the assistance of local private sector individuals with real estate expertise to expedite the process. She added that was being staffed by PDD, and explained the process underway. Ms. Levis left at 12:14 p.m. III. PC DELIBERATION/ACTION: CHAMBERS INFILL/REDEVELOPMENT CODE Mr. Yeiter distributed a map entitled Attachment C Proposed Revision to Map 9.3055 for S-C/C-2 Subarea, for inclusion in the agenda packet and today’s discussion. Mr. Lowe said following the July 26, 2005 public hearing, staff met several times with members of Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) to incorporate CAFHN’s recommenda- tions into the final draft. Gabe Flock and Mike McKerrow, PDD staff, met with CAFHN representative Paul Conte, to work through the final set of changes to the plan, all of which were reflected in the draft code included in the agenda packet. The draft had been reviewed by the City Attorney represented by Emily Jerome at today’s meeting. CAFHN submitted a letter, included in the agenda packet, dated September 6, 2005, supporting the standards in the draft code. Mr. Lowe said the figures supporting the code were under revision, but not yet available. He said the revised figures would accompany the draft code forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Lowe said staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward the ordinance to the City Council establishing the Chambers Special Area Zone for adoption. He added that the Planning Commission would need to make a specific recommendation on Attachment C Proposed Revision to Map 9.3055 for S-C/C-2 Subarea. He asked that the Planning Commission make a specific recommendation on the transportation improvements described in Attachments D, E, and F of today’s agenda packet. Mr. Hledik asked for clarification of a statement on page II-2, paragraph 3, sentence 3, Staff recommends that the standards be adopted for the Chambers area, but stresses that these standards should not be viewed as a precedent for other residential areas or Mixed Use Centers. Mr. Yeiter stated that the standards had been crafted based upon a neighborhood outreach conducted in the Chambers area, and staff did not recommend that they be used in other R-2, R-3 zoned neighbor- hoods. He added that the specific nature of the development pattern, development history, and the nature of the infill development within the last year in area resulted in this specific set of recommendations. As MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 5 Regular Meeting discussed prior to the public hearings, the areas that requested R-2 reduced the allowed density based upon a carrying capacity study for the lots in consideration. He added that the area was small enough that the impact of the change, compared to the maximum allowed density in the R-2 zone was not highly significant through all of the R-2, R-3, R-4 zoned areas. Thus, staff was comfortable recommending the proposed changes for this neighborhood based on the theory that reduction in allowable density for the medium density areas was not impactful to the buildable land supply. Mr. Yeiter said staff was concerned if these standards were assumed to be applicable to other residential neighborhoods, because the development patterns, the history, and the quality of housing in other neighborhoods may not warrant this type of process. Staff considered this to be part of an ongoing experimentation with MUCs, noting that other techniques may be more applicable in other scenarios. He said the staff recommendation was to consider this as an experiment for this neighborhood. Mr. Belcher expressed his appreciation to CAFHN for the great job they did. He noted that the commis- sion has been approached by other neighborhoods for similar work. Mr. Yeiter replied that while the topic was appropriate for most neighborhoods, the discussion would continue moving forward to the next joint meeting with the City Council on opportunity siting and its implications. Large neighborhoods were zoned for much higher density than the target for MUCs. The current zoning for residential neighborhoods allowed a steady increase in allowable density because of high level policy discussions that had not been resolved. Mr. Lowe said this process was done under the umbrella of MUCs, and staff looked at problems in a specific area related to infill and redevelopment, which brought to light the problems with the R-2 zone. The R-2 zone existed in many areas outside of MUCs. The R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts presented a fundamental problem in that the design standards of the policy set by the City Council and the design standards established for those zones created conflicts. The result was a structural problem that demanded a review of R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning, and the associated design standards, which arguably may actually be missing, from those zoning districts that enabled the unwanted problem to occur. Mr. Lowe implored the Planning Commission to refrain from establishing this pattern in other neighbor- hoods without looking at what was really broken, the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts. Mr. Belcher stated that while the proposed was a generally well crafted solution, he feared this solution did not get to the crux of the issue of design standards or site review. He added that the side effect of the solution stated that the city would treat this as an R-1 zone without changing the zone. He noted that the Planning Commission had been asked to address issues in the past that had been identified as having minimal impact but almost always concluded with reducing zoning densities that resulted in de facto zoning. Mr. Lowe said the Chambers Reconsidered process was done in good faith with CAFHN, and had resulted in a product that not everyone may be comfortable with. In fact, design standards for a small enclave of houses were prescribed, and were not significant in terms of the overall city goals. He stated that staff followed the direction of the Planning Commission to work with CAFHN to incorporate their recommendations into the final draft ordinance. Mr. Lowe said staff concurred with Mr. Belcher’s assertion that a discussion about density needed to occur. However, staff did not recommend that the Chambers Reconsidered plan be put on the shelf until the issues were resolved, as those discussions would be significant and have implications far beyond the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 6 Regular Meeting Chambers Reconsidered plan. Mr. Lawless said it was important to look at this process as a series of piece meal issues about density and neighborhood structure, transportation, and preservation of established neighborhoods. This process helped clarify what other work needs to be done. He stated the infill standards for this neighborhood were well crafted and needed to be considered a setting at a time. He agreed this was an experiment, and much else remained to be done. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Yeiter, in consultation with Mr. Lowe and Mr. Conte, said that the residential study indicated that the density would be about 12 units per acre, and could go as high as 28 units per acre. Mr. Duncan said the plan was a great plan, and agreed with Mr. Belcher the density goal set under the Growth Management Study (GMS) would not be achieved if incremental changes continued to occur. Mr. Belcher concurred this was a good plan that he could support, with the exception of protection of the view of backyards. He proposed that the plan move forward in tandem the implementation of another code that created an opportunity siting study that provided for increasing density through opportunity siting in the general area. Mr. Lowe asked if Mr. Belcher’s proposal meant bringing back the 1998 version of the Chambers Plan or something like it where opportunity siting, as it was now called, was used to identify those areas in which additional development densities could occur, as a starting point for a discussion. He added, in the study, there were areas identified as those areas that would receive additional density. Mr. Belcher agreed that would be a starting point. Mr. Sullivan said that taking action here would not necessarily create a good dovetail into an opportunity siting discussion in the future. If the commission took action on this item, the City Council would likely have a discussion on opportunity siting, and opportunity siting would be a good implementation measure to compliment action taken today. Passing this on would be good progress on the Chambers issues in general and a logical lead in to a opportunity siting discussion and action in the future. Mr. Belcher said Mr. Sullivan’s suggestion was too vague and he wanted the plan to move forward with an opportunity siting study. Mr. Lawless said the necessary discussion was a much broader one that would have city-wide implica- tions. How it would be applied to various areas was going to take a long time, and he saw it as an additive component that helped move towards higher density but did not detract or subtract from the progress made in the Chambers Reconsidered component. Some other mechanism to find reasonable ways to achieve density goals in addition to context specific was very appropriate. Mr. Hledik said he was bothered because there was no provision for infill development of lots that were back to back or side to side, and there was no provision to allow for adjustment or elimination the wider setbacks or angles when they did not have any impact on existing development. Mr. Flock responded this was part of the lot aggregation piece. The ordinance intentionally did not afford any degree of flexibility that addressed neighborhood concerns about the pattern of existing development and existing lots, and the character they represented. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 7 Regular Meeting Mr. Yeiter added that the intent was to have new development follow the old pattern. Mr. Hledik asserted the proposed language represented a missed opportunity to densify in a manner that protected the adjacent users. Mr. Duncan concurred with Mr. Hledik, citing successful projects in older neighborhoods in Bend, Oregon, where lot assemblage had created projects that blended very well in the existing neighborhood. Such built-in flexibility in the code that could be beneficial was missing from the current plan. Mr. Lowe stated that lot aggregation and partitions, how lots were created, was fundamental part of CAFHN’s issue base. Aggregation was a staff concern. Mr. Lawless understood a good portion of the concept was to preserve internal areas and the perimeter of the CAFHN area. He had no problem keeping the fine grain of the separation, ownership, and scale as it existed. Mr. Yeiter said the ordinance treated density and the physical layout of the lots and structures separately, leaving opportunities to add some limited density, i.e., no more than three units per lot, as long as they fell within the structures and lot lines that fit the old pattern. Mr. Nystrom said some nagging issues remained, and proposed forwarding messages to the City Council regarding what the Planning Commission would like the council to consider through the experiment. He sited lot aggregation as an example. Mr. Duncan stated it would have been helpful for him if how this plan fit with the GMS policy would have been explained, to provide a picture of how the proposal fit within all 19 of the policies. This type of documentation would provide both the Planning Commission and the City Council a better feel of how this fit into the big picture. He added that although it may be necessary to reexamine these actions in five or ten years, they may never come back. Although everyone wanted to revisit refinement plans ten years ago, the Chambers Reconsidered project has served somewhat as a refinement plan for this area. Mr. Lowe stated that refinement plan review was part of the department’s on-going work program issues, and returning to established plans went to availability of resources. Mr. Nystrom said this process would be looked back upon as an experiment, to consider what worked and what did not work. Ms. Muir said that the state transportation plan had reporting requirements whereby the City of Eugene had to report its accomplishments under this program to the State of Oregon. She added the most recent report had been submitted within the last two years. Mr. Belcher said this proposal failed to meet the needs of the neighbors related to the issue of viewing into backyards. Dormers had not been adequately addressed. The proposed language allowed for two side dormers on the back half of the property, each ten feet wide, with no limit on glazing or balconies. This created a situation where people perch and look over into neighbor’s backyards. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to prohibit balconies in side dormers, and that the height of the windows be no lower than four MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 8 Regular Meeting  and one-half feet from the floor of the room. Mr. Lawless stated that the code contained mandatory second floor bedroom exit, sill height, and window language. Mr. Belcher modified his motion to reflect Mr. Lawless’ correction. The second was amenable to the modification. Mr. Lawless said he was not supportive of the changes, and that other options, including landscaping were available to protect backyards. Mr. Lawless illustrated various setback examples for use during the discussion. The commission briefly discussed design and code issues related to balconies. Mr. Duncan opined that the Planning Commission was attempting to intensify living in an area. When people chose to live in that area, they chose not to have 100 percent privacy. The commission was attempting to find a balance that would allow people to use their homes and enjoy the outdoor spaces. While creating some screening, it was not possible to guarantee total privacy. Corner lots were particu- larly problematic. He proposed having a discussion about how balconies were created rather than completely taking away that option. Mr. Belcher said the code was designed to protect privacy, thus it was appropriate to deal with privacy issues. Additionally, his motion would not preclude balconies on the back of houses, or in the first 60 feet. Mr. Lowe said it was important to note that CAFHN submitted a letter in which it agreed with the standards proposed and was not seeking additional privacy provisions. This was a negotiated outcome between CAFHN and PDD staff. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Lowe said second floor balconies were currently allowed in the code, as modified by the provisions in the draft code language. He cautioned the commission that it was running risks in conducting quick analyses on such a complex issue. Mr. Nystrom said there were allowances in the code for encroachments, and opined that some level of encroachment would be allowed, although it needed to be within the overall envelope. Mr. Flock said balconies were not an expressly permitted intrusion into the interior yard setback. The motion failed, 1:4, commissioner Belcher voting in favor, and com- missioners Duncan, Hledik, Hudspeth, and Lawless voting in opposition. Mr. Belcher said CAFHN raised the point that the proposed ordinance would allow uses not currently allowed, and asked how Ballot Measure 37 would apply. Ms. Jerome explained the balance and net effect would be taken into consideration in a determination. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom stated the prohibition of development in alleys as well as other provisions could possibly be allowed if the new code was adopted. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 9 Regular Meeting Mr. Lowe explained that the map distributed at the beginning of the meeting identified commercial properties, including the property represented by Jim Spickerman who submitted testimony at the public hearing as well as other commercial properties that had the same characteristics. Staff recommended that the properties identified on the map be removed from the C-2 zone. He added that the figures on the maps were under revision, and asked that the Planning Commission give some indication of its support for or arguments against adoption of the staff recommendation on the map as part of its recommendation for approval. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to deny approval of this code unless it was matched with a concurrent opportunity zoning deci- sion in the same area of Eugene. The motion failed, 2:3, commissioners Belcher and Duncan voting in favor, and commissioners, Hledik, Hudspeth, and Lawless voting in opposition. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to recommend that the City Council approve the draft Chambers Reconsidered code amend- ments and zone change proposals, as contained in Attachment A, and the recommended transportation improvements described in Attachments D, E, and F, as well as the proposed revisions in Attachment C distributed during the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Belcher said he would vote against the motion, not because he disagreed with the plan, but because he felt it was not the only way to deal with the problem, and it created a bigger problem of addressing density issues for the city as a whole. Mr. Hledik said while recognizing Mr. Belcher’s concerns, he would vote in favor of the proposal. He said in balancing neighborhood and character preservation against density increases, the proposal favored neighborhood preservation. He was concerned about the ability to increase density in terms of lot aggregation in support of redevelopment of areas in the future. He asked that commissioners’ comments be forwarded to the City Council. In response to Mr. Duncan, Ms. Muir said staff would forward his request to the City Council that analyses of the city’s growth management policies accompany the draft ordinance, to help explain what the tradeoffs were in decisions related to the ordinance. Mr. Duncan added that although he had some reservations about the proposal, he would vote to support the motion. He also supported addressing the R-2 issue, but did not want to hold up this ordinance until the R-2 issue was resolved. Mr. Lowe added that all of the growth management policies were included as part of the findings for the proposed ordinance. The motion passed, 1:4, commissioners Duncan, Hledik, Hudspeth, and Lawless voting in favor, and commissioner Belcher voting in opposition. Mr. Belcher said he had some questions related to building heights that had been raised by the CAFHN group. Mr. Nystrom said height was measured in a variety of ways in different jurisdictions. In Eugene, the ridgeline was used when measuring, which provided more flexibility, and encouraged steeper pitches. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 10 Regular Meeting Mr. Lowe said it was the commission’s prerogative to initiate a city-wide code change. Mr. Belcher asked to have the issue flagged for future code discussions. Ms. Muir said this had not been raised as a city-wide problem. She said staff had a list of over 200 issues that had been raised by the public, noting that the issue could be added to the list. Mr. Nystrom said there was some benefit in the mid-height measurement when trying to maintain some consistency between R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones, because it allowed greater flexibility without layers of regulation. Mr. Duncan stated that the message that the R-2 zoning had become very problematic should be communicated to the council. Mr. Lowe said this was a big issue, noting that the current objective was to move this project through the council, acknowledging there were certain issues that needed more discussion. Mr. Lawless opined that opportunity siting and achieving density goals could be added to discussions with council buddies. He reminded commissioners to forward their description of opportunity siting to Mr. Yeiter for the October 26, 2005 joint meeting with the City Council. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Addressed previously in the meeting. B. Other Items from Commission Commissioners thanked staff and CAFHN for their work on the Chambers Reconsidered project. Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:25 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050926.doc) MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 26, 2005 Page 11 Regular Meeting