Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue June 26, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Jim McLaughlin, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Jeff Petry, Central Services Department; Charles Biggs, Rene Kane, Terry Connolly, Kevin Matthews, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. PREPARATION FOR JULY 17, 2006 JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL Staff: Kurt Yeiter, 682-8379 II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue June 26, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Jim McLaughlin, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Jeff Petry, Central Services Department; Charles Biggs, Rene Kane, Terry Connolly, Kevin Matthews, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, cautioned the Planning Commission to look for a major code amendment regarding infill standards. He encouraged the commission to craft the code language to apply to each individual situation rather than one code for all applications. I. PREPARATION FOR JULY 17, 2006 JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL Mr. Nystrom explained the purpose of today’s discussion was to prepare for the joint meeting with the City Council on July 17, 2006 in the McNutt Room from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The Planning Commission would then meet from 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. to prepare for a July 18, 2006 public hearing. Mr. Nystrom said on June 12, 2006, the City Council approved the City’s FY07 budget which helped add resources to the opportunity siting program. At that meeting, Councilor Kelly explained that these funds would help the City implement the Growth Management Policies (GMP) by providing the resources necessary to develop a program to address both the infill and compatibility issues inherent in our ”grow up, not out” policies. Councilor Kelly said it would be too early at the joint meeting to expect a detailed work program, as he expected the new resources would be used to develop that program. Staff concurred with those statements, and added that many of the concepts would need to be developed with public involvement that allowed collaboration with diverse stakeholders. Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission focus on developing a recommended framework for the opportunity siting program rather than a detailed work program. Mr. Nystrom said there were still some issues that the commission may want to discuss with the Council in order to gain clearer direction as the program as developed. Resources now existed to provide sufficient community outreach about planned activities and studies, to re-educate the public about GMP, and to pursue the background studies listed in the commission’s Draft Menu of Approaches (May 16, 2006). Staff believed that the joint meeting would be most effective if the Planning Commission focused its discussion on the broad MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 1 framework for this program. As part of this discussion, staff believed it was also important to emphasize to the Council that as this program began to take shape, there would be ample opportunities to check-in with the Council to confirm or adjust that direction. Staff was hopeful that with the resources provided, additional expertise could be brought in to further help define and refine the concepts through the process. Based on previous discussions, staff believed that the following topics should be considered for the joint meeting: 1. Opportunity Siting On June 9, 2006, Councilor Bettman described her concept of opportunity siting, at least through the early test case stage. The Planning Commission should clarify whether it recommended this approach or an alternative. Staff Recommendation: Staff supported a recommendation consistent with Councilor Bettman’s suggestion to focus first on one site. Having concurrence from the Council on this concept would allow the program to start in confidence. The limited scope as proposed by Councilor Bettman would allow the staff coordinator to simultaneously pursue public outreach and background studies in the first year. 2. Opportunity Site Identification Process The Planning Commission considered the creation of a new process where opportunity sites were identified by the private sector, reviewed and analyzed by neighborhood organizations, and approved by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission determined that this concept was an important component of the opportunity siting framework, it should be folded into the Planning Commission’s recommendation. If not, the Planning Commission could pose the question to Council to seek their direction. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended that, at a minimum, the Planning Commission seek feedback on this concept, given the majority of the commission had emphasized this topic as an important component for the program. This concept could either be included in the proposed framework, or posed as a question to Council. The City Council’s direction would help staff in developing a work program 3. Infill Standards The Planning Commission had previously identified a large range of possible approaches to provide better compatibility between infill development and existing neighborhoods, from across- the-board changes to the Eugene Code to developing neighborhood specific design standards. The Planning Commission should determine whether input from the Council on this topic was needed at this stage or whether it would be further developed during the next steps. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended a more specific work program be developed and presented to the Council at a later time unless direction was offered by the Council. At that time, a full toolkit of options would be developed. Staff envisioned these steps would also include substantial neighborhood input from which the Council would benefit, before committing to a particular approach. 4. Population Forecasting MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 2 The Council originally included direction to assess the effects of Opportunity Siting on the community’s ability to absorb future population levels. The Planning Commission should develop a recommended framework for this topic, which may include specific questions of Council. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended the commission specifically include its recommended framework to address population forecasting. Previous commission discussion appeared to support an approach that would assess how future densities may be impacted through opportunity siting and compatibility standards work, but that a city-wide distribution of future densities would follow, after more was known about the efficacy of the new tools. The Planning Commission should confirm or amend its recommendation on this topic, which may include key questions to pose to the Council. Ms. Colbath reported that she had represented the Planning Commission’s position at the City Council budget public hearing on June 12, 2006. She was very pleased that the Council had chosen to fund the commission’s request. She also thanked staff for their work on the issue. She said Councilor Kelly had clarified that some of the infill funding would be used to fetter out the process during a discussion after the meeting. The Planning Commission discussion focused on the following points: Opportunity Siting/Opportunity Site Identification Process/Infill Standards • What was the process in order for opportunity siting to occur. • Criteria for locating opportunity sites. • Start with test case to flush out process and criteria. • Intense level of public outreach with neighborhood groups and focus groups of developers and other interested parties. • Need for comprehensive approach. • Need to get reaction from City Council on Planning Commission’s suggestions. • Need to do broad public outreach, talking to all neighborhoods. • Give neighborhoods opportunity to identify potential sites to create a list. • Use nineteen Growth Management Policies (GMP) as identification and selection critiera against which to weight privately owned potential sites. • Include publicly owned sites. • Develop a list of nominated sites evaluated against the GMP within twelve months that would identify either publicly owned properties the City could do something with in the near term, other possible sites that could be near or long term, as well as a process, i.e., the alternative path. • Start small and achieve a success. • Frustration in trying to kick start a process for many years; risk spending year or two with a test site and not have success. • Cost of major public outreach—current City Hall Master Plan, two year process, costing $1 million. • First short term opportunity siting would teach a small number of things about the process. • What was different about publicly owned sites versus privately owned sites. • Compatibility was a matter of scale. • Important to get something off the ground. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 3  • Planning Commission role should be passive—anyone was welcome to talk about specific sites. • Opportunity siting was broad holistic approach to compatibility standards. • Opportunity siting was intended to provide intensive, residential development, to increase residential density within a neighborhood or area. • Responsibility to be compatible with neighborhoods. • Do not default to something that was easy and convenient to control because it was publicly owned. • Struggle with city-owned or controlled property that may or may not be a test case that provided an opportunity to explore compatibility with neighborhood. • Little value in going to neighborhoods with what we do not have; need • Do not waste time of neighborhoods if we do not know what we want. • More restrictive criteria would make it more difficult to get the quick start. • Look either city-wide, or city owned/controlled—better to go with city owned/controlled project. • Multiple types of opportunity sites; density a significant issue. • Alternative path would provide opportunity to have something happen in an area that would not happen with current prescriptive code. • Public/private not the point—site needs to meet established critiera—do something opportunistic. • Not sure about correlation between opportunity siting and alternative path—still an opportunity if criteria met. • Opportunity lies in fostering and bringing forward the timing of opportunity—need for positive movement to provide incentives to allow positive movement. • Alternative path was a way to get around or find alternative to make something achievable. • What was working in other communities--City Council and Planning Commission would benefit from having background materials on successes in other communities. • May only be able to offer something concrete. • Need to know incentives, impediments, and right places to develop on publicly owned sites. • Need to define scope of work program. • Need for low risk/medium yield project tried in any potential site—quick start could work. • Failure in neighborhood association system and failure to communicate with neighborhoods. • Develop hybrid to put to City Council for discussion—do quick look to see if there was one site that made sense and develop criteria; concurrently, look at more long range opportunities. • What would timeline look like—it needs to be developed. • How do we do outreach to get the best answers. • Policy discussion needs to occur before consultants hired. • Need for policy direction from Planning Commission to map out path to identify and achieve desired goals • Will learn as we do. • Hearing from City Council—identify one low risk site. • Initiate a quick start action at one site concurrently with longer term efforts to map out proposal for city wide use. • Have not heard specific direction from City Council regarding infill; do have MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 4  recommendation from City Council with opportunity siting. • Failure with an opportunity siting project provides fodder for criticism; can not afford to fail. • Need to develop criteria and process for opportunity siting. • Need for strong consensus to lay before the City Council several steps to move the process forward: o Staff and Planning Commission perform limited outreach and research in a short timeframe to establish basic opportunity site identification criteria with several pilot site candidates for Planning Commission selection of one site; and development options for the achievement of the first development. o Concurrently, staff prepare procedures for broader outreach to neighborhoods, agencies and the private sector to clarify further opportunity site identifications, screening and development incentives to expand the opportunity siting program to relieve the pressure on existing healthy neighborhoods for the desired increase in residential density. • It was not necessary to create a map the identified all potential opportunity sites. • Not concerned about final definition opportunity siting, but have clear guidance that targeted pieces vacant or redevelopable pieces of property that lend themselves to higher density residential development. • $1 million too much to spend on community outreach. Do limited outreach to educate Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) to enable it to provide the leadership to identify candidate sites to compare against the GMP. • Sit down with other groups and the development community to review 38 Mixed Use Centers (MUC) and available city owned property inventory on a candidate nomination basis, rather than against all possible sites. • What were impediments and incentives. • Incentives should include alternative path in addition to cash incentives if possible. • Need to resolve infill compatibility standards as they apply to individual properties, but also as they apply to the neighborhood in general. • Be respectful of each neighborhoods’ character and peculiarities • Need to pursue session with NLC to ask them to identify opportunity sites and compatibility issues. • It was too early to determine if blanket approach or specific solution was best way; need to be open to both thoughts. • What was good for one neighborhood may not be good for another one. • Need to have neighborhoods collaborate. • Neighborhoods often perceive themselves differently than established neighborhood boundaries—situations of neighborhoods identifying sites in other neighborhoods for infill had occurred. • Need for education piece and identification of available tools to perform the work. • Site review and design standards need to be included. • Look to Public Works Transportation context sensitive design process. Based upon the Planning Commission’s discussion, Ms. Muir proposed that staff would rework opportunity siting and infill standards, and the staff recommendation, based upon the consensus achieved by the Planning Commission. Population Forecasting • Significant unknown factor. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 5  • Can not ignore. • Need to try to quantify potential benefits of opportunity siting and potential impacts and/or benefits of infill. • Where are we on the population continuum in relationship to the urban growth boundary (UGB). • Need to establish population estimate, and make changes and adjustments as time passed and population numbers changed. • Propose to the City Council the year 2036 be used as a base number to use as a comparator over the next 30 years. • Troubled by population forecasting as an artificial target against which to measure—real challenge was population impact. • Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) required periodic review to ensure availability of residential land for 20 years. • City Council currently discussing commercial/industrial buildable land supply with local government partners. • Community had grown at three percent annually for the last 60 years, and will likely continue to grow at the same rate. • We know where we are but not where we are going. • GMPs say to grow up, not out. • 2050 Study provides much information. • Need to measure population if possible. • How would population forecasting better serve the community. • Demographic information could be helpful. • How do MUCs change peoples’ behavior. • Key question for City Council may be was population forecasting important. • What should we be doing besides looking at the UGB. • May need a variety of types of analysis. • Last periodic review of residential land supply was done in 1999. • Concern in the community that a new residential land study would lead to expansion of the UGB. • Development measures to guide discussions about population forecasting to guide political discussions. • Doing net loss/gain analysis would help define level of acceptable density within the community. • Important to gather data to do a reality community check to understand difference between densifying versus neighborhood preservation. At Mr. Nystrom’s suggestion, Mr. Belcher, Mr. Lawless and Ms. Colbath volunteered to work with Mr. Yeiter to develop the Planning Commission’s presentation for the July 17, 2006 joint meeting with the City Council. Ms. Colbath said she would not be able to attend the July 17 meeting. Ms. Colbath thanked staff for their work on this project. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff In response to Ms. Muir, there was consensus to hold a Planning Commission retreat. She agreed MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 6 to coordinate date and time. Mr. Nystrom said staff would be polling commissioners for a possible Open House on July 20, 2006, as well as an expected appeal on July 20. B. Other Items from Commission In response to question from Mr. Hudspeth, Mr. Nystrom said there would be sufficient time on the July 17, 2006 Planning Commission agenda to prepare for the July 18, 2006 hospital public hearing. Mr. Belcher noted the Planning Commission was scheduled to look at a Eugene Sand and Gravel issue on July 25, 2006. He asked staff for criteria and background information on the issue. Mr. Belcher offered several historical documents from his library to commissioners. Ms. Colbath said the June 2006 issue of the American Planning Association’s magazine Planning offered an article entitled, Sons of Measure 37, by George Homsy as well as a good article entitled Water and the Density Debate, by Lynn Richards. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:20 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc060626.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 26, 2006 Page 7