Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue January 23, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Nan Laurence, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Terry Connolly, John Adair, Zachary Vishanoff, Paul Conte, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 15, 2005 Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to approve the minutes of the November 15, 2005 as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. STATUS REPORT: DOWNTOWN ZONING REVIEW Staff: Nan Laurence, 682-5340 Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to forward a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council to initiate a code amendment to address downtown related zoning and code regulations, beginning with the following: o C-2 Community Commercial non-residential ground floor re- quirements. o C-3 Major Commercial surface parking limitation. o /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay. o Bike parking requirements. o Boundaries for downtown development related codes and regula- tions. o Green building concepts. o Design review. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. III. DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 1 Staff: Kurt Yeiter, 682-8379 IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 2  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue January 23, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Nan Laurence, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Terry Connolly, John Adair, Zachary Vishanoff, Paul Conte, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Ms. Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:37 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Paul Conte, 1461 West Tenth Avenue, Eugene, thanked the Planning Commission for its work on the Chamber Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) project. He said CAFHN was fully supportive of the Opportunity Siting in its neighborhood. He said the old post office building at West 8th Avenue and Almaden Street was for sale, and could be a great opportunity site for a higher density purpose. Mr. Conte asked the commission to consider doing some pilot projects, noting that the CAFHN area would be the perfect area because neighborhood standards had been developed, there was good neighborhood support, and there were several good sites available that met the criteria. Mr. Conte hoped that all who participated in the CAFHN process could appreciate how good it was to have such a win before the City Council. He commended the commission for its willingness to break through the typical three minute formal hearing testimony format, by both attending the CAFHN sponsored tutorials and by setting up a different structure for the Planning Commission public hearing. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, Eugene, expressed his concern that the lack of public process in that the research park issue was connected to the LTD issue that was connected to neighborhood nodes issue, all of which were connected to the basketball area. He stated Mayor Piercy had committed to an open process with the University of Oregon (UO) students and was concerned that the arena would be privatized. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 15, 2005 Mr. Hudspeth corrected the attendance to indicate he had been absent from the meeting. Page 10, paragraph 15, should read, “Eugene Planning Commissioner Mr. Carroll expressed his discomfort with restricting anyone in particular from testifying.” Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to approve the minutes of MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 1  the November 15, 2005 as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. STATUS REPORT: DOWNTOWN ZONING REVIEW Ms. Laurence offered the staff presentation. She explained that staff had conducted a limited citizen outreach process and public workshop to solicit comments on possible code amendments to downtown related regulations based upon direction from the City Council and the Planning Commission (acting as the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC)). The purpose of the discussion was to solicit comments from the Planning Commission on the results of the initial phase of citizen input for the Downtown Zoning Review project. She summarized the comments received from participants, as described in the staff report included in the agenda packet. She said staff concluded from the input that the public generally felt that the project should go forward. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to initiate a code amendment to address downtown related zoning and code regulations, beginning with the following seven items: • C-2 Community Commercial non-residential ground floor requirements. • C-3 Major Commercial surface parking limitation. • /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay. • Bike parking requirements. • Boundaries for downtown development related codes and regulations. • Green building concepts. • Design review. Referring to Attachment C: Tally of Survey Responses, Mr. Hledik asked Ms. Laurence to explain the responses to question 4. Should FAR rules be changed? She said the requirements were difficult to use and did not necessarily achieve the desired results. Mr. Hledik asked if any development had occurred in the downtown area since the Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR) standards had been implemented. Ms. Laurence cited the Eugene Public Library as an example, stating the four story building required a 2 .0 FAR but had a 1.99 FAR. The building had trouble meeting the FAR requirements due to the openness on the inside. Ms. Laurence said Broadway Place project did not appear to meet the required FAR. Even though the public amenities and garden space on the second floor added to the livability and marketability for downtown residents, these did not help to meet the FAR requirements. Mr. Nystrom stated that evaluating the FAR was a major issue with many development projects, noting that the library project helped to illustrate that the numbers in the code may be too vigorous. He opined that the 2.0 FAR may be more practical for three or four story developments. Mr. Duncan said financial feasibility for FARs was discussed at a Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) meeting. He said ERAC considered if it was preferable to have a two or three story MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 2 building spread over the entire site, or have a higher building with surface parking that could be further developed in the future. The first option would lock the land for 50 to 100 years, whereas the second option recognized that phasing could be used as land became more valuable. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik regarding the C-2 Community Commercial non-residential ground floor requirement, Ms. Laurence said that C-2 required that a portion of the ground floor could not be used for residential purposes. She said the intent was where C-2 occurred outside of the downtown, it was desirable to have room for some mixed use development to support the multi-use concept. She added that in downtown, a portion of the ground floor had to be non-residential. This requirement was not flexible, and applied city-wide. Mr. Nystrom cited the Aurora Building, Broadway Place, and West Town Housing, as examples. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Nystrom said 20 percent of the entire site area, and 65 percent of the frontage needed to be non-residential. He said the intent of the requirement was to balance the needs of downtown residents while preserving viable commercial property. Mr. Hledik asked how the requirement affected a condominium project. Ms. Laurence said the requirements were not developed specifically for downtown. She said the requirement meant that it would be more difficult to develop downtown housing, adding cost and complexity to projects. In response to a question regarding parking from Ms. Colbath, Ms. Laurence replied that the first level of parking structures was not counted, but levels above the first level would be counted. Referring to C-3 Major Commercial surface parking limitations, Ms. Colbath asked why parking in all commercial structures was not being considered. Ms. Laurence replied that most, but not all of downtown, was a parking exempt area in which parking was not required. However, within the C-3 zone, the downtown core, there was a limitation of not more than 20 surface spaces. She said this limitation may warrant another review. She said the preponderance of public comments indicated that the parking limitation should be reviewed. Ms. Colbath said she wanted to open the dialogue on parking structures, citing the U.S. Bank building as an example. She wanted structures to be built so that additional floors could be added at a later date. Mr. Duncan asked if the green building community had been included in the outreach. Ms. Laurence said there had been no specific discussions on green building details related to the downtown zoning project, although several respondents had commented on green buildings. She asked if that would be a building code issue rather than a downtown land use code issue. Mr. Duncan said the green building concept included a broad spectrum of things that could be addressed through both the planning and building processes. Mr. Lawless concurred with Mr. Duncan, noting that land use and building design could not be separated in terms of sustainability. Mr. Lawless asked if there was enough citizen response to initiate action to the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 3 City Council. He believed it needed to be fixed. He said he was overwhelmingly in support of moving the recommendation forward to the City Council. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik regarding design review, Ms. Laurence replied design review had been commented on in several ways, including what other zoning or land use code regulations should be considered as part of the downtown zoning review. Ms. Laurence reviewed several of the specific comments that had been received. Mr. Belcher stated that surface parking had been used in the past for Eugene Celebration activities, and noted that use may decline as the Eugene Celebration became smaller, while at the same time, it could become an issue as the amount of surface parking declined. In response to a question about bicycle parking from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Laurence said staff had been working with the Bike Coalition and the cycling community, including having a separate study of bicycle parking issues related to downtown. She said staff heard that the community wanted available bicycle parking, while acknowledging that there were a variety of ways to reach that goal. After reviewing the comments from the interested parties, Ms. Laurence said another review of the issue may be warranted, noting that for the most part, the bicycle parking requirements currently were not very flexible. Mr. Belcher asked if the /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay primarily addressed parking requirements. Ms. Laurence said the issues with the /TD overlay fell into two categories, the first being the FAR/density requirements. The second category was the boundary of the /TD overlay that excluded a portion of downtown and included areas of midtown that were not within downtown. She said the ERAC had suggested that the /TD overlay become a new downtown zone that would be the framework for down- town. Mr. Belcher asked if there was any way to prevent people from logging onto the web survey more than one time. Ms. Laurence explained that the survey could not be taken more than one time on a computer, or more than one time from the same household. The survey also had a feature that would read the questions to people with visual impairments. She added that approximately one dozen surveys were submitted via the internet. In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Laurence said one issue that arose was how to calculate parking when it was imbedded in a structure. Although the land use code allowed for parking to be built on a develop- ment site split by an alley, the building code did not contain the same provision. Thus, an adjustment review as part of a land use application was necessary to allow two properties on either side of an alley to be used for part of the same development. This was an unforeseen consequence of an attempt to make the code language more sensible. Ms. Laurence said the biggest complications were the /TD FAR requirement and some inflexibility in some commercial design standards. She concluded that there were some areas of the code that made it difficult achieve the goal of vibrant, active, dense, high quality downtown development. Mr. Hudspeth inquired what was meant by identifying bicycle parking as a utility. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 4 Ms. Laurence explained that if bicycle parking was a utility, it became something that the public provided as a public need with a public response that could be required as part of garage construction, or as a set aside. It meant that the developer would not always be required to provide bicycle parking. Mr. Nystrom said many communities gave developers an option to provide bicycle parking, or contribute to a bicycle parking fund administered the local government. Mr. Hudspeth noting that some survey respondents identified themselves as property owners, and asked if any respondents identified themselves as business owners, with concerns specific to code changes affecting their businesses. Ms. Laurence said no one had identified themselves as business owners through the survey, but agreed to recheck her data. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to forward a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council to initiate a code amendment to address downtown related zoning and code regulations, beginning with the following: o C-2 Community Commercial non-residential ground floor re- quirements. o C-3 Major Commercial surface parking limitation. o /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay. o Bike parking requirements. o Boundaries for downtown development related codes and regula- tions. o Green building concepts. o Design review. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. III. DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING Ms. Colbath distributed copies of the following documents: • Eugene Planning Commission CONCEPT PAPER for OPPORTUNITY SITING January 23, 2006 • January 16, 2006 Minutes from the Eugene Planning Commission Opportunity Siting Sub- committee Ms. Colbath explained that the minutes contained a proposed schedule for accomplishing the remaining work of the subcommittee leading to a joint meeting with the City Council in March or April 2006. At Mr. Belcher’s suggestion, the Planning Commission paused to read the materials presented by the subcommittee. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Hudspeth thanked the subcommittee for its work, noting that he saw many of the conversations the commission had over the last year reflected in the document. He added this tied well with Mr. Conte’s comments earlier in the meeting and looked forward to possibly working with the Chambers neighbor- hood. He asked what the staff recommendations were, given this was the first time they had seen the paper. Ms. Muir said that staff would need time to reflect and talk about the information presented, particularly in the context of the adopted work program. Mr. Nystrom said the concept paper offered more questions than answers today, especially regarding engaging the neighborhood, which was a mammoth piece of the document. He understood what the document meant conceptually, but needed more time to study it in terms of practical application. Ms. Colbath said the minutes and schedule would shed light on the concept paper. In response to a question from Ms. Muir, Ms. Colbath replied that she had five minutes scheduled on the January 24, 2006 Neighborhood Leaders’ Council (NLC) agenda to invite the NLC to attend the February 6, 2006 Planning Commission subcommittee meeting to participate in a round table discussion. She said she was also scheduled on the February 28, 2006 NLC agenda to have a full discussion. Mr. Belcher understood Mr. Nystrom’s concerns, and acknowledged that soliciting feedback from neighborhoods and engaging more people in the neighborhood associations could be a difficult task. Mr. Lawless said it was apparent that a couple of big concepts needed to be addressed, the first being the opportunity siting assumption that “estimates of future population which would be appropriately allocated to mixed use districts and other areas in the city.” He said such a statement assumed there was an ideal maximum population that could be absorbed. Additionally, “credible population projections(s) for the city to be used to determine the carrying capacity of the land within the city” implied there was a physical capacity to the numbers as well as a qualitative capacity to how much could be carried before it was destroyed. He said the proposed theory represented a result based outcome that did not provide for when the carrying capacity was reached. Mr. Hledik the subcommittee was suggesting that the population issue not be time dependent, as the Metro Plan was not date specific. Rather, planning should occur for a specific population number, regardless of when it occurred. Mr. Duncan stated that the subcommittee looked at educating the neighborhoods about density of both their and other neighborhoods, good density/bad density, with the idea that understanding how much density each neighborhood could accommodate could that could then be translated into a population number that would identify how many people could be absorbed within the urban growth boundary (UBG). He said the optimum measurement would be one that was not result based but rather provided a framework to answer questions that could lead to revised assumptions. Although he concurred with Mr. Nystrom’s concern that this could be an enormous project, the process used over the last fifteen years had not been effective in dealing with density, mixed use, opportunity siting. Mr. Belcher expressed frustration that the growth management policies on the wall had not successfully and sufficiently increased density nor protected neighborhoods from inappropriate development. He felt it was important to look at target populations to determine how and if they should be accommodated. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Carroll suggested the population projections could be used as a guideline rather than goal. Referring to page three of the concept paper, he interpreted the term development/redevelopment proposals to imply that a specific suggestion had been put forth. He asked if potential development/redevelopment proposals would be more accurate, wherein the conversation began early enough to allow neighbors to discuss how specific sites would be developed. Mr. Hledik stated that a major part of the exercise was to get neighborhood involvement early in the process, specifically to help identify opportunity sites in the neighborhoods. Creation of the alternate path would provide additional opportunities for neighborhood involvement at the front end by collaborat- ing on how to accommodate development proposals in previously identified opportunity sites. This would prevent dealing with it in a three minute adversarial hearings basis at the end. Mr. Hledik added that opportunity sites were chosen as the first project because that was the council direction. Ms. Colbath said there were proposals that would benefit by an early, collaborative process that would be highly suitable to a neighborhood that did not meet all of the required criteria under the inflexible code. Mr. Carroll iterated that the phrase weigh in on development/redevelopment proposals implied a concrete concept that was tantamount to an application, suggesting that potential development/redevelopment proposals implied a more open process. Mr. Carroll asked if the subcommittee had discussed contract neighborhood planners or Planning Commission serving as a development review body to facilitate expediency. Mr. Belcher said both contract neighborhood planners and the Planning Commission serving as a development review body were “out of the box” thoughts, which the subcommittee referred to staff for review of the legal and economic feasibility. He added that the subcommittee assumed two things would happen if a neighborhood used contracted neighborhood planners. First a staff planner would serve as a consultant to the neighborhood planner, and secondly, the developer and the neighborhood would come together at the initiation of the process rather than at the public hearing where one party won and the other lost. Mr. Hledik said the subcommittee’s intent was to provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission to serve as a facilitator, as it had with the CAFHN group, to bring issues to the table in a dialogue mode rather than the three minute public hearing mode, and by inviting the developer to work through to common ground. Referring to page three, item 3, Ms. Colbath understood carrying capacity to mean a qualitative measure identifying opportunity sites for neighborhoods supporting density that fit with the character and livability of the neighborhoods. Referring to the City Council motion, Mr. Nystrom understood that council asked the commission to look not only at the carrying capacity, but also to look at how to fill the gap that may exist. He wanted to ensure that the package taken to the City Council honored the council’s motion as closely as possible. Mr. Hledik said the subcommittee had identified a process, in which opportunity sites and absorption would be identified by the neighborhoods in the first phase. Secondly, the population projection acceptable to the community would be identified. Finally, an analysis of the information would identify MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 7 if there was sufficient capacity or if the UGB needed to be reviewed. Mr. Lawless said it would be important to consider the ramifications of identifying opportunity sites and carrying capacity that was not desirable to developers. The result could be discouraging other good development from the site. Mr. Hledik stated that would result in revisiting the Growth Management Study. Mr. Belcher said the solution needed to have flexibility in the manner in which density was achieved, and some flexibility in where the density occurred. He said if the 2050 growth planning process was going to work, Eugene needed to closely examine its assumptions, and this process could be the start of that process. Mr. Duncan said the second tier of the process was to go back to the neighborhoods with the identified goals, stressing that the goals would not be achievable if all neighborhoods were not willing to accept more density over time. He cited education as an important component of the process. He hoped the neighborhoods would see over time that increased density could be a positive thing if it was managed properly. He hoped that the tide of “NIMBY-ism” (Not In My Backyard) in the community, with the idea that the best change was no change, could be slowly turned. Mr. Duncan said the subcommittee wanted questions and feedback from the Planning Commission and staff. Although the subcommittee started with the neighborhoods, it understood that there were other stakeholders that needed to be included in the process. Ms. Muir said the conversation helped her understand the work the subcommittee had done. She asked if there was a way to look at the opportunity sites on a regional or city wide basis. She queried where the stakeholders other than neighborhood groups fit into the process. Ms. Muir suggested another item for the work program was how to manage growth. She explained that in the Portland model, density numbers were allocated to neighborhoods, and neighborhoods were asked to identify how they would absorb those numbers. Ms. Colbath said the subcommittee wanted to ask neighbors what they observed in their neighborhood, and where they worked or played. She added that the neighborhood groups were the place to begin the collaborative process. Mr. Belcher said it would be important to bring adjacent neighborhoods to a common vision through the process. He stated that the process would be an iterative one, upon which the subcommittee hoped to grow. Ms. Colbath reviewed the timeline included in the January 16, 2006 subcommittee minutes. Ms. Muir said that the Planning Commission had asked staff to develop a citizen involvement plan for the NLC before the next annual work program review by the City Council, and noted that the work had not yet been done. Ms. Colbath suggested that the work program could be reviewed on February 6, 2006 to determine if it needed to be revised to include opportunity siting. Mr. Belcher said the subcommittee intent was to involve the NLC earlier in the Planning Commission MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 8 work program development. He said more focused questions would likely provide the feedback the commission was seeking. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Hledik stated that the draft talking points presented, with modifications suggested at today’s meeting, and were ready to take to City Council buddies. Ms. Colbath noted consensus that the Planning Commission would review City Council buddy feedback at its February 13, 2006 meeting. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Mr. Nystrom reviewed the commission schedule, noting that water quality and protective waterways would be rescheduled for early summer. He said staff would email a revised schedule to commissioners. Ms. Muir reported that she had attended the City Council retreat regarding priority issues on January 20, 2006. The following items were carried over and refined from 2005: • Launch Neighborhood Initiative • Conclude Discussion on City Hall Complex • Facilitate the Development of a Hospital in Eugene’s Central Core • Complete and Consider Police Department Reviews and Implement Appropriate Changes • Push Arts and Outdoors as a Theme for Eugene • Develop City Council Position on Racial Issues • Develop a Strategy to Help the Homeless in Eugene In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom said a Walnut Node report was tentatively scheduled for March 2006. Mr. Yeiter addressed a public comment made at the beginning of the meeting regarding the UO arena. He said from the City of Eugene’s perspective, the arena would have the greatest impact on the Walnut Node site, noting that mixed use, student housing or administrative offices would be less intense uses. Therefore, the arena was depicted in each scenario that would be presented for public review. B. Other Items from Commission Ms. Colbath reminded commissioners and staff that a good-bye party was scheduled for January 24, 2006 for former Commissioner Anne Marie Levis, and circulated a card for commissioners to sign. Ms. Muir said Ms. Levis would be presented with a plaque from the City of Eugene. Mr. Hledik asked for a copy of the stormwater public hearing. He asked if the City Council was considering the PROS Project Priority list this evening. Ms. Muir responded the PROS discussion had not been rescheduled, but would be on the council’s website when it was rescheduled. She added that the only planning related item on the council’s agenda MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 9 in the near future was a routine housekeeping item of removal of some properties from special districts Mr. Duncan reported that the ERAC received a report on the various proposed downtown projects, including the east end parking structure project, the Whole Foods project, and the Connor/Woolley/Opus west end project. He said Connor/Woolley/Opus project included a second floor 1,600 seat theater. Mr. Carroll reported he would attend his first Historic Review Board meeting on January 26, 2006. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:31 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc060123.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 10