Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue April 10, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Steve Nystrom, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Beth Bridges, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Roxie Cuellar, Charles Biggs, Dale Deason, Rob Handy, Garrick Mishaga, Jr., Rene Kane, guests. ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, President. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES –-January 23, 2006 Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to accept the minutes of January 23, 2006 as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING Staff: Kurt Yeiter, 682-8379 III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 1  Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue April 10, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Steve Nystrom, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Beth Bridges, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Roxie Cuellar, Charles Biggs, Dale Deason, Rob Handy, Garrick Mishaga, Jr., Rene Kane, guests. ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, President. Rick Duncan convened the Planning Commission at 11:31 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, addressed growth issues in general. He said it was important to tie any growth planning with transportation. He said it was important to involve neighborhood associations and the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) in a collaborative process in developing ideas at the beginning, rather than having those groups in a position of responding to ideas presented to them. He said it would be helpful to have copies of the subcommittee minutes. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, stated that she represented the Home Builders Association of Lane County (HBA). She said the HBA was concerned about the opportunity siting process. She shared a conversation she had with Councilors David Kelly and Andrea Ortiz on Friday, April 7, regarding land supply. Mr. Kelly said that he did not want to entertain the idea of looking at the land supply until the opportunity siting work was concluded. Ms. Cuellar sensed confusion about the Planning Commission’s assignment from the City Council, whether neighborhoods were supposed to identify how much growth they were willing to accommodate or if the neighborhoods would be given a specific number that needed to be accommodated. Ms. Cuellar reported that Mr. Kelly saw the issue as a two-pronged approach. First the neighborhoods would be asked to determine how much growth they were willing to accommodate. If the numbers were insufficient with what the City wanted the neighborhoods to accommodate, the neighborhoods would then be given the assignment of finding a way to accommodate an assigned number. Ms. Cuellar asserted that if the City of Eugene was not going to look at the land supply until opportunity siting was finished, a two-pronged approach delayed the land use study process. Using a concurrent approach did not appeal to Mr. Kelly. She said the HBA was concerned that the length of the opportunity siting process would be used as a basis for delaying a land supply study. Ms. Cuellar stated that using the two-pronged approach gave the neighborhood groups two assignments, which was a significant amount of work to ask of volunteers. She was concerned that when relying on volunteers, having a two-pronged approach delayed the amount of time it MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 1 would take to accomplish the task. Secondly, an upfront approach taken to the neighbors required a significant amount of work and input from many people. Dale Deason, 1527 Charnelton, recently learned that the City Council recently had effectively rezoned a large portion of his neighborhood, the Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN) from R-1 to R-2 based upon Planning staff recommendation with little public notice or discussion. He understood that the current R-2 standards were extremely lax, which would allow a radical transformation of the JWN for the worse. He stated that although the neighborhood refinement plan included a policy of protecting the neighborhood, there was no effective legal or administrative structure to support that policy. Mr. Deason said there were people in positions of influence who were actively seeking to change the character of the neighborhood, quoting one person as saying, “The close in neighborhoods would just have to take their mess”. He stated that real estate agencies were advertising residential lots in the neighborhood as suitable for large apartment buildings, quoting one printed advertisement as saying, “City says seven units possible.” Mr. Deason said the lot was on a block consisting entirely of single family detached homes. He stated that he was not opposed to increased density in his neighborhood, and accepted that infill would occur. He questioned whether it would be done in cooperation with the residents in a manner in that protected and enhanced, or destroyed wonderful, existing neighborhoods. He expressed suspicion and concern about the opportunity siting process. Mr. Belcher stated that he lived in the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood, and had served as co- chair of the neighborhood association. He had fought long and hard to protect the livability of the neighborhood. He added he was a Planning Commissioner when the rezoning process took place. Mr. Belcher stated that the JWN Plan said that for those neighborhoods which had been changed in the Metro Plan was designated as low and medium residential 25 years ago. When the refinement plan was passed the Metro Plan should have been changed as well, but that did not happen. Recently, the Planning Commission reviewed all of the refinement plans to ensure that the Metro Plan was in compliance with the refinement plans. Mr. Belcher stated that the JWN refinement plan stated that low/medium density residential would be applied to residential lots within the boundary of the JWN. Mr. Belcher stated that he had not completely understood the implications of the adopted changes at that time. He said in reality, the commission’s action brought the Metro Plan diagram into conformance with the refinement plans. The impact of that action had resulted in several zone changes, some of which had been approved, and some of which had not, been recommended for the area, citing that provision of the refinement plan. He stated if the procedure had been done properly, the Metro Plan would have been modified and the changes processed through that avenue. He added that the zoning would now be easier to modify because the Metro Plan was compliant with the refinement plan. Mr. Belcher asserted that the current language of the refinement plan allowed for upzoning of properties with one of two criteria occurring: • There had to be a block planning process that had not yet occurred, but that the Planning Commission could undertake as part of protecting the core neighborhoods; or • Site review placed on the site, which meant that when a use was proposed, it had to be declared compatible within the allowed uses of adjacent neighbors. Mr. Belcher said he would like to talk about this issue soon to determine if the Planning Commission wanted to add this to its work plan. He added that he wished to avoid dealing with a MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 2 Ballot Measure 37 issue by reviewing it. He said the refinement plan needed to be changed. Mr. Deason stated that he did not share Mr. Belcher’s view of the refinement plan. Mr. Belcher suggested that the neighborhood should initiate a refinement plan review of which he would be supportive. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 23, 2006 Mr. Belcher offered the following correction: Page 7, paragraph 1, should read: Mr. Belcher expressed frustration with abstract that the growth management policies on the wall did not link to anything in particular 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. Mr. Duncan offered the following correction: Page 6, paragraph 10, sentence 1, should read: 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 (UGB). Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to accept the minutes of January 23, 2006 as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING Mr. Yeiter provided the staff report. He said the City Council had charged the Planning Commission with the task of developing a program to focus infill on specific sites referred to as Opportunity Siting, including protecting established neighborhoods from negative effects of infill. Mr. Yeiter reported that the subcommittee had been meeting for several months and had developed recommendations and background statements, copies of which were included in the agenda packet. The purpose of today’s discussion was to determine if the draft recommendations were ready to forward to the City Council as a recommendation from the full commission. Mr. Yeiter listed the attachments to the agenda item summary (AIS): • A—Subcommittee Findings. • B—Subcommittee Proposed Program Menu. • C—Subcommittee White Paper • D—Staff Notes and Observations. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 3  • E—December 14, 2005 City Council Minutes. • F—Email on Opportunity Siting. Mr. Yeiter said that neither zoning changes nor Metro Plan amendments were proposed for the identified sites. He stated that several tasks had been identified by the subcommittee for consideration by the commission: • Opportunity Site Identification including: o Outreach and education. o Prepare preliminary maps for public review. o Conduct feasibility study. o Create prototype alternative path process for Opportunity Siting implementation. • Develop infill/refill compatibility standards. • Develop population forecasting criteria. • Expand prototype alternate path review program. Mr. Yeiter stated that if the commission agreed with the recommended approach, the information would be refined for Council consideration and staff would provide estimates for costs and time to complete the tasks. Mr. Duncan opened the floor to discussion encouraging questions from commissioners who had not been on the subcommittee to enable them to be “up to speed” with the subcommittee members. Ms. Muir noted the five specific questions listed in the AIS that the subcommittee emphasized the need for feedback on from the full commission. Mr. Carroll asked when the subcommittee next planned to meet, what time context the subcommittee anticipated, and if the discussion would address the five questions in a big picture manner first or if it would consider the details of the individual questions first. Mr. Belcher said he hoped the commission would leave today’s meeting with a document that was ready to go to Council because there was some concern that the document could be placed before Council in time to influence this year’s budget. He said some refinement may or may be necessary before a meeting with the Council. Mr. Duncan asserted that the intent was to use the session with the City Council to further fine tune some of the elements of the document to ensure that it met the Council’s direction. Mr. Belcher advised the Planning Commission that he knew that one City Councilor had instituted the procedure for the Council to vote to have a work session that did not come from city the city manager or the mayor. Mr. Lawless expressed concerns about the overall menu, tasks, and the potential timing and sequencing of the tasks. He said a lengthy and arduous process had been built into the menu tasks, and no where early in the process was there specific action that provided for protection of neighborhoods and how an opportunity site would be defined. Mr. Lawless reported that he had met with Councilor Bettman, who had expressed concern about finding a couple of ways to address fundamental issues of not eroding existing, well established neighborhoods and to achieve a couple of wins in terms of how an opportunity site could be densely developed. These actions would provide examples of how the overall process could be MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 4 successful. Mr. Lawless opined that the overall process of combining all of the elements as described along with all of the technical aspects of the process would create a long, complex process could result in another report that got dusty and had an insignificant impact on a hopeful outcome. Mr. Lawless said he wanted to have a discussion about the philosophical approach change that provided some small initial successes while concurrently “grinding through” the total process. Mr. Hledik stated that the subcommittee’s intent was to try take what the City Council asked the Planning Commission to do in identifying opportunity sites recognizing that it would take neighborhood involvement early in the process to identify those sites, and continued neighborhood involvement throughout the development process. He said the number and location of sites had yet to be identified, and it was unknown if these identified sites would satisfy at least of some the Council’s densification objectives, or if a large gap would have to be resolved. Mr. Hledik asserted that the menu approach, although lengthy and costly, would provide the City Council another opportunity to look at the components that had been presented to the Planning Commission to address, those being: • Identify opportunity sites. • Discuss infill compatibility. • Discuss future population and how it would be allocated. The commission could then ask the Council which components it wanted addressed immediately, which components the Council was willing to fund, and which components the Council wished to defer. Mr. Lawless suggested that there were components of the menu items that could be broken down into smaller tasks that could become pilot projects, while more complex opportunity sites were being identified. Mr. Duncan explained that as the subcommittee reviewed the Council’s motions, the subcommittee realized one of the difficulties encountered in developing the menu was how encompassing the work was. He added he supported the concept of doing a small project to achieve an early success. He added that determining a methodology for identifying those small projects posed other challenges. Mr. Duncan opined that the intent had not been to identify all possible opportunity sites, but rather to begin to find areas where such sites could be identified. Hopefully, the market and the neighborhoods would help identify additional sites. Mr. Hledik said that the subcommittee intended to seek initial sites that had some chance of success based largely on neighborhood acceptance and market feasibility. He did not wish to get into a refinement plan mode, with a plan that quickly became obsolete. He added that Councilor Kelly was concerned that not enough sites would be initially identified. Mr. Lawless suggested that seeking neighborhood assistance in identifying initial projects and completion of a feasibility study were good first steps. He added that a high level of success early in every neighborhood would be important, and suggested conducting neighborhood charettes to solicit a broad spectrum of information. Mr. Duncan said that the subcommittee’s intent was to establish a dynamic process that would change as the City grew, rather than developing a plan that would sit on a shelf. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Belcher said there was a challenge with the City Council motions, in that they were vague and did not capture the Councilors’ intents. He added that intent of the menu developed by the subcommittee was to identify specific tasks. Mr. Carroll stated that the menu was a big step from the earlier drafts of the subcommittee’s work. He asserted that rather than presenting ideas and challenges to the Council, he wanted the Planning Commission to recommend specific ideas. He said the Planning Commission did not need to respond in a confusing and contradictory manner to the Council’s motions. Mr. Carroll said that Ms. Bettman’s original motion was specific in that it addressed mixed use strategies and community support. He added it had evolved into a more confusing motion. Mr. Carroll said if it was desirable to support the mixed use center program, it may be helpful to link the projects. Mr. Carroll stated that he had carefully reviewed the AIS on Opportunity Siting. He doubted that the commission would be able to get through all of the material to satisfy Mr. Belcher’s desire to complete the review process today, although he was willing to try do to so. Mr. Carroll said it would be easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the process was comprehensive because all things related to each other, rather than being able to move forward on something that made sense. He suggested moving forward on some segments of the MUC planning in general. Noting Ms. Cuellar’s earlier comments on the land supply, Mr. Carroll stated that the land supply, while it may not ultimately be at the top of the Planning Commission’s list, it would be effected by the other actions taken by the commission. Mr. Carroll said he wanted to scale down the menu items to make them more manageable. Referring to Councilor Kelly’s comments, Mr. Lawless struggled with how to structure the population allocation formula, and have a meaningful way to move the project forward, rather than looking at the big goal of getting more people in the existing amount of land. He questioned if tying the allocation component to earlier test experiments of the opportunity sites may encumber the sites when attempting to assign a numeric value to the program. Mr. Lawless asserted he would support a footnote to the City Council that trying to achieve an artificial goal could block the first Opportunity Siting experiments. Mr. Belcher stated that Ms. Bettman’s motion was challenging in that it contradicted what she was now saying in proposing the Willard School site as the “poster child” for Opportunity Siting because Willard School was not in a node. Responding to Mr. Lawless’ concerns about assigning a numeric value for density to an area, Mr. Belcher stated that Portland had allocated density out to the neighborhoods, directing neighborhoods to determine how those allocations would occur. Mr. Belcher said a prototype of Opportunity Siting could be attempted rather than trying to identify multiple areas, particularly if public/private partnerships were formed in which the City offered financial and regulatory incentives. Mr. Belcher stated the “catch 22” of the growth management policies was to densify while at the same time protecting neighborhoods. He said he was uncomfortable moving forward to protect neighborhoods without knowing there was a way to concurrently encourage densification in the appropriate places. He said the NLC wanted protection now. He added that although protecting neighborhoods was a daunting task, it was easier than identifying areas where densification would occur. He said it was difficult to get MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 6 developers to do what the Planning Commission and City Council wanted them to do. Mr. Hledik said that densification allocation was a red flag with the NLC. The NLC was concerned that they would be forced to absorb more people in the future. He preferred to move forward and see what happens with Opportunity Siting, and then have a much broader discussion about population projections. He asserted that there was a need to build trust with the community before undertaking population studies. Mr. Lawless stated that the intent of the motion was to increase density within the UGB, initially within MUCs, but eventually throughout the City. He was interested in finding the shortest path to creating projects that would develop the desired density regardless of where they go. Furthermore, a conundrum would be created if the opportunity sites were created and the market did not develop them. Mr. Lawless proposed that the Planning Commission suggest that City Council find a way to become its own developer to achieve the desired outcome if the market driven engine did not achieve that outcome. Mr. Belcher stated that it was not his intention to increase density citywide, noting that there were places where densification was appropriate. He suggested looking first at arterials and collectors because of transit and quality of life issues on those streets. He added that neighborhood approval supported by design standards would be needed before selection occurred. Mr. Belcher said that the current status was we were hoping that infill and the MUCs would satisfy the density needs, but that was not occurring. The infill was creating more challenges than it was solving and the MUCs for the most part were not working. Mr. Hledik struggled with the alternative path concept. He asked what would happen when the opportunity sites had been identified and they were zoned in such a manner that would not permit a potential development from occurring. He said he viewed the alternative path concept as working through those unidentified challenges with early neighborhood involvement in a collaborative process. Referring to the subcommittee menu, 2.d.ii, he sought clarification on the timing for implementation of a prototype alternative path. Identifying full implementation of the prototype alternate path as a separate task appeared to delay the process. Mr. Duncan replied that the intent was to start with a small project, and move forward to larger projects as success was achieved. Mr. Belcher suggested eliminating menu item 5, Expand Prototype “Alt Path” Review Program if it was confusing and appeared to prolong the process. Mr. Carroll expressed his appreciation for the subcommittee’s work, and acknowledged that there were no bad ideas. He was concerned about how to package the proposal. He added that he also was interested in the alternate path and determining how it fit into the big picture. Mr. Carroll said he would be happy if Opportunity Siting was initiated outside of a MUC. He felt strongly that the focus should be on supporting the MUC program however and wherever it began. Mr. Carroll said there were underlying assumptions that would be the beginning of a discussion on addressing infill issues that he did not completely understand. The assumption that neighborhoods would always need to be protected from infill was a naïve, optimistic view point. He added that it did not need to be the starting point although the growth management policies MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 7 inferred that. Mr. Hledik left at 12:30 p.m. Mr. Carroll was concerned about delaying infill until Opportunity Siting was completed because of the presumed mandate to protect neighborhood character from increased density. Neighborhood character would not necessarily change if a small number of residential units were added to the neighborhood. Mr. Carroll said it was not clear to him that attitudes and behavior would change if hard data was available. Moving forward on such a large program with the assumption that the data would be the basis on which to move forward with a new way of planning for existing neighborhoods was not supported by experience. Mr. Carroll was also concerned about population projections. He cited a 2001 report prepared by ECONorthwest for the Portland area that examined the density of their centers programs. It asked why those centers had not developed as densely as hoped. Conflicting information came from censuses, building permit, and housing unit data, making it difficult to make firm conclusions about the failure to achieve the desired densities. He cautioned the commission to tread lightly when determining which population estimates to use in identifying opportunity sites. Mr. Hudspeth asserted that the menu as presented was not ready to forward to the City Council. He supported looking at the market and other economic factors in determining MUCs and opportunity sites, in collaboration with developers and neighborhoods. He expressed concern that the commission was not fully looking at all of the information that Ms. Bettman had passed on to Mr. Lawless. Mr. Hudspeth said the commission needed to take more time before getting on the City Council’s agenda. In response to Mr. Duncan, Mr. Nystrom said the next time the commission was scheduled to discuss this topic was April 24, 2006. Mr. Duncan said the subcommittee was concerned that this year’s budget cycle would be missed if a joint meeting with the City Council did not occur soon. Ms. Muir explained that items were not typically scheduled for a City Council agenda until the referring body had completed its work. She added that planning staff had included a budget proposal for Opportunity Siting funding for the fiscal year 2007 (FY07) budget that would be released by City Manager Dennis Taylor on April 24, 2006. Mr. Duncan said he heard from the commissioners that additional discussion was needed before moving forward with a recommendation to the City Council. Furthermore, he wanted staff to proceed with scheduling a joint meeting with the Council. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Muir said she needed all of the commissioners to feel comfortable that the proposal was ready to move forward on a consensus basis. She added that it was necessary to have a product to move forward to the council prior to scheduling. Following a brief discussion, the commissioners decided to review the Suggested Program Menu item by item. 1. Planning Commission approval of program MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 8 Mr. Yeiter said this item may not need to go the City Council. 2. Opportunity Sites Identification Mr. Belcher suggested taking the following to the City Council. ƒ Identification of a prototype process that focused on development and evaluation of one or two sites, and separating the identification process into two options. ƒ A process that included outreach and consensus building with the neighborhoods. ƒ A process focused on city, neighborhood and developer efforts to identify one or two sites that would be appropriate for development. Mr. Duncan proposed not limiting the options to one or two, since there were some areas of the City that were more likely to have some success. He added identification of the options should happen quickly. Mr. Lawless said his priorities were identifying and prioritizing a couple of options immediately. Secondly, he suggested establishing an ongoing process of identifying opportunity sites. He was opposed to doing an across the board identification of all opportunity sites. Mr. Carroll concurred with Mr. Lawless. Furthermore, it was important to determine how to interact with neighbors and neighborhood associations. He asserted that neighborhood associations should not be the major contact point. Experience had demonstrated that when it came to land use and neighborhoods, the neighborhood associations should be the City’s partner in helping to develop the program for the city as a whole, but neighbors who were most immediately impacted were the people who participated at a high level. He emphasized that he did not like the citywide approach without communication tools in place. Mr. Duncan said it was imperative to identify those sites that had a high probability of success for the initial work. He added that the list of sites should not be static, but able to be expanded as suitable sites were identified. Mr. Carroll recommended identifying several study areas opposed to sites. Ms. Muir left at 12:55 p.m. Mr. Sullivan asked if the using feasibility and market analysis fit with Mr. Lawless’ suggestion. Mr. Lawless said the initial sites needed to contain a wide variety of resources that would be appealing to the market, real estate, neighbors and other stakeholders, to enable identification of the most likely candidates. Mr. Belcher said it was not necessary to craft the final product today. Rather, the commission should focus on developing concepts to take to the Council. The Council could make a decision about opportunity sites or opportunity areas. Mr. Lawless opined that asking the Council to make a decision about opportunity sites or opportunity areas would not correctly inform the Council of the commission’s collective intent. Mr. Duncan concurred with Mr. Lawless in that he did not want the proposal to be too vague. In response to Mr. Hudspeth, Mr. Nystrom opined that it would be helpful to offer a preferred MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 9 approach when both talking with Council buddies and when taking the issue to the full Council. He said it would be helpful for the Council to hear the Commission’s desire to have some quick, small successes. Mr. Belcher suggested forwarding a menu options with an indication of the commission’s preference, in that he did not feel that the commission would reach consensus on any of them. He added that the commission could not afford to talk about this for another year. Mr. Belcher suggested that menu items 2.a. Outreach and Education and 2.b Prepare preliminary maps for public review, supported by 2.c Feasibility Study could be combined into an inclusive process, with minimal criteria. Mr. Sullivan said turning the process into a study would diminish the quick start theory for the project. Mr. Duncan said it was important to determine which limited areas would receive a concentrated effort from which to solicit consensus from the stakeholders in identifying areas that would receive more in depth study. Mr. Belcher said he would add including minimal criteria that needed to be met before a site would be accepted for inclusion in the project. Mr. Lawless said that 2.a., 2.b. and 2.c. above needed to be applied to both the quick start process and the long term process, albeit in different doses. Mr. Carroll asserted that 2.c., Feasibility Study, could be part of the package or could be deleted. He asked why 2.c.ii., Identify sites or type of sites that would be most successful, least successful for high density infill/refill and mixed use would be included. He said the commission’s role was to address City policies and procedures, and how to enable development. The commission could not impact whether a developer thought a particular site was going to be successful. It was not necessary for the commission to address each and every opportunity that came along. Mr. Duncan viewed Opportunity Siting as a long range planning tool. In the beginning, it was necessary to identify sites that were likely to succeed, and to be able to show that more marginal sites could ultimately be successful. It was important to identify those marginal sites for long term development when the market was ready for them. Mr. Carroll did not want the commission to get vested in something outside its purview that would feel like a failure. Mr. Sullivan proposed that a market study could be undertaken for presentation back to the market that would provide information to help stimulate interest in various properties. Mr. Duncan added that market study information would be helpful when working with neighbors to demonstrate how the market viewed their neighborhood. Referring to menu item 3. Infill/refill Compatibility Standards, Mr. Lawless stated this was a crucial item in that it suggested efforts to be undertaken to find ways to protect and identify the kind of infill that if done properly, would be welcomed in a neighborhood. He added that there were mechanisms and procedures that needed review to ensure that there were acceptable standards and parameters that make infill acceptable to a neighborhood. He emphasized this MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 10 needed to happen up front and parallel with other activities when seeking sites outside of established neighborhoods to achieve desired density. He strongly recommended that this process begin as soon as possible to define the character, scale and other issues, acknowledging that infill will occur, within the context and confines defined by the process for each of the neighborhoods. Mr. Duncan said protecting neighborhoods was very important. At the same time, neighborhoods needed to be viewed as places where some density could be located. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Carroll said that item 3. Infill/refill Compatibility Standards was too big to be part of the menu, while at the same time, it was not big enough to capture what needed to be accomplished. He sensed infill/refill could get lost in the menu. He stated that the text of item 3 made assumptions that he was not comfortable forwarding to the City Council. Mr. Belcher cautioned that this was a starting place, and the final product had not been defined. He added that item 3 had strong advocates in the community and on the City Council, and it would not get lost in the shuffle. He was concerned that it would get more emphasis than the others. Mr. Carroll said getting less meant linking neighborhood character with population estimates. Population density and neighborhood character were related but separate issues Mr. Duncan said the subcommittee desired a discussion on the part of the City Council recognizing that infill/refill and population estimates were separate but co-mingled issues that would provide better direction for the commission. He added that it was unclear to him which issue was more important to the council, and it was important to get that clarification from the council before the commission could proceed. Mr. Duncan said determining the level of intensity for each neighborhood was as important as identifying infill standards and forecasting population. Mr. Lawless said a statement to council might say In order to achieve the growth management goal of protecting neighborhoods these processes in neighborhoods have to occur. The Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council identify a funding source to proceed with the work. Mr. Carroll asserted that he did not like item 3 in the menu because he was not sure how it related to Opportunity Siting. Mr. Belcher said the commission had been directed to put item 3 in the menu, and did not have a choice. Mr. Duncan stated that menu item 3 was included in a list of chores from the City Council. He added that the Planning Commission had been told by the City Council at one point that Opportunity Siting was going to be a high priority. Now there was movement to have infill compatibility to be a high priority. Mr. Carroll said that the menu was about the work plan. He was concerned that the Planning Commission did not look at this as a high priority item. It had been developed as a subcommittee draft, and therefore did not have the status of requiring in depth commission review. Mr. Duncan said it was not the subcommittee’s intent. He said the draft had been developed with item 2. Opportunity Sites Identification, 3. Infill/refill Compatibility Standards, and 4. Population Forecasting being equally important. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 11 In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Carroll said although he did not have a concrete suggestion, he wanted to express his concern that the commission was offering up to the council a plate full of planning goodies that did not necessarily directly relate to the motion put before the commission. He iterated that the subcommittee’s work was good and needed to be addressed. However, this did not satisfy his understanding of what needed to be done for City Council approval of a budget and work plan to move Opportunity Siting forward in support of the MUC program. Mr. Lawless offered an alternative perspective, stating that this component of Infill/refill Compatibility Standards did have a component in Opportunity Siting in terms of modifying the density within MUCs, either increasing or decreasing the amount of density that would be allowed. Mr. Belcher moved to extend the meeting time 15 minutes. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Belcher sought clarification from Mr. Carroll on language that he could support. Mr. Carroll asked if Mr. Belcher could acknowledge that what Mr. Carroll was saying had some logic and sense. Mr. Carroll felt as though his feet were being held to the fire over a subcommittee draft about what was important to a City Council motion. He added that the burden of proof was not his to say the proposed language did not make sense. He asserted that he was attempting to offer his input to improve the draft. He said, as he had repeatedly, that Opportunity Siting went from a tool to support MUCs to a document that raised many major concerns about planning in Eugene. Mr. Carroll said this was not necessarily the most effective way to go about it. He said while he did not want to hold up a decision, he felt strongly that the document needed a more thorough vetting. Mr. Belcher explained his understanding of the commission’s charge to address inappropriate infill and redevelopment. He felt that there were proposals that addressed the council’s direction. As he understood Mr. Carroll’s position, Mr. Carroll was not proposing removal of item 3. Infill/refill Compatibility Standards, or anything else, but Mr. Carroll was proposing that the work occur next year. He did not understand Mr. Carroll’s position. Mr. Carroll reiterated that he felt as though he were being pushed into a corner, that if he was not happy with the proposal, he had no choice but to suggest removal of item 3. He added that he was not prepared to make that suggestion, but rather he wanted to more know about it. Mr. Duncan said the subcommittee felt that Opportunity Siting was a tool that had been difficult to describe. He said the commission had also been asked to address neighborhood infill compatibility. He added that he struggled with the population issue and was unsure how it fit into the Opportunity Siting discussion, but it was a task that had been handed to the commission. Mr. Duncan stated that his intent of the menu was to show the City Council that the commission had discussions of how the three major points would be addressed. As with any planning process, the individual elements were interconnected. He asserted that he was not saying infill was part of Opportunity Siting, but rather was asking the City Council to give the Planning Commission the go ahead to do an additional work project that was not currently on the commission’s work plan at the level currently discussed by the City Council. Mr. Duncan said his intent was to bring those issues that were major projects to the City Council to be able to address funding issues. Mr. Carroll suggested removing infill from the menu and taking it to the City Council as a separate item since the role of the subcommittee was to look at Opportunity Siting. He added that the commissioners could further discuss infill at its next meeting and with their Council buddies. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 12 Mr. Lawless asked if Mr. Carroll’s intent was to include infill/refill compatibility standards in the current work plan, or if he saw it as a separate work plan item. Mr. Lawless suggested that it could be taken to the City Council as two separate issues for the council to discuss and determine whether the items should stand alone or be consolidated. Mr. Lawless asked staff to develop a summary of today’s discussion for commissioners to take to their Council buddies this week. Mr. Hudspeth agreed with Mr. Lawless, noting that the summary would be very helpful. Noting the time, Mr. Nystrom reviewed the Planning Commission meeting schedule, and suggested that the commission could have a special meeting on April 17, 2006. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Nystrom said staff would poll the commissioners regarding an April 17 meeting. Referring to menu item 4.Population Forecasting a. Create future population targets, Mr. Belcher suggested changing the language to read: a. Create future population assessment points. Mr. Duncan said his Council buddy had proposed the motion and he wanted to get clarity from his buddy. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Mr. Yeiter reported that the City Council would discuss the City’s future participation in Region 2050 at its 5:30 p.m. work session tonight. In response to a question from Mr. Hudspeth who asked if there was a sense that the Council would withdraw from Region 2050 participation, Mr. Yeiter said this was the first time the Council had addressed the question. B. Other Items from Commission There were no other items from the Commission. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:40 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc060410.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Page 13