Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue January 9, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Rick Duncan, Vice President; Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Gabriel Flock, Beth Bridges, Planning and Development Depart- ment; Gary McNeel, Ginger Perales, Therese Walch, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney Office; Rob Handy, Mike Bradbury, Terry Connolly, guests. ABSENT: Phillip Hudspeth, member. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – September 12, 26, and October 10, 11, and 24, 2005 Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Belcher, to approve the minutes of the September 12, October 11 and 25, 2005 as submitted, and to approve the minutes of September 26 and October 10, 2005, as amended. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF JANUARY 10, 2006 Amendments to the Eugene Code, establishing stormwater development standards (CA 05-3) Staff: Peggy Keppler, 682-2869 III. DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING Staff: Kurt Yeiter, 682-8379 IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission 1 SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2005 Page 1  Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue January 9, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Rick Duncan, Vice President; Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Gabriel Flock, Beth Bridges, Planning and Development Depart- ment; Gary McNeel, Ginger Perales, Therese Walch, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney Office; Rob Handy, Mike Bradbury, Terry Connolly, guests. ABSENT: Phillip Hudspeth, member. Ms. Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:30 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, Eugene, urged the City to consider some form of public process to address the potential arena. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – September 12, 26, and October 10, 11, and 24, 2005 September 12, 2005 – no changes. September 26, 2005 Page 9, paragraph 5, should read: Mr. Lawless said he was not supportive of the changes and that other options, including landscaping were available to protect backyards. October 10, 2005 Page 5, paragraph 10, second sentence should read: Ms. Weiss replied that the plan did not identify new parks categories of urban plazas and linear parks that addressed using rights-of-way that could become multi-functional, although she did not have specific acreage information. Page 8, paragraph 3, should read: Mr. Lawless encouraged staff to work together at the agency level to integrate the concepts of MUCs and transit to foster healthy development and connectivity and bring big ideas back to the commission. October 11, 2005 – no changes. October 24, 2005 – no changes. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to approve the minutes of the September 12, October 11 and 25, 2005 as submitted, and to approve the minutes of September 26 and October 10, 2005, as amended. The MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 1  motion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF JANUARY 10, 2006 Ms. Keppler offered a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed Amendments to the Eugene Code (EC), establishing stormwater development standards (CA 05-3). Stormwater Development Standards were regulations for locating, designing, constructing, and maintain- ing stormwater facilities, applicable to new development and significant redevelopment. The proposed code amendments were intended to implement stormwater development standards as a component of the City’s Stormwater Program initiated with the adoption of the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSWMP) and as required through the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ’s) issuance of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The existing Land Use Code addressed stormwater management as destination (flood control) standards exclusively. The proposed amendments would expand stormwater management to include pollution reduction, flow control, oil control, and source control in addition to destination standards. The basic water quality design and maintenance recommendations for protecting water quality were provided by the Stormwater Department Advisory Committee (DAC) beginning in 1999. On August 11, 2005, a Water Quality Implementation Subcommittee was convened to review and provide input on the proposed amendments to the land use code. The DAC subcommittee included representatives of special interest groups (Chamber of Commerce, Lane County Home Builders’ Association, and Citizens for Public Accountability); technical expertise in architecture, engineering, site design, land use and the environment; and a neighborhood representative. The proposed amendments to the land use code reflected feedback provided by both the Stormwater DAC and the Water Quality Implementation Subcommittee. Mr. Lawless asked for a definition of significant redevelopment and for a gauge to measure it by. Mr. Lawless asked outside of an agreement with the City of Eugene for maintenance, how maintenance on privately owned property would be done. Ms. Keppler replied that the operation and maintenance requirements would be code required. Failure to maintain and operate according to an agreed upon plan at the time of development would be a violation of the nuisance ordinance administered by Parks and Open Space (POS). She said enforcement would be similar to the erosion program, whereby a property owner would be given a compliance order. Penalties could result if the requirements of the compliance order were not adequately addressed. Ms. Keppler said the City of Eugene had based its Stormwater Management Manual upon that of the City of Portland. She said the City of Eugene manual addressed design standards, while the requirements came from the EC. She stated there was a chapter for operation and maintenance, and each of the facilities had specific maintenance guidelines. Mr. Lawless asked if there was anticipation of increased staff demand to administer the program. Ms. Keppler said a three full time equivalency (fte) increase in staff had been identified, including one engineering position, one POS position, and one maintenance position. She said the engineering staff MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 2 would review land use and building permit plans, and applications from property owners. POS staff would perform enforcement, and maintenance staff would perform inspections. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Keppler said the Stormwater DAC had concurred with the proposed ordinance language, adding that they had been very supportive. The following issues were identified by commissioners for further staff research: • Clarification of the term significant development that Ms. Keppler had used in her written materi- als and presentation. • EC 9.6792(3)(a) that addressed stormwater flow at headwaters. • Exhibit 2.1, Attachment F chart – what does the chart relate to. • Two examples, one illustrating how the proposed standards would effect the development of a subdivision; and one describing a redevelopment; explaining what the two land use activities might require, including any associated costs. • Number six under the housing goal that addressed flow control may be in the wrong place in the document. • How the net effects of balancing the environment with controlling runoff versus tree removal would be achieved. • Page 18 of the findings, EC9.6795(3), clarification of term constitutional requirements. • Was the yard debris program funded by the stormwater fund. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Keppler stated that the enforcement language was in EC Chapter 6. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Ms. Keppler said there was no requirement for a private development to provide access for the City of Eugene. However, if the developer entered into an agreement with the City to provide operation and maintenance, the developer would be required to provide a 10 foot easement to the structure for the City. Mr. Hledik said he would not be in attendance at the January 10, 2006 public hearing. Mr. Nystrom said that the process for adopting the proposed amendments to the Eugene Code was a legislative process similar to the Minor Code Amendments process. III. DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING Ms. Colbath said a subcommittee of the Planning Commission consisting of commissioners Belcher, Colbath, Duncan, and Hledik had had been meeting with Kurt Yeiter since December 2005 to discuss opportunity siting in general, and specific ideas for an alternate path review process for desirable mixed use or infill projects. Mr. Yeiter said the subcommittee had met to address the City Council direction to use the technique called opportunity siting to find a new way to accommodate infill, and reviewed the agenda item summary and its attachments included in the agenda packet. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 3 12:10 p.m. Mr. Duncan arrived. Ms. Colbath said the subcommittee developed the following priorities for its work: • Tasks to be accomplished: o Develop population projections. o Preparation of current density/asset mapping of neighborhoods. o Opportunity sites. o Alternate path. • Sort and correlate into usable form the data collected from neighborhoods, etc., for use in the overall project. • Determine additional requirements and processes if any, of the project. • Review Outcomes of project including potential for regional collaboration. • Develop proposal and forward information and recommendation to council. Mr. Lawless commended the subcommittee for the work it had accomplished. He asked if the densifica- tion assumptions of the community and how they would be presented to neighborhoods for their agreement, compatibility and buy-in, addressed the saturation level. He asked if there were mechanisms by which the fair share could be determined. Mr. Hledik replied that the subcommittee had discussed a two-tier approach, based on Councilor Kelly’s motion that he wanted the Planning Commission to look at how to accommodate future populations. The subcommittee identified tasks as identifying a population to look at in the future, and going to the neighborhoods to solicit information on how they felt they could accommodate growth. He opined that the there may be a difference between what the neighborhoods would be willing to accommodate and what the City viewed as necessary to accommodate, which would lead to further discussion. Mr. Duncan said that the subcommittee was trying to look at the near future to be able to move forward with densification of the neighborhoods, recognizing that this was a dynamic question that needed to be an on-going process. He said that neighborhood character would change over time as the population became denser. Mr. Belcher said the purpose of going to the neighborhoods and the developers was to get feedback on what made sense to them, rather than setting limits. Mr. Nystrom heard some councilors assert that they did want to talk about what the projections would be, to put that information in the hands of the neighborhoods to help determine how those projections could be accommodated. Mr. Lawless said there needed to be acknowledgement that there would be some inequity of what could be absorbed in the neighborhoods that would pit neighborhood against neighborhood, or at least create a level of friction that needed resolution. He suggested that the City Council establish density targets opposed to the approach of preserving neighborhood character. He expressed disappointment that the Planning Commission would not meet jointly with the council until the summer. Ms. Muir said the joint meeting with the council had not yet been scheduled, and explained budget process and the process for getting on the City Council agenda. She added that the City Manager would present the budget message on April 24, 2006, noting that until that time, it was difficult to lobby for or MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 4 against funding for projects. She said it may be time to consider tools other than more code to work with developers in a partnership to meet the community’s needs. Mr. Hledik said the subcommittee saw two iterations with the neighborhoods, the first being a charrette or scoping process, followed by conversations with the developers and other stakeholders. The second would be a follow up meeting with the neighborhoods to present the information from developers and other stakeholders. He said the subcommittee saw this as an alternative path and struggled with how a Metro Plan amendment and zone changes fit into the process. He said the thrust of the subcommittee’s work was to avoid having an appeal process at the end by collaborating with the neighborhoods at the beginning of the process. Mr. Hledik added that the subcommittee wanted to streamline the process while protecting the interests all of the parties involved. In response to Ms. Muir’s query regarding if there was a test case would the new process be ready to undertake it, Mr. Nystrom said it may be beneficial to find a small victory in a long process to move the theory along. Mr. Hledik said the subcommittee had discussed having the Planning Commission serve as a facilitator of an informal discussion between neighborhoods, developers, and city interests, based on the growth management strategy. Mr. Duncan said the Planning Commission was interested in developing processes and procedures that provided opportunities for all interested parties to have input while at the same time moving along in a timely manner. He added that it was important to ensure that the neighborhoods were protected and the City was meeting its requirements, while allowing developers to proceed at a reasonable pace. Ms. Muir asked if there could be flexibility in the plan that would provide opportunities on a small scale to achieve some success, during the one or two year period when the plan was undergoing review and revision. Mr. Duncan said it was important to have neighborhood support for projects. Often neighborhoods were willing to accept projects as long as they occurred in other neighborhoods. He added that adherence to the growth management goals would require participation by all neighborhoods at some level. Citing CAFHN as an example, he stated the process became adversarial until the commission and neighbors agreed to work in a collaborative manner. Mr. Lawless asked how much flexibility the City had to relieve a development that was presented from having to comply with the current requirements, noting that the requirements were codified. Mr. Nystrom said staff was not suggesting that current requirements be ignored, but suggesting that during the review and revision period whereby new regulations, provisions and tools were being adopted, there should be an ability to mobilize quickly to assist when opportunities were presented. Mr. Carroll expressed his appreciation to the subcommittee for its work. He said a flexible process was important to accommodate neighborhood input. He said it would be important to know who to contact in a neighborhood if a project was proposed. He expressed concern with how population estimates fit in, and their usefulness as a tool for guiding the Planning Commission work, because the evidence for population growth and the need to distribute it throughout the City may be a hindrance in motivating neighbors. Population growth should be used as a tool, rather than being a goal. Mr. Carroll said any MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 5 outreach needed to be intelligently designed, to ensure that the neighbors as well as the neighborhood associations were included. Ms. Colbath said the subcommittee proposed that population growth would be used as a tool for the commission, but would not be taken to the neighborhoods. She said the subcommittee would correlate information obtained from the neighborhoods, the NLC, and neighborhood associations with the growth management data. Ms. Colbath asked staff if it would be possible to develop a cost estimate and timetable for the project by mid-February for inclusion in the City budget process, and a joint meeting with the City Council in March or April for council adoption. Ms. Muir said the proposal needed significantly more detail before cost estimates and a timeline could be developed. Mr. Yeiter said the project was currently part of the Planning Division work program. He said the subcommittee had discussed a one year process, while some staff believed it was a two to four year process. He added that the long range Planning staff was fully booked, but this could change with additional staff or a reprioritization of the division work program. He said one mixed use project was currently underway, another was in deep in the planning process, the City Council had identified the South Hills Habitat Study as a high priority, and downtown development had a dedicated planner. Mr. Belcher asked if there were opportunities in the existing code to begin work on the project, or was there a need to modify the language that allowed the door to be opened for experimentation. He opined that only way a new process would work was if all parties, including neighbors and developers, were involved from the beginning. Mr. Belcher expressed pessimism that any change would be difficult for the parties to accept, since the current one had been in place for so long and people were familiar with it. He added that there was a need to dedicate some percentage of time for long range planning and looking at the big picture. Mr. Duncan asserted that several City Councilors asked the Planning Commission to tell the council how much new staffing would be necessary to complete the project. Mr. Hledik concurred with Mr. Duncan, noting frustration on the part of the commission and the council with nodal development and mixed use centers, where resources were used with limited results. He stated that there was a need to facilitate and accommodate opportunities that presented themselves and it was important to create a process that identified or reacted to the market in a way that protected city and neighborhood interests. He added it was important to forward a proposal to the council in a timely manner. He iterated that the council had stated that it would provide resources to move the project forward. Mr. Hledik said the subcommittee had set a one year timeline to develop a new process. He said the subcommittee would continue to meet. He added that commissioners needed to lobby their City Council buddies to get on the City Council agenda in March or April, so that funding could be identified in the budget process for next year. Ms. Muir said she had been to two Budget Committee meetings where service profiles for fiscal year 2006-2007 (FY07) were under review. She said the work of the Planning Commission and the subcom- mittee supported the Planning Division requests that were an integral part of the citywide budget that would be weighed against and prioritized with other needs. Ms. Muir said staff was faced with delaying MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 6 already scheduled projects to move forward with the subcommittee proposal. Mr. Lawless stated that using contract planners had been suggested as an alternative path, and asked if it could be applied to the beginning of the project, to help initially sort out the neighborhood issues, opposed to having the work completed in a consolidated, consistent approach. Ms. Colbath asked if this request had been included in the proposed budget request for FY06. Ms. Muir said although the official proposed FY06 budget had not yet been submitted by the city manager, staff was working internally on developing a budget proposal for this project. She said this project was one of 42 that the Budget Committee would be reviewing in the coming weeks. Ms. Colbath suggested that the Planning Commission run a process parallel to the staff process, so that if the project was approved as part of the FY06 budget, it would facilitate moving forward. If funding was not approved, it may be necessary to do an outside push to get additional staff. She requested that the Planning Commission approve having the subcommittee continue on its work, have the subcommittee check back with a more thoroughly developed proposal in mid-February with information on a one to two timeline for the project, determine if and how it could be included in the work program, and what the budget costs would be for additional staff. Ms. Colbath asked that the subcommittee be allowed to ask the NLC to help the Planning Commission understand how the neighborhoods could best work with the commission. She added that commissioners should talk with their City Council buddies to schedule a joint meeting. Mr. Belcher asked what work could be accomplished in one year with one or two full time equivalent (fte) employees, rather than looking at a four year project. He stated that involving the NLC early was a mistake. He said expectations and assumptions could be created that were not in line with the commis- sion’s goals for the project. Mr. Belcher said the council needed to be approached to agree to go forward with the project and to fund the project. He said the commission should move forward to convince the council that this was a good idea, regardless of where it was in the funding stream. Mr. Belcher concurred that a February check-in by the subcommittee with the Planning Commission was desirable. He said there were two ways to get on the City Council agenda, noting if four councilors wanted an item on the agenda, it circumvented the mayor/city manager process. Ms. Muir explained the agenda setting process. She said if one council wanted an item on the agenda, the councilor sent it out for a vote. If the item had at least four votes, it was scheduled. Mr. Belcher said that the concept of a contract planner was that it was not a staff person, but rather someone out in the field. The City would generate a list of qualified individuals from the neighborhoods, from which a contract planner would be selected. He said the concept was to make the individual as independent as possible. Mr. Lawless iterated that it may be beneficial to have an independent but consistent person facilitate the process rather than a pool of people who worked project by project. Mr. Yeiter explained that the original concept of a contract planner, as discussed by the subcommittee, consisted of a pool of contract planners, who would be available to work with opportunity sites identified by the applicants. He added that use of a consultant team, as used for the growth management process, MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 7 was an option for planning a citywide opportunity siting program. Mr. Duncan suggested that the NLC could offer neighborhood thoughts as the process was developed, to ensure that the commission was really looking at what was important to the NLC. He said he had talked with several councilors and the mayor, all of whom were very excited about the project. He encouraged commissioners to work independently of the staff to lobby councilors for the project. He said some things may fit well into the current work program. Mr. Hledik understood it was a City Council priority to foster neighborhood association involvement, and suggested that this project could help achieve the council’s objective. He concurred that it may be premature to go to the NLC today, but that they should be contacted before the proposed mid-February check in. Mr. Belcher clarified that it was important to take ideas rather than a plan to the NLC. Mr. Carroll asked if the subcommittee had considered a quasi-judicial land used process other than PUDs. Mr. Duncan said the subcommittee had discussed the topic as a land use process but had not identified it specifically. Mr. Hledik said staff had proposed that the PUD process could be modified to go beyond the adjustment exception to provide the necessary flexibility. Mr. Carroll presumed there theoretically was an underlying incompatibility about what a developer would want to do and what was permitted, or there was no reason to enter into a collaborative effort. He asked that the subcommittee discuss how increased communication and collaboration related to technical issues of land use and zoning, and how the Planning Commission’s role would change in a new opportunity siting application review process. Mr. Hledik said a separate design review committee to facilitate the process had been proposed in the subcommittee. He asked if there was a way that the Planning Commission could serve in the capacity as a design/development review committee to facilitate the process without prejudicing it in a potential future appeal process. Mr. Duncan said planning originally came about to ensure that adjacent uses were compatible and acceptable to interested parties. He asked if a use was acceptable to a neighborhood and made the neighborhood more livable, should that be more important from a community standard versus a strict interpretation of the code. Mr. Carroll asked when a site was identified for development, who would be attracted to the site and would the Planning Commission assure that the developer and the neighbors got what they wanted. Ms. Colbath said there was no guarantee that the market would drive a particular site to be developed. The process did address the willingness of neighborhoods to absorb density at identified sites in concert with the growth management goals. Mr. Belcher said the proposed process offered the opportunity to reduce development time and the opportunity to collaborate. He stressed the importance to facilitate collaboration between the developers MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 8 and the neighbors at the beginning of a development process rather than at the end through an appeals process. He added that the land use processes could not be ignored. Ms. Colbath noted support from the Planning Commission for the subcommittee to continue its work, and asked for feedback from the commission regarding timelines and specific actions. She asked for agreement to make the NLC aware of the direction of the Planning Commission. Mr. Hledik proposed that the subcommittee continue to meet on as frequent a basis as necessary to develop the ideas of the work program and the increased staffing needs, in preparation to take a recommendation to the City Council. Furthermore, the subcommittee would report to the Planning Commission no later than the middle of February. He also proposed that the subcommittee approach the NLC at their January meeting. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Bridges said the commission could have 5 or 10 minutes on the NLC January agenda. Mr. Duncan asked commissioners to forward any further feedback to the subcommittee via email. Ms. Colbath noted consensus for the subcommittee to proceed with its work. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Muir said the City Council would be reviewing the Downtown Plan update at its meeting this evening. She said the role of the Planning Commission in downtown projects had been in various planning efforts over the last ten years. Referring to two diagrams, entitled, West Broadway – Connor and Woolley/Opus Proposal and Broadway as a Great Street, Mr. Sullivan said the Planning Commission had created an environment for successful development through its work on the Downtown Plan, visioning, and relevant code work. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Sullivan said 288 housing units would be created in the proposed West Broadway project, adding that he did not know how many units would be eligible for tax exemption. Mr. Sullivan said the West Town on 8th housing development was proceeding. The first building had been razed, and ground breaking for 111 units was expected on April 19, 2006. Mr. Belcher asked if there had been any discussion about LEED certification and ownership of the housing. Mr. Sullivan replied that the developer had proposed creating a roof top terrace as an amenity on the West Broadway project. He doubted there would be much advancement with LEED certification on this project because of the type of construction. He added that most of the units were owner occupied condominiums rather than rental units, although absorption rates needed to be considered. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 9 Ms. Muir said the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) project on the old Sears site would be a model for green construction. Ms. Muir said the City Council would provide direction to staff to move forward on the Connor and Woolley/Opus Proposal. B. Other Items from Commission None. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:33 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division\pc060109.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 10