Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue February 27, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Steve Nystrom, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Beth Bridges, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Mike Penwell, Central Services Department; Ellen Teninty, T’NT Consultants; Charles Biggs, Paul Conte, Roxie Cuellar, Kevin Matthews, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Phillip Hudspeth, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- January 9, 2006 Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to approve the minutes of January 9, 2006. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. II. STATUS REPORT/PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT: CIVIC CENTER PROCESS Staff: Mike Penwell, 682-5547 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 MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue February 27, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Steve Nystrom, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Beth Bridges, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Mike Penwell, Central Services Department; Ellen Teninty, T’NT Consultants; Charles Biggs, Paul Conte, Roxie Cuellar, Kevin Matthews, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Phillip Hudspeth, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, wanted the Planning Commission to know about obtaining information about its meetings before the meetings occurred. He said the only thing available on the Planning Commission website page for today’s meeting was the agenda. He asked if the packets could be available to the public ahead of time in the future. Paul Conte, 1461 West 10th Avenue, thanked the Planning Commissioners for bearing with the large number of comments that had been submitted regarding opportunity siting. He said that he interpreted the City Council direction regarding opportunity siting differently. He suggested asking the City Manager for clarification on the Council direction. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, stated she represented the Home Builders Association of Lane County and wanted to address opportunity siting. She stated she had recently attended the Neighborhood Leaders’ Council (NLC) where opportunity siting was discussed. She expressed concern about a statement made which indicated which data would be collected and the purposes for which the data would be used would be determined later. She said data could be collected and would not be applicable for a future use if it was unknown why the data was being collected. She said if the purpose of the opportunity siting committee was to explore with the neighborhoods places and the amount of densification they might be willing to accept, that was one collection of data. If looking at how much densification the neighborhoods could physically accept, that was a different type of database. She added that she was watching the 2050 process and Councilor Kelly’s comments in the 2050 process, and was concerned that the issue really would be how much densification the current neighborhoods could take. Infrastructure, such as wastewater, stormwater, and water lines that were sized for a single family detached neighborhood and water table depths were significant concerns. Severe physical limitations on what kind of density particular areas could take existed. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- January 9, 2006 Page 1, PRESENT should reflect that Mr. Duncan was the Planning Commission Vice President. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 1 Page 1, paragraph 8, should read: 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 motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Page 6, paragraph 6, sentence 3, should read: 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. Page 8, paragraph 9, sentence 2, should read: 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. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to approve the minutes of January 9, 2006. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Ms. Muir said that a pilot program the City of Eugene was testing with Laser fiche for accessing the City’s web pages was experiencing some technical problems. Until the technical issues were resolved, agendas and minutes would be posted on line when possible. She concurred with Mr. Hledik that hard copies were available, adding that people could ask to be included on the interested parties list to receive the information in the mail. II. STATUS REPORT/PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT: CIVIC CENTER PROCESS Mr. Penwell provided a PowerPoint presentation on the City Hall Complex Master Plan. He said the purpose of today’s presentation was to keep the commission informed of the process and solicit comments, particularly on the public involvement process, as well as some of the technical issues. Mr. Penwell described the process, noting the following Project Values had been identified: • Exercise fiscal responsibility. • Produce government efficiency. • Be user-friendly. • Embody environmental stewardship. • Enhance downtown. • Inspire civic pride. • Maximize use of City Hall public spaces by the public and access to government and its representatives • Strive for simplicity • Plan for the future Mr. Penwell described the following Matrix of Leanings: • Sustainable Design o Incorporate meaningful sustainable design goals. • Planning Horizon o Support planning for 20-40 years of future growth. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 2  • Consolidation o Consolidate departments to the greatest practical extent. o Separate police from City Hall • Downtown Plan o Develop in consideration of Downtown Plan. o Develop in consideration of Civic Street Concept. • Combining Uses o Support co-location of non-City Hall uses. o Support co-location of public amenities (plaza, Farmers’ Market, other). • Parking and Transportation o Support parking within 2 blocks. o Close access to bus lines and reactive Breeze. • Site Selection o Support existing site as appropriate site for City Hall o Consider other downtown locations • Renovate or Replace o Support replacing City Hall Ms. Teninty distributed two handouts, entitled: Eugene City Hall Complex Master Plan Community Forums and Eugene City Hall Complex Master Plan Timeline. Ms. Teninty said much of the technical information would be developed by the architects during the initial project phase. Additionally, public input solicited through public forums would be forwarded to the City Council for incorporation during the decision making process. She said it would be important to be very inclusive in the decision making process, to be open to exploring new ideas, and to ensure that the best and most current information possible was available to decision makers. Ms. Teninty said several important issues had been identified in developing the public involvement process: • Structure of police services, particularly patrol, had implications for the building. • Four options o Do nothing, do deferred maintenance costing $14 million. o Upgrade current building so that it did not leak energy and met seismic requirements; add new construction to expand capacity to house all city services. o Construct new building while incorporating elements of the existing structure. o Construct an entirely new building on the current site or elsewhere. • Criteria o Measurable ƒ Proximity to parking. o Real but not subjective ƒ Inspire civic pride. ƒ Enhance the downtown. Mr. Lawless said he had been invited to be part of the small group sessions, noting that staff and consultants had done a good job of opening the discussions to a broad range of ideas. He suggested development of a variety of topics for the website would be beneficial. Mr. Belcher noted he worked for the United States Forest Service (USFS), and asked if the current federal building was part of the city hall complex conversation when the new federal building construction was occupied. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Penwell stated the City had been in constant contact with the federal U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) for several years, and the GSA had indicated that the federal government had uses for the building for 10 or 15 years. In response to Mr. Sullivan’s question about identification of a location for a city hall complex, Mr. Penwell said there were some clear leanings that the current site had many advantages related to connectivity to Lane County and the courts, as well as the federal government. He added that the City Council had been clear that it wanted to hear a full range of ideas from the community. He said an important part of Phase II would be development of good site selection criteria. In response to Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Penwell replied that the project was not as far along as he had expected it to be at the end of Phase I, but added that it was important to have a complete discussion before moving forward. In response to Mr. Hledik, Ms. Teninty said that the decision matrix used by the consultants had been developed by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). She added that it was important for people to be informed, noting that finance issues would have a significant influence on whatever decision the City Council made. Ms. Teninty said the Council directed staff and the consultant not to take issues to the forums that it did not want input on. In response to Mr. Hledik’s question about consolidation of services such as Eugene Police Department and the Lane County Sheriff’s Department, with Lane County, Mr. Penwell said Council direction had been to concentrate on initially on the City’s needs, which would be reflected in the development plan phase. He added that consolidation conversations could occur in the second phase in 2007. Ms. Colbath asked at what point the public would be made aware of the costs of its choices, stressing the importance of letting people know early in the process. Mr. Penwell replied that the current plan was to deal with costs in a general way, noting there were a variety of value systems, including financial and civic pride. He said there was not enough specificity of the design and plan to have cost estimates at the present time. He added that those costs would be developed as the project moved along. He said it was important to work within a range and the implications of those ranges. Mr. Belcher asked what safeguards had been built into the process to assure the public that the process had not been designed to reach a predetermined outcome. Mr. Penwell said the project team had heard repeatedly that it was important to be honest with the project, noting that the community had some frustration with the City Council on some issues. The team had heard that it was important to be honest, that this was a tough town in which to build consensus, that there were other choices for which the funding could be used, and that not all of the City’s problems would be solved with this building. Mr. Belcher encouraged the project team to record both positive and negative responses at the public forums. He asked if the final decision would be an up or down vote of one option, or if the voters would be given an opportunity to respond to more than one option. Mr. Penwell replied he did not know. Ms. Teninty added there would be a minority report that reflected the broad range of responses. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Lawless said the idea of full disclosure as soon as possible, as well as addressing political issues and providing good raw information had been identified by his small group as crucial issues before support for the project could be expected. He added that understanding the perspective of residents of the downtown core area opposed to that of residents further out in the urban area was critical to achieving success. Mr. Hledik asked what land use matters would need to be addressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Nystrom said land use matters would be small if any if the project remained in the downtown. He said the Downtown Plan provisions were in place to accommodate a new city hall. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Penwell confirmed that issues raised during a recent design forum at the Atrium Building had been incorporated into the Phase I work to date. Mr. Belcher noted that the design forum participants consisted of a large number of architects, which implied the desired solution was a new building. Mr. Penwell asserted that there was a significant component of the architects’ group that supported working with the existing building. III. DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING Ms. Colbath stated that she had asked staff to provide input on the City Council charge on the opportunity siting issue. Additionally, she wanted members of the opportunity siting subcommittee to provide feedback on the meeting with the NLC. She referred to the February 21, 2006 Outline of the Planning Commission/NLC meeting included in the agenda packet. Mr. Yeiter stated that the related October 26, 2005 City Council motion was included in the agenda packet. He explained there were several types of mixed use centers (MUCs) as illustrated on the posted map, TransPlan Potential Nodal Development Areas for the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area. He said that several MUCs, including Chase Gardens, Royal, Lower River Road, and Crescent, had been officially designated on the Metro Plan diagram, while others had not. He added that some areas had the nodal development (ND) overlay, which was a subset of the MUCs, applied. Staff interpreted the term MUCs as applying to all 38 MUCs in Eugene. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Yeiter replied that it was not known what the densities in the MUCs needed to be. Mr. Yeiter added that the motion had been amended to request that opportunity siting be combined with citywide estimates of future population which would be approximately allocated to mixed use districts. He understood that a new estimate of population figures needed to be developed for the MUCs. Mr. Belcher stated that he had talked with Councilor Bettman, the maker of the motion. Councilor Bettman had said that opportunity siting should not be limited in nodes and mixed use zones, but should result in the characteristics of nodes. Additionally, amenities should be pedestrian friendly within walking distance of service and transit. The mixed use did not have to take place on a single property, citing Willard School as an example of a site that had great MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 5 opportunity siting potential. Councilor Bettman had stated that there needed to be some restrictions such as being limited to arterials or minor arterials. Mr. Belcher noted that these comments differed from the motion. He opined that Councilor Bettman had inferred that work should start with MUCs and go out from there. Mr. Hledik stated that Councilor Kelly had added that this needed to be applied to other areas in the City, which opened the discussion to areas other than the 38 MUCs. Ms. Colbath opened the discussion to the conversations at the Planning Commission/NLC meeting. Mr. Belcher stated that the conversation was not done. The biggest issue for the neighborhood leaders was that they were not comfortable identifying areas that were appropriate for increased allocation of development resources without assurances that the allocation would be done in a manner acceptable to the neighborhood and continue to support the character of the neighborhood. He added there was confusion in the process because the Planning Commission had sought input from the NLC early in the process. Mr. Hledik stated that there was a great deal of concern about what the densification issue meant, and if it meant that the City would direct a certain amount of absorption of additional populations or dwelling units in the neighborhoods. Additionally, there was concern on the impact of the existing neighborhood character. Mr. Hledik felt some of the confusion identified by Mr. Belcher was that the opportunity siting subcommittee had been discussing the issues since July 2006, while this was the first time the NLC had had an opportunity to participate in the conversations. Mr. Hledik saw the issue in two parts. He felt Councilor Kelly’s motion to look at population projection was a point for later discussion. Mr. Hledik opined that he would be comfortable asking the neighborhoods to identify sites for higher density development, thus providing those opportunities, and comparing those identified sites to the MUC maps. A subsequent discussion could narrow down the current 38 sites, or identify others that should be considered, such as Willard School. The Planning Commission could then have a discussion about how much density would be realistic in those opportunity sites, either through the market place or from a planning perspective. Mr. Hledik suggested that the second part would look at future populations to determine what possibilities existed to absorb those populations into opportunity sites. He asserted that he viewed the infill question as distinctly different from opportunity siting as described by Councilor Bettman. Ms. Colbath said Councilor Taylor had offered another motion, and asked if it needed to be incorporated into the Planning Commission work. Mr. Hledik asked if the Council directed us to fold their comments regarding “infill and protecting neighborhood character into the existing high priority tasks, mainly the MUC opportunity siting work, and a second round of code amendments.” Mr. Nystrom said the issue was coming from a discussion with the City Council regarding appropriate infill, and reflected the broad question of infill and not MUC discussions. Ms. Colbath said folding the infill issue into the opportunity siting subcommittee was new to the subcommittee. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Belcher asked how comprehensive should be process be. He heard strong feedback from the NLC that they were still interested in comprehensive planning, or refinement planning, in their neighborhoods. He said one challenge was to get something going while continuing to do comprehensive planning. Ms. Colbath heard the following things during the meeting with the NLC: • Do something simple such as looking at C-2 zoning in the MUCs as opportunity sites. • Interest in involving neighborhoods in the process only if that involvement resulted in a refinement plan or its equivalent. • Need to “bite off” less to get the work done. • Need to involve interest groups other than NLC early in the process. • Infill and infrastructure capacity. Ms. Colbath, Mr. Belcher, and Mr. Hledik concurred that the level of involvement varied greatly among the neighborhood groups. Mr. Lawless said there were several fundamental issues that had been acknowledged in the past: • Opportunity siting was a clear and clean mechanism to absorb the majority of additional residential density, regardless of how it was projected or estimated, to avoid placing pressure on existing neighborhoods. • A lot of the development intrusion into the existing neighborhoods came about because of zoning or lack of regulations, restrictions or forms that were perceived by the neighborhoods as the culprit in causing deterioration of the character and viability of their neighborhood. He suggested that the Planning Commission needed to set aside the intruding factors and look at the factors that were doing the most damage as one issue. Find simple opportunities, neighborhood by neighborhood for absorbing higher density to take pressure off. Identifying a C-2 property in the fringe of a neighborhood may be meaningless in providing real additional densification or an opportunity to relax pressure on the existing neighborhood. • Frustration over trying to predict what the future growth and population would be over time. Determining where growth will go was an academic exercise in futility. Mr. Lawless suggested separating the various tasks to provide a simple, single direction to make the tasks more achievable. Mr. Belcher stated that the Planning Commission needed to be aware that Ballot Measure 37 was recently reaffirmed. Ms. Muir thanked the Planning Commission for its leadership. She said staff observed that the process and content lines were getting blurred. She proposed that staff incorporate the content of the outline provided by the subcommittee into a draft proposal for the public involvement plan. She added that staff would develop a timeline and identify existing staff workloads. She said City Manager Dennis Taylor would identify funding issues in his April 24, 2006 budget message. Ms. Muir said it was important for the Planning Commission to develop and approve a public involvement process. She said the City Council was waiting for the commissioners to check in with their buddies before scheduling the joint work session. Mr. Hledik stated that Ms. Muir’s suggestion was timely, helpful and appropriate. Mr. Carroll expressed concern about the population allocation aspect and how, according to Mr. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 7 Hledik, it did not need to be addressed up front. Mr. Carroll stated that although Mr. Conte had commented that too much was being read into the City Council’s motion, Councilor Kelly’s direction to “combine” opportunity siting and MUC concepts could not be ignored. Mr. Carroll said the public involvement process should consider how much of the public needed to be involved, and how deeply the public involvement needed to be. He sought assurance about how the Planning Commission would respond to those concerns. Ms. Colbath said the Council direction was to look not only at MUCs but potentially other parts of the City as well. Mr. Belcher said the Planning Commission needed to seek clarification from the City Council on the following issues: • Was opportunity siting specific to MUCs or not, and if not, what was the scope of where it should be applied. • What was the relationship of the pieces, i.e., density, infill, alternate path, and opportunity siting. Mr. Hledik understood that the subcommittee was going to define the question, and develop a proposal for consideration by the City Council for budget issues. Addressing Mr. Carroll’s concerns, Mr. Hledik understood the direction of the Planning Commission was to identify how to involve neighborhoods, and stakeholders, in identifying opportunity sites to determine how much additional density they could absorb. Mr. Hledik said the second step would be to identify future population projections to determine where they could be absorbed. Mr. Carroll said it may not be beneficial to delay the future population discussion. He suggested starting with a small project and building on the lessons learned for future projects. Mr. Carroll said if there was concern and skepticism on the motion from the City Council, it was the Planning Commission’s responsibility to recommend what wise planning approaches might be and vet the motion to ensure clarity. He said he would have a difficult time supporting a work plan if he was unsure of the validity of the results and whether it represented an efficient use of the City’s resources. He affirmed that the future projections were key to his supporting a work plan. Mr. Belcher said the process for opportunity siting that made it likely that areas would be developed and preserved neighborhood character was missing. Mr. Lawless said it was meaningless to study densification without a concurrent look at what was needed to support necessary and desired commercial activity, and would result in unintended consequences. He iterated that it was important to take steps to reach the highest possible outcome at each step of the process. Mr. Sullivan said Mr. Hledik’s concept of profiling opportunity centers for their ability to absorb density, testing the veracity of the idea, identifying the density gap, and the ability to build consensus was a good place to start. Ms. Colbath asked if the Planning Commission wanted to start with looking at MUCs or looking at new locations for opportunity sites. Mr. Belcher said it was less likely that progress would be made as more restrictions were placed MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 8 potential sites. In response to a question from Mr. Carroll, Mr. Belcher said if only the three nodes with ND overlays were considered, there was little chance new sites would be identified. Conversely, chances of having an effect on increased density in the city through the process were increased if acceptable, larger parameters around opportunity siting were possible. Mr. Carroll said Mr. Belcher’s theory assumed the goal of the MUC program was to increase density inside the urban growth boundary (UGB). It was not clear to him that was the correct assumption. Mr. Belcher said the ostensible goal was to decrease the number of miles traveled by densifying and making it possible for people to work, shop, and recreate without having to get into their cars to do so. Mr. Carroll said while decreasing the number of miles traveled was one of the benefits of a successful MUC, there were other benefits of investing in the MUC program. It was important to not to loose sight of the notion that the opportunity siting concept derived from a desire to promote and continue to use the MUC program, and not to densify Eugene. Mr. Carroll was concerned with population allocation framing the discussion. He asked if allocating population and accommodating people something that could be accomplished by traditional planning means. What does the act of planning do—does it move people around, does it deal with population projections, or does it deal with zoning, land use and facilitating market processes to reach community goals. He saw these as competing principles. He said the growth management goals predominantly dealt with engaging the community in meeting goals related to livability issues, by engaging neighbors and meeting concrete goals to further the MUC program, which was the genesis of opportunity siting Mr. Carroll said although it may be correct thinking to assume that the point of opportunity siting was to continue with the MUC program to densify Eugene, it was neither the necessary nor the sufficient condition for moving along with opportunity siting. Mr. Lawless said it was important to look at what was the actual goal. He said the fundamental struggle with achieving or managing density within MUCs came to light when looking at the Chamber Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFNH) process, in a neighborhood that was potentially a MUC predominantly filled with valuable existing neighborhoods containing qualitative components that were not present in other nodes, such as the Royal Node. Not all MUCs fit the density model. Ms. Colbath said it was not an either/or situation, but a range of options could co-exist within any given MUC. She heard from the NLC that design standards were very important, and were critical for creating a wonderful place to live. She said she would be attending the NLC meeting on February 28, 2006 to report on the Planning Commission’s progress on this issue. Mr. Belcher concurred there was value checking in once more with the NLC. Responding to Mr. Carroll’s concerns, Mr. Belcher said it was important to identify locations for opportunity sites and to establish a process for identifying new locations as potential opportunity sites in which an evaluative process with a developer, neighbor and staff could be used to determine if a new location could be developed, and under what conditions that development could occur. Mr. Carroll agreed with Mr. Belcher’s comments, adding a good communication process for MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 9 evaluating site would also be beneficial. Ms. Muir stated that staff would bring a draft work plan to the Planning Commission in the near future for the commission’s review. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Mr. Nystrom distributed a document titled City of Eugene Planning Division Tentative Meeting Schedule and facilitated a brief discussion about the commission’s schedule. Ms. Colbath thanked staff and commissioners for their work on the opportunity siting topic. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Lawless reported that he recently represented the City of Eugene at the University of Oregon (UO)/City Liaison Committee meeting. He said it provided a good opportunity to hear about recently undertaken and upcoming UO projects, and how those projects could impact a variety of current City of Eugene projects. He said Jan Oliver acknowledged that the arena project was an unknown quantity at the present time. Mr. Nystrom reported that there had been some discussion about the PeaceHealth Hilyard Street campus. He added that Northwest Christian College, who’s growth would impact the area, did not have a representative at the meeting. Mr. Nystrom said that the Walnut Node project would be coming to the commission on March 20, 2006. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom said the March 13/14, 2006 study session would be used to review information about the citizen involvement process and the Planning Commission’s role in the renaming of the Third Avenue/Fourth Avenue Street Connector to Shelton Boulevard. Mr. Carroll reported that the River Road Historic Context Statement and the MUC were discussed at the most recent Historic Review Board (HRB) meeting, adding that there was also some discussion about the border of the study area. Mr. Nystrom noted that possible hospital land use action and the gravel issue would be included in a draft work plan. 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\pc060227.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 10