Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue May 8, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Allen Lowe, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Lisa Gardner, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Chris Ramey, John Hirons, Zachary Vishanoff, guests. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES –-February 13, 27, and April 10, 2006 Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to accept the minutes of February 13 and February 27, 2006 as amended, and April 10, 2006, as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. WALNUT STATION MIXED USE CENTER OVERVIEW Staff: Allen Lowe, 682-5113 III. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING PROCESS Staff: Kurt Yeiter, 682-8379 IV. PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM: DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INPUT Staff: Kurt Yeiter, 682-5113 V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 1  Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue May 8, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Allen Lowe, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Lisa Gardner, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Chris Ramey, John Hirons, Zachary Vishanoff, guests. Mr. Duncan convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:30 a.m. He announced that Ms. Colbath had requested that Mr. Duncan preside at today’s meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, expressed his concerns that there had not been adequate dialogue regarding the Willamette River greenway. He alleged that the Planning Commission initiated dialogue through the City Club, and that a broader dialogue was needed. He said that the EWEB site should be a park rather than condominiums and that the Riverfront Research Park (RFRP) sat vacant for many years. Commissioner Belcher asserted that there was no relationship between the Planning Commission and the City Club. He added that he and other civic minded citizens were members of the City Club. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES –-February 13, 27, and April 10, 2006 February 13, 2006 Mr. Lawless offered the following corrections: Page 3, paragraph 4, should read: Mr. Lawless asked why it would be desirable to use pervious pavers for an entire development to remove an entire system from the treatment process. Page 6, paragraph 13, should read: In response to Mr. Lawless’ question about page II-7, question 12, Should the Goal 10 findings include the information about oil control facilities adjustments since Goal 10 only applies to residential housing?, Ms. Keppler affirmed that the intent was for the requirement to apply in all cases when a development exceeded 100 off-street parking spaces, or when the parking design included 25 percent or more of the off-street parking requirement. She added that this did not apply to single family residences, applying this MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 1  applied only to apartment complexes of four or more units, and did not apply to single family residences. Ms. Colbath offered the following correction: Page 4, paragraph 6, should read: In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Ms. Keppler said this the Rite Aid Willamette Plaza development preceded the implementation of the proposed standards. Mr. Duncan offered the following correction: Page 6, paragraph 7, sentence 1, should read: Referring to page II-4, question 5, Is a person required to cover an oversized taken tank (such as a refinery tank) as part of the source control requirements? February 27, 2006 Mr. Hledik offered the following correction: Page 6, paragraph 9, should read: Quoting Councilor Taylor, Mr. Hledik said 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.” Ms. Colbath offered the following correction: Page 8, paragraph 3, should read: Ms. Colbath said the Council direction was to look not only at MUCs but potentially other parts of the City as well. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to accept the minutes of February 13 and February 27, 2006 as amended, and April 10, 2006, as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. WALNUT STATION MIXED USE CENTER OVERVIEW Mr. Lowe said the hiring process for a consultant for Phase Two of the Walnut Station Mixed Use Center (MUC) would conclude within the next three weeks, after which work would again commence on the project. Mr. Lowe distributed copies of a poster entitled City Design that provided information on a series of public lectures focused on urban design, presented by the University of Oregon School of Architecture and Allied Arts, the City of Eugene, Lane Transit District (LTD), the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program, the American Institute of Architects Southwestern Oregon Chapter, and the American Society of Landscape Architects Willamette MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 2 Valley Section. Mr. Lowe stated that The Boulevard Book, written by Elizabeth Macdonald, who is a scheduled presenter at the City Design lecture series, is available for Planning Commissioners to read. Mr. Lowe said that he and Lisa Gardner continued to meet with property and business owners about the project. Mr. Lowe noted two diagrams posted on the wall: • Walnut Station Mixed use Center Phase One aerial photograph. • Emerging Vision diagram. In response to a question from Mr. Sullivan regarding on-street parking on Franklin Boulevard, Mr. Lowe said adjacent property owners were concerned that on-street parking would require removal of existing curb cuts that would change access and egress to their properties and reducing capacity of existing streets, He added that the Fairmount Neighborhood Association had stated a preference for the multi-way boulevard that created a separate local access street with parking on that street. Responding to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Lowe said the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was participating on a technical committee as well as the steering committee for the project. Staff said that ODOT would participate in the traffic modeling that would occur this summer, and would participate in the decision making process. Mr. Lowe stated that jurisdictional transfer conveying Franklin Boulevard to the City of Eugene was imminent. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Lowe concurred that the Franklin alternative would not be the only one considered, and a no-build option was one of the options considered. He noted the process was just beginning and that the Planning Commission would look at the modeling work in the fall. Mr. Lawless said modeling did not necessarily compare all alternatives, but rather applied an idea against the model to demonstrate what could happen with a series of variables. Mr. Lowe cautioned that modeling would not provide a definitive answer for all questions, noting that there was insufficient budget to do so. The expectation was that there would be sufficient information to provide a direction to comfortably make a decision. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Lowe said that the TGM program was providing the primary funding for the modeling work. Responding to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Lowe stated that a number of permutations regarding what would be included in the right-of-way (ROW) would be tested. Additionally, Mr. Lowe said that Lane Transit District (LTD) had been consistent in stating that their policy was to assume that a second EmX lane would be built in the Franklin median in the future. Mr. Lawless opined there should be a strategy to review modeling options that were most realistic and likely to succeed, based upon available funding. Mr. Lowe responded that the RFP included criteria for qualitative and quantitative analysis that would be a precursor to the model itself. Mr. Belcher asked if specific curb cut changes would be included in the modeling process. Mr. Lowe responded that the model would not likely resolve design options at that scale. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Lowe said the Planning Commission would be fully appraised of all assumptions with as much specificity as possible. In response to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Lowe said that staff hoped to resolve the issues raised by the stakeholders over the summer. He acknowledged some stakeholders disagreed with the proposal. They were concerned that their ability to expand their businesses or provide access or parking to customers would be disrupted by the proposal. Mr. Lowe recognized that some ideas could be abandoned as a result of the proposed investigations. Ms. Colbath hoped the focus in balancing Franklin Boulevard, Garden Avenue and the downtown courthouse would include involving downtown residents and businesses, in using a holistic approach for the project. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Lowe acknowledged that the neighbors were concerned about the proposals, noting that sequencing development as needs arose was not only an option but a requirement, because it would be driven by the market. He said the future development plan would clearly state what would and would not be allowed. Over 40 to 50 years, the area would redevelop according to what the market would build. Incentives offered by the City would have an impact on the future development in the area. Mr. Belcher proposed including regulations that would establish allowable density that would match any probable development scenario that would provide some certainty for neighbors. Responding to Mr. Hudspeth, Mr. Lowe said that the Public Works staff had developed a rough estimate for street improvement costs, but land acquisition, demolition, and business relocation costs had not been included in that estimate. Due to the cost, those estimates would be developed following identification of possible options. Mr. Lowe added that the objective was to create an east-west through bicycle movement that functioned better than the current system. Ideas under consideration included putting bicycle paths on secondary streets and off street paths. Mr. Carroll inquired about the University of Oregon’s (UO) plans to ecologically restore the fish bearing capacity of the Mill Race. Mr. Lowe replied that the UO sat on both the technical advisory committee and the steering committee. He said that it was possible that at some point in the future, the UO may wish to change its heating plant, which meant it would no longer need the water from the Mill Race. Mr. Lowe said that the proposals for the Mill Race would need to address what the City of Eugene would do to keep the Mill Race functioning as a waterway if this occurred. He added that the UO would need to address its needs for its physical plant for heating and cooling. Returning the Mill Race to a fish bearing capacity would involve significant water engineering and water rights issues. He suggested that such a project may not be eligible for federal funding due to the species of fish that would likely live there. He noted that the UO was one of many participants in the process. In response to Mr. Carroll, Ms. Gardner explained a signalization change was occurring at Agate Street and Franklin Boulevard as part of the LTD EmX project, adding that there was currently no plan to add a signal at Orchard Street and Franklin Boulevard. Mr. Belcher was encouraged that a forum for concerns of various stakeholders was occurring early in the process. He said that he wanted to hear directly from the stakeholders about the final product as part of the process. He said he hoped the document would be easy to read and understand. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Lowe asked the Planning Commission what type of process it wished to have, noting that a significant amount of work would take place this summer and it would be important for the commission to provide feedback throughout the process. He said the UO would be conducting student staffed studios and Planning staff would create a number of opportunities for commissioners to provide input. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Lowe said the final report would likely include a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council to fund a study of the Mill Race so that the system would be fully understood. Mr. Duncan supported a process the involved all of the stakeholders early in the process, and opined that commissioners would be willing to participate in a variety of functions with the public to solicit as much information as possible. In response to Mr. Duncan, Mr. Lowe said that the intent of the project, as stated in the original RPF for Phase One, was to develop a form based code that was quite different from current code development. He said the presenters participating in the City Design lecture series would provide information on what form based code was and how it worked, and how the City’s current use based code was an inappropriate fit for the type of mixed use structure the community was attempting to create. Ms. Colbath said she wanted to see maps that illustrated long range visioning in design considerations for this project. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Lowe stated that Garden Avenue would function as a multi-nodal street under all scenarios being considered Ms. Colbath added her support to the suggestion of involving all of the stakeholders early in the process, providing an open dialogue forum as had been successfully used in the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) process. Mr. Lowe stated that the proposed redesign of Garden Avenue is an extension of an idea that already resides within the adopted RFRP Master Plan. He added that the Walnut Station project had the potential to prompt implementation of street alignment proposals included in the RFRP Master Plan. Ms. Colbath added that part of the answer might also be embedded in the Eugene Downtown Plan, and emphasized the importance of looking comprehensively at the area. Mr. Lawless asserted the significance of bringing all of the constituents together, and providing an opportunity for them to have a dialogue regarding their primary issues was as important as the constituents raising their issues with the commission. Mr. Duncan noted that development and redevelopment of commercial space was continually referred to as retail rather than commercial, and asked why that specific type of use was emphasized. Mr. Lowe replied that the language responded to the information from the marketing study that indicated there was less opportunity for office use than for other types of commercial use in this area. He added, on the other hand, that one property owner had expressed interest in developing some Class A office space in the area. Mr. Duncan stated that the term retail was limiting, and suggested redefining it for the form based code for this area that would allow more uses. Mr. Lowe said one of the advantages of the form based code was that it allowed a broader range MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 5 of uses as long as parking demands and other functional needs could be met. He added that mixed use in its purest form would allow for evolution of buildings and their uses over time. He said the relationship of buildings to one another, to the neighborhood, parking and to the street was important. In response to a query from Mr. Belcher regarding undesirable uses, Mr. Nystrom said with form based code, there was a greater emphasis on design and less on use. He said there were examples across the country that had varying degrees of attention paid to use issues, a choice which the City would have. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Lowe said the UO student studios would take place during the Spring Term 2006 and perhaps during the Summer or Fall Term 2006. Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Belcher if, when referring to density over time, he was referring to only those properties on Franklin Boulevard. He noted there were some great development opportunities along Franklin Boulevard for relatively high density development that would impact other potential retail development. Mr. Belcher said he was speaking generically regarding properties in the proposed project area. He recalled that during the initial Walnut Node discussion, the course was to move the density to the north side of 15th Avenue. He expressed concern that he was now hearing concerns that there was too much density on that side of 15th Avenue as well. He proposed allowing a certain amount of density now, and then reassessing after some build out to determine if density should be allowed to increase. Mr. Lowe said that the market study indicated limited demand for much additional commercial space, and asserted that it was unlikely that a mile of Franklin Boulevard could successfully be redeveloped with pedestrian-oriented retail commercial uses. Ms. Colbath asked if there was a preferred engineering option for the project. Mr. Lowe said concerns among the engineering community were the same as for everyone else including questions about whether it is realistic to expect to be able to introduce parking on a major street like Franklin, project costs, the implications of acquisition of right-of-way, and others. He added that costs of undergrounding power lines would also be explored. Mr. Duncan commended Mr. Lowe for great work on the project. III. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING PROCESS Mr. Yeiter introduced the topic, noting that the purpose of the discussion was to prepare the Planning Commission for a joint meeting with the City Council on May 24, 2006. Mr. Duncan solicited suggestions from commissioners for proceeding and noted consensus for reviewing the menu of options attached to the agenda item summary. The Planning Commission discussed the options available for additional funding for staffing and other operating expenses to meet the needs of the Opportunity Siting process, as well as the strategy and timeline to be followed throughout the process. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 6 There was consensus among commissioners that additional and conversation on Opportunity Siting was necessary before meeting jointly with the City Council. They agreed to schedule a special meeting on Monday, May 15, 2006 and to cancel the June 5, 2006 meeting. Mr. Lawless left at 1:10 p.m. IV. PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM: DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INPUT The Planning Division Work Program included a variety of work tasks which have been identified by the Planning Commission and City Council over the past several years. From this list, the Council had specifically identified those tasks that warrant high priority within the context of available resources. The Planning Commission sought input from the public on this year’s proposed work program prior to submission to the City Council. Staff proposed that two separate opportunities be provided to receive public input. This could be accomplished by holding two open houses prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the annual report. These open houses would allow the public to view last year’s work program and offer suggestions on items that warranted consideration as high priority items. Staff encouraged the Planning Commission to attend and participate in these open houses. As an alternative, the City could hold one open house and schedule a second opportunity for public input during a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. This option would provide some choice for the public. If the commission chose this option, the commission may want to discuss the format of this meeting, given the uncertainty of the number of interested parties. Following the public input sessions, staff would provide the Planning Commission a list of the public’s suggested work tasks along with the draft work program for consideration as the proposed work program was developed for the City Council. Mr. Belcher emphasized the need to define what the public’s role would be to prevent creating unrealistic expectations while appealing to a broad range of citizen interests. Mr. Hledik and Ms. Colbath supported using a process similar to that used in the CAFHN project. Mr. Duncan suggested conducting some sessions outside of the downtown area to encourage a more diverse attendance, and stressed the need for an educational component The commission discussed various meeting formats to most effectively solicit information from the public. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Mr. Nystrom reviewed the Planning Commission meeting schedule: • May 15, 2006—special meeting. • May 22, 2006—cancelled. • May 24, 2006—Joint meeting with the City Council. • June 5, 2006—regular meeting. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 7 Mr. Nystrom announced that Paul Conte was scheduled to provide a presentation on the recent CAFHN process at the Jefferson Westside neighborhood meeting on May 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. He said that he would attend the meeting with Councilor Bettman and Commissioner Lawless. B. Other Items from Commission Ms. Colbath reported that she had done an information presentation on urban planning during a recent visit to Belize. Mr. Belcher said he had written a letter to the editor of the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood explaining what had happened with the housekeeping amendments. The letter was rebutted by Mr. Conte. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc060508.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 8