Planning Commission

MINUTES Planning Commission Sloat Room – Atrium Building – 99 West 10th Avenue November 28, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Vice President; John Lawless, Randy Hledik, Phillip Carroll, Members; Mike Sullivan, Ex Officio Member; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Allen Lowe, City of Eugene Planning and Development Department; ABSENT: Phillip Hudspeth, I. PUBLIC COMMENT Zach Vishonoff, Patterson Street, said the University of Oregon went to the State Emergency Board to get $27 million for the Williams Bakery site. He noted that homeless issues and health care issues had been put aside to acquire money for the Williams site. He noted that the City Council had a priority for addressing homelessness in the City. He called for public forums before the city went forward with plans for a basket ball arena so the public could provide input before the issue was settled. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On page one, Planning Commissioner John Belcher noted that the sentence on the first page attributed to Kevin Matthews should call out that policy regarding legislative matters was not being referred to. On page 4 fifth paragraph, Planning Commissioner Mitzi Colbath said she had been referring to number 34 on the work plan list. Planning Commissioner Randy Hledik called attention to page 3 in the September 19 minutes. He said his suggestion of a three step process needed clarification. He said the statement regarding future planning commissions dealing with built in obsolescence in refinement plans, he said the obsolescence would be similar to that of refinement plans. He said potentially costly and time consuming MDC planning should be a separate bullet on the page. He added that the third bullet regarding alternate paths for PUD, he said the gist of the conversation was that a hybrid PUD should apply city wide. Mr. Lawless called attention to page three. He said the last sentence should have the word ‘well’ deleted as well as deleting the word ‘the.’ On page 4 third paragraph raise the ‘issue’ rather than ‘option’ of Region 2050. On page 5 he said to strike the word ‘think.’ On the second line after the word ‘area’ he said to add ‘would be’ and after the word ‘but’ add ‘that it.’ Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to approve the minutes of July 11, and September 19, 2005. The motion passed 5:0:1 with Mr. Carroll abstaining. III. DEBRIEF: JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL (NOVEMBER 16, 2005) REGARDING OPPORTUNITY SITING Ms. Colbath suggested going point by point through the opportunity siting notes and observations. • New definition of Opportunity Siting not accepted by the City Council. It did not reflect the notion that infill sites needed to be specific targeted tax lots. Mr. Yeiter said there had been a new definition of opportunity siting developed by staff. He noted that the City Council did not like the new definition and had stated that the definition the council favored would have specific sites that were targeted. He said the new definition developed by staff had not captured that idea. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding whether anyone had captured the definition put forward by City Councilor Bonnie Bettman regarding, Ms. Muir said staff were waiting for the meeting to be transcribed. Mr. Lawless said that was Councilor Bettman’s concern was that the definition diverted from the initial definition. He said he had been more interested in exploring going beyond that limited definition of opportunity siting and could be more in the context of overall densification. He said he had hoped for more of a discussion of where other infill could take place. He said he had been happy to see follow up discussion that provided clarification that some infill would be accommodated in other ways. He said tax lot specific opportunity siting still seemed as if it was moving away from the natural infill and absorption rate that neighborhoods would have. He expressed his frustration that the issue was not being looked at holistically. Mr. Belcher said it would be very challenging to say that a particular lot would change regardless of the desires of the property owner. He said as long as it was looked at in that matter the issue would be challenging. He questioned whether that method was sense of Councilor Bettman or the desire of the City Council. Mr. Lawless said he did mind continued clarification of the definition of opportunity siting but not at the exclusion of all the other activity that would happen naturally in neighborhoods such as ongoing market development, neighborhood infill, and impacts on the quality of neighborhoods. Mike Sullivan questioned whether opportunity sites were classified as vacant property or property in need of repair. He said ‘under developed’ was a very large category. Mr. Yeiter said redevelopment opportunities would have to be defined and located. Mr. Sullivan said vacant sites were obvious targets. He said the property attached to those sites were less obvious which could be under developed but fit the aesthetic expectations of the property owners in the neighborhood. He said doing redevelopment inside of a neighborhood would be a combination of using vacant and ill repaired properties to produce something that was economically viable. MINUTES—Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 2 Responding to comments from Mr. Lawless, Planning Commissioner Rick Duncan said it was his impression that when Councilor Bettman was referring to tax lots, she used the term ‘plural’ in a way that referred to an assemblage in neighborhoods that would provide opportunities. He said she wanted to make sure that the character of neighborhoods was maintained but recognize that some type of opportunity would appear in specific tax lots. Mr. Lawless said his concern was that by limiting looking at mixed use centers as the fundamental way of looking for an easier, more manageable way to densify residential seemed to him to be at the exclusion of what would happen outside of those areas. He said the areas outside were under regulations for development that were different from those in mixed use centers. Ms. Colbath said no matter what model of Opportunity Siting was decided upon the commission should look at the model from a broader picture. She said there were only so many models to review. She said modeling was not the ultimate answer but was the information to help determine how variables interacted with each other. Mr. Hledik suggest not starting the process by trying to designating an mixed use center. He said the process should begin by somehow identifying viable neighborhoods worthy of protection and where those areas stopped and MUC could start. He raised concern that identifying sites on a tax lot by tax lot basis would cost a lot of money and the information would be obsolete before the process was done. Mr. Belcher related that Council Bettman had stressed asset management when she was first running for council. He said the idea was to do a comprehensive look at neighborhoods and identify things to retain and enhance. He remarked that as long as there was no definition of opportunity siting, it could not be done. He remarked that opportunity siting, as it was presented to the commission, would not work. He said if opportunity was a set of principals to be used under a certain set of conditions instead of going site by site it could be used. Steve Nystrom said the purpose of the discussion was for the commission and staff to get clarity about what had been heard from the City Council. He stressed the importance of identifying a consistent idea. He said one of the things in his notes was the idea of keeping the qualities of neighborhoods protected and look for sites that could accommodate growth without affecting those neighborhoods. Mr. Hledik said it was a two step process to accomplish a definition. The first step was to; 1. Figure out target population 2. Calculate neighborhood density 3. Identify neighborhood assets or opportunity sites 4. Develop a hybrid PUD alternate path process He said the second step would be to assign desired future neighborhood densities. Planning Director Susan Muir commented that Mr. Hledik’s process described the Portland 2040 process. She said the City of Portland had done density allocations by neighborhood and assigned how many units would have to be made in each neighborhood. She noted that the City of Portland’s plan was more flexible because of the large scale of its metro area. She suggested asking someone from the City of Portland’s Planning Department to be a guest at a future commission meeting. MINUTES—Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Duncan said the City Council discussion had paralleled the current discussion going on in the Planning Commission. He said the council understood the frustrations of commission regarding dealing with small component parts of the process. He said the council discussion had moved toward the ideal of asset mapping. He stressed the importance of building a real plan on how to proceed over the next several years. He suggested that a subcommittee including three city councilors which could come up with a draft plan on how to proceed and come back to the commission for fine tuning. He said the council could then be presented with a plan that had identified costs, timelines, and procedures. Ms. Colbath added that there needed to be alternative path language in the process. She also said she had heard Councilor Bettman and Kelly talk about opportunity siting outside MUCs. She said she had also heard about master planning on the railroad yard. She said a subcommittee would be a good idea to plan the process for getting a system in place. She said staff would know by modeling whether opportunity siting could be done. She said she would like to see the subcommittee go to neighborhoods and solicit input about where opportunity siting could occur. Mr. Belcher said suggested developing a process and using the process for every neighborhood. He said the commission needed to look at development infill and redevelopment options as examples of what could and could not work. Ms. Muir said the Planning Department had a component in its draft budget for additional resources to work with opportunity siting. She acknowledged that the process was not defined but said the process could be moved forward through the budget as a concept. She raised concern that Planning Commission + three subcommittee would not result in any definitive council direction. She said staff had a work program that was required to be followed. She said some of the work should be integrated into the tasks outlined in the two year work program. Mr. Carroll said that he had heard that council wanted to see something more concrete from the MUC process at the next joint meeting. He recommended engaging the neighborhoods in the process. He said an opportunity site would be a place that the neighbors and investors agreed upon. He said what council wanted was concrete suggestions about how to develop areas, how to get neighbors involved, and to see that the MUC process was something the commission was committed to. Mr. Duncan said opportunity siting had been defined for the commission as the City Council wanted to see it. He said the commission would not make progress with redefining what the council desired. He added that in the past the city had come up with an idea and tried to force it into an area. He suggested a process that created opportunity siting in areas where it was desired and model success stories that had occurred in those areas. Mr. Duncan said there was a lot of work to be done before inviting three city councilors into the discussion. He suggested doing PC + three at the end of the process to help get council buy in to the defined plan. Mr. Belcher stressed the importance of getting neighborhood input from the beginning of the process. He said the city had not done Mixed Use Centers or Nodes with any degree of success up to the current time. MINUTES—Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 4 Ms. Colbath said she viewed the work that the commission was being asked to do by the City Council as educational in that the commission was educating itself and the public. She said the commission would then be creating validity for the information being collected as the process was moving forward. She said models were needed that would show what could be expected so people would have a clear understanding of what kinds of densification was desired. Mr. Carroll said quality development created density. He reiterated the comments or Mr. Hledik and said modeling was a useful planning tool but questioned whether it would motivate neighbors. He said common goals with neighborhoods needed to be established first. He said neighborhoods would not be motivated by more houses per acre but rather how more houses would affect the neighborhood. Mr. Belcher stressed the importance of defining desires of neighbors as well as developers. He commented that many neighbors viewed the planning department as the enemy and said that perception needed to be turned around. Ms. Colbath called for consensus on the idea of redefining Opportunity Siting by going back to the definition outlined by the City Council. Mr. Duncan supported the idea of doing what was asked by the council. Mr. Belcher suggested accepting the council definition but noted that he felt that it was a tool of limited capability the way it was currently defined. There was general consensus to start with the definition that had been outlined by the City Council. Ms. Colbath expressed a desire to have another joint meeting before the end of April. Ms. Muir suggested that staff integrate what had been discussed at the meeting into the two year work program and come back to the commission on the first meeting in January. She said staff would define steps in the process and define the purpose before a date was set for a joint meeting with the City Council. Ms. Colbath disagreed and said staff should immediately begin the process of trying to schedule a meeting for the purpose of discussing a plan of action. She commented that if staff started in January it would be difficult to get on a Council agenda by the end of April. Mr. Belcher agreed and said the sooner a meeting was asked for the sooner a joint meeting could be scheduled. Mr. Lawless questioned whether it was a good idea to try to get on the council agenda without an established foundation for discussion at a joint meeting. Ms. Muir agreed and stressed that there should be some foundation for discussion set out before the joint meeting took place. Ms. Colbath called for direction to staff to request a meeting with council in March or April. There was general consensus. MINUTES—Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 5 Regarding whether a subcommittee was desired, Ms. Colbath noted that staff time was limited. She suggested getting a few commissioners together to develop an initial plan. Mr. Duncan suggested staff and one or two commission members could develop some general guidelines for the opportunity siting process. Ms. Colbath noted that a subcommittee would have to be less than a quorum on the commission because of public meetings laws. In response to a question from Mr. Carroll regarding what the goal of the subcommittee would be, Mr. Belcher said the subcommittee could start with setting goals for target densities and calculating neighborhood densities. There was general consensus to form an opportunity siting subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Duncan, Hledik, Belcher, and Colbath. IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Nystrom said the Vice President position needed to be decided. Mr. Belcher called for a process discussion on election of officers before the next election. Ms. Colbath nominated Mr. Duncan for the Vice President position. There was general consensus. Ms. Colbath asked who was interested in the Liaison position for the Historic Review Board. Mr. Carroll volunteered to be liaison to the Historic Review Board. There was general consensus. Mr. Lawless volunteered to be the commission liaison to the University of Oregon City Committee. There was general consensus to assign new ‘council buddies’ to commission members. The following assignments were agreed upon: Commissioner Duncan – Chris Pryor and David Kelly Commissioner Lawless – Mayor Piercy and Bonnie Bettman Commissioner Colbath – Mayor Piercy Commissioer Hledik – Gary Papé Commissioner Carroll - Jennifer Solomon Commissioner Belcher - (pending) Commissioner Hudspeth – (pending) V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff MINUTES—Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 6 Ms. Muir said the City Council had taken action on Goal 5 and the process was now moving through potential appeals and County adoption. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding the City of Eugene’s reaction to the amendment that land use issues be postponed until Ballot Measure 37 was resolved, Ms. Muir said the Council had taken action on Goal 5 which superseded the earlier motion to not proceed on anything that could add value to a property. Ms. Muir said the public hearing had been held on Land use Code minor amendments. She said there were relatively few changes. She said the issue was moving forward that evening at the council work session. Ms. Muir reported that the work session on the Givings Tax was scheduled for January. Ms. Muir said the action for Chambers was scheduled for December 12. Ms. Muir reported that the city Council had put forward work session topics such as dog ownership in city limits and inappropriate infill. Ms. Muir said the City Council would receive an update on the new proposed location for McKenzie Willamette Hospital. She said the site under discussion was currently outside the city limits but inside the urban growth boundary and was also inside the flood plain. B. Other Items From the Commission The meeting adjourned at 1:45 pm. (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES—Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 7