Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue August 21, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Kurt Yeiter, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Charles Biggs, Rene Kane, Carlos Barrera, Majeska Seese-Green, Rob Handy, guests. ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Phillip Hudspeth, members. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, APRIL 24, MAY 8, MAY 15, AND JUNE 12, 2006 Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to approve the minutes of March 20 and May 8, 2006 as submitted and the minutes of April 24, May 15 and June 12, 2006, as corrected. The motion passed unanimously. II. DEBRIEF JULY 17 AND JULY 24, 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS REGARDING INFILL STANDARDS/OPPORTUNITY SITING III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 21, 2006 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue August 21, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Kurt Yeiter, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Charles Biggs, Rene Kane, Carlos Barrera, Majeska Seese-Green, Rob Handy, guests. ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Phillip Hudspeth, members. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, urged the commission to conduct a second public workshop as the first one held at Peterson Barn was poorly attended. He said many neighborhoods were beginning to feel the growing pains of infill and some infill was totally out of scale with the surrounding area. He hoped that opportunity siting would take into account the context of location. He did not want to see a blanket policy. Carlos Barrera, 2852 Willamette Street, #103, Eugene, Friendly Area Neighborhood Association co-chair, said he was speaking for himself although the board was concerned and discussing the issue. He was concerned that the process of developing infill standards and opportunity siting would include too little public comment and the standards would be too loose. He used the Willamette Plaza project as a good example of partnership between the developer and the neighborhood. He urged greater involvement of developers in informing and working with neighborhood associations so residents could have input on projects. Rene Kane, 254 West 14th Avenue, Eugene, Jefferson Westside Neighbors co-chair, said she was impressed with the depth of the commission’s discussions about infill standards and opportunity siting, but in reviewing the work plan was concerned there was not sufficient involvement of neighborhoods, either in developing the work program itself or in the proposed neighborhood involvement process. Majeska Seese-Green, P.O. Box 11692, Eugene, Whiteaker Community Council chair, agreed with the concerns expressed by Ms. Kane. She said the work plan’s proposal to give neighborhoods two to three months to analyze and comment on compatibility standards was simply not enough time, particularly as that period would include the holidays. She said that if the commission truly wanted neighborhood and public participation there should be a period of four to six months for comments, adequate information should be provided prior to the comment period and staff assistance available for neighborhoods. Rob Handy, 455 ½ River Road, Eugene, said a discussion with Commissioner Carroll following a commission meeting lead him to consider the types of issues on which public participation was essential. He said the commission’s outreach to the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) on MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 21, 2006 Page 1 opportunity siting was very helpful. He suggested that perhaps the commission itself was not certain about its intention with respect to the spectrum and nature of public participation. He said the very tight timeframe between some steps in the work plan, such as comments on compatibility standards, would not allow for full collaboration with the neighborhoods and public. He asked the commission to consider whether NLC approval was a necessary element and quoted a sentence in Task 5 of the draft work plan that suggested public input was not wanted. He urged the commission to clarify its intent for public participation to avoid disappointment and frustration on the part of the NLC, neighborhood associations and members of the public. Mr. Duncan called for comments from commissioners and staff. Mr. Belcher stressed the value of public input. He distributed information from the International Association for Public Participation and said it was important for the commission to clarify its intent with respect to the role of the NLC and other groups in the public participation spectrum. Mr. Lawless said the commission shared the frustration expressed by neighborhood leaders and felt that the additional funding and staff allocated by the Budget Committee would support broader and more meaningful public participation. He asked for the public’s indulgence while those efforts got under way and affirmed the value of NLC and neighborhood association involvement in development of infill standards and opportunity siting. Mr. Sullivan asked for clarification of limited public input in Task 5 of the work plan. Mr. Yeiter replied that the intent was to acknowledge that the public input at that stage would be limited. He said the work program was intended to initiate discussions about infill standards and opportunity siting, with a much more detailed work program to be developed for implementation of those concepts. He said public input would begin when a new planner was hired and be continuous through the life of the project. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, APRIL 24, MAY 8, MAY 15, AND JUNE 12, 2006 Mr. Lawless noted the following corrections to the minutes: • April 24, 2006 – on page 9, paragraph 7, substitute “developers” for “neighborhoods” in the last sentence • May 15, 2006 – on page 1 of summary minutes correct the last sentence of Motion 1 as follows: Furthermore, an indication of the impact of population or unit gain or loss would be part of the process. On page 1 of summary minutes correct the last sentence of Motion 2 as follows: …an estimate of the impact for on populations. On page 4, paragraph 3, correct the first sentence as follows: Mr. Lawless opined that the study as outlined had the purpose of reviewing physical characteristics, transportation, neighborhood qualityies and compatibility issues. • June 12, 2006 – on page 4, insert the word “which” between “participation” and “was” in the sentence at the top of the page. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to approve the minutes of March 20 and May 8, 2006 as submitted and the minutes of April 24, May 15 and June 12, 2006, as corrected. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 21, 2006 Page 2 II. DEBRIEF JULY 17 AND JULY 24, 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS REGARDING INFILL STANDARDS/OPPORTUNITY SITING Mr. Yeiter reported on a number of things that had occurred in the past few weeks, including a follow-up motion at the July 24, 2006, City Council meeting that established a work session on August 16 to discuss the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan, council action on Region 2050 and development of a draft work program for opportunity siting/compatibility standards was developed. He suggested that the commission debrief on its July 17 joint meeting with the council and the council’s August 16 meeting. He asked the commission to then discuss what information it wished to present at the next joint meeting with the council on September 27 with respect to the aspects of opportunity siting and compatibility standards that should move forward. He asked commissioners to share their impressions of the July 17 joint meeting. Mr. Lawless remarked that there were very different perspectives and levels of understanding and support among councilors and he did not see a single clear definition or direction for the commission to pursue. He said input from the public and neighborhood organizations had helped set the stage for the commission’s next steps to create definitions and a plan to which everyone could agree. He felt the process was just beginning and hoped the council could come together more cohesively and be more universally supportive of definitions, goals and approaches. Mr. Belcher felt it was necessary to have a draft definition that would be refined during the process. He thought Mr. Yeiter’s e-mail of July 21 captured what the council had acquiesced to and the commission should start from that perspective and move forward. Mr. Duncan agreed with Mr. Lawless and Mr. Belcher. He said the commission would need to work with some councilors to help them gain a better understanding of the issues so the entire council could then articulate expectations of the commission. Regarding compatibility standards, Mr. Yeiter said he understood from the joint meeting that issues would be identified through public outreach and a tool kit and strategies would be developed to address problems citywide, while working towards prioritizing neighborhoods. He said the council, at its August 16 meeting, passed a motion addressing neighborhood concerns about R-2 zoning in Area 15 of the Jefferson Westside neighborhood; the motion would keep the area low to medium residential but tie that to intent and policies within the refinement plan. He said the council clarified its intent that the area not be at the maximum density allowed in an R-2 zone. He anticipated a text amendment either modifying or adding a policy in the refinement plan that further clarified what the acceptable density ranges in the area would be. Mr. Nystrom added that the issue would not initially be a high priority item and he expected the priority status would be discussed again at the council’s September meeting. Mr. Lawless observed that Metro Plan and refinement plan amendments seemed to be the most cumbersome and complex approach if the objective was to drop the area to R-1 zoning. Mr. Nystrom said the council asked staff to explore any other interim measures that might be possible. He said the concept of an interpretation by the planning director was quicker but had it drawbacks as well. Mr. Lawless suggested establishing the highest density range of R-1 as the lowest density range of R-2. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 21, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Belcher said he preferred to stay within the current zones and just return the area to R-1 zoning. He noted that refinement plan amendments were time-consuming and he would rather see a complete fix instead of an expedient one. Mr. Yeiter said staff regarded the council’s action as significant for several reasons: • the council agreed that protection was needed for the neighborhood beyond what was currently available, • there was interest in trying to live up to some of the promise of the refinement plan, • the council, by not designating the issue as priority one, regarded it as a larger, citywide compatibility issue. Mr. Belcher asked if the task would be included in work on infill standards or made a separate work item. Mr. Nystrom replied that staff was not certain how it would be dealt with and he expected further discussion at the joint meeting in September to clarify that. Mr. Yeiter remarked that the September joint meeting would provide an opportunity for the council to review the annual report and work program and set the priorities for the Planning Division’s work program, which would also affect the commission’s work program. He noted that the concept of opportunity siting was originally the primary strategy for mixed use centers and incorporated in that task. He asked what aspect of opportunity siting and compatibility standards the commission wanted to focus on in its discussion with the council. Mr. Hledik asked if hiring a new planner was on schedule. Mr. Yeiter said that was running late. Mr. Nystrom indicated that the position might be filled by the joint meeting on September 27. Mr. Hledik expressed concern about discussing details of the work program related to opportunity siting in advance of hiring staff. He preferred to keep the discussion on a broader scope of work. Mr. Nystrom suggested the commission could confirm some of the direction it heard at the last meeting and obtain feedback on key components or elements of the work program instead of details. Mr. Lawless said it was essential to have a vehicle for collecting and compiling input from the NLC, neighborhood associations and other interested parties so the information could inform the discussion. He feared that if there was not a consolidated way to capture that information it would come to the council in a disjointed way through individual constituents. He advocated for a workshop or roundtable to obtain feedback before the new planner was hired to help provide direction to that person. Mr. Yeiter noted that some stakeholders were well-informed because of early outreach to the NLC but many other interested parties were not yet engaged. Mr. Carroll agreed with Mr. Lawless that it was necessary to move forward to obtain public input regardless of the various levels of understanding. He did not agree with asking the council for clarification on key elements of opportunity siting and infill standards. He said the council wanted to see progress from the commission and the commission should present a sense of confidence about where those issues fit into the overall work program. Mr. Duncan observed that it was always difficult to hold a public work session during the summer but there was considerable community interest in the issue. He agreed with Mr. Lawless that the process of soliciting stakeholder input should begin, even if it was initially a broadcast e- MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 21, 2006 Page 4 mail asking for feedback on the issues. Mr. Nystrom suggested an informal approach given the timeframe. He said while the information would not be comprehensive there could be some community feedback to share with the council. Mr. Belcher said the commission was facing three major issues: opportunity siting, infill standards and metrics; the work plan; and major code amendments. He said the problem was that people were not certain how all of those things fit together and it was the commission’s responsibility to make that determination and then work on issues one at a time. He felt that the work program was first and should be the focus of the joint meeting in September. Regarding the schedule, he suggested that the November through January period be eliminated because of the holidays and that some items shown as concurrent on the timeline should be consecutive. He said the council was giving the commission an opportunity to engage in more outreach and planning and the commission would need to determine how to manage that. Mr. Lawless said it would be difficult to develop a work plan for opportunity siting and infill standards without a strong understanding of the expectations of the NLC, neighborhood associations and other constituents. He reiterated his request that the engagement of those stakeholders to help establish a process should begin immediately. Mr. Sullivan agreed with Mr. Carroll about the importance of going to the joint meeting with a sense of confidence about the direction of opportunity siting instead of having an unfocused discussion with the council. Mr. Hledik agreed with Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Yeiter confirmed that based on the last joint meeting and the commission’s discussion it was not necessary to have a detailed work program at the present time. Mr. Duncan recollected that the council, at the last joint meeting, had discussed the importance of public involvement and the expectation that the commission would return with some details of the work project planned for opportunity siting and infill standards. He felt the council wanted to see some progress reported on those two issues and on major amendments. Mr. Hledik encouraged a broader discussion of the overall work program at the joint meeting with brief comments about some of the major tasks such as major code amendments, the south hills study, Walnut Station and Rasor Park. He asked staff to inform the commission if there was a need to prioritize those items or raise concerns with the council if staff was stretched too thinly. He agreed with the need to move forward on an informal basis and work with stakeholders on a definition and direction to prepare for the September 27 meeting instead of asking the council for more clarification and definition. Mr. Carroll asked if the commission would be considering the public input on the work plan and determining how those ideas fit in. Mr. Nystrom replied that the commission would be discussing the public input along with those things already assigned by the council and issues that were emerging. Mr. Belcher hoped that the commission would go to the council on September 27 with a well- informed work plan and that meant more outreach. He asked if the time set aside for the Rasor Park mixed used citizen involvement session on September 11 could be used to prepare for the joint meeting. Mr. Nystrom said that some time during the session could be set aside for that MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 21, 2006 Page 5 discussion. Mr. Belcher suggested e-mailing the work program to stakeholders and asking for additional feedback. Mr. Nystrom cautioned that there would be limited time after September 11 to prepare for the September 27 meeting. He said that the work program could be e-mailed with a request for feedback in seven to ten days. Mr. Duncan observed that the public feedback was unlikely to raise new issues but would perhaps provide more clarity on priorities, which would be helpful to the commission and staff. Mr. Carroll said he preferred that the staff not spend time on public input if it would impede progress and preparation for the joint meeting but if staff did not feel that was the case he was willing to move forward with obtaining additional feedback. Mr. Nystrom responded that staff would solicit comments on the work plan via e-mail, compile the comments and provide them to the commission. He said there would not be time to refine the information. Mr. Belcher said the commission could review and comment on the proposed work plan at its August 28 meeting, the work plan could be sent out to stakeholders following that meeting and comments reviewed by the commission and the work plan fine tuned at the September 11 meeting. He asked for a list of stakeholders who would be asked for comments on the work plan. Mr. Hledik, referring to the draft outline for an opportunity siting and compatibility standards work program, asked if those issues would be discussed together or separately. Mr. Yeiter responded that the new planner would be conducting considerable public outreach and both topics would be addressed as part of a comprehensive program; however, he anticipated that the planner would develop a more detailed work program and citizen involvement plan, identify opportunity sites and begin independent studies such as the compatibility toolkit. He said that Task 10 included a more formal process for soliciting and documenting neighborhood compatibility issues as perceived by the public. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Yeiter said that funding would allow two positions, although only one permanent position had formally been created. He said the remaining funding could be used for a temporary position or consultants or a combination of those. Mr. Belcher opined that opportunity siting and infill standards were two different tasks and the more they were linked the more problematic the issue would become as people would not know which issue they were responding to. He said there could also be an expectation that if opportunity siting was successful it could reduce the need for infill. He said that determination could not be made until some metrics were available. Mr. Carroll echoed Mr. Belcher’s remarks and underscored the need to keep the issues separate. He said if the same planner was responsible for both projects sufficient independence between the projects should be built into the work plan so that they were complimentary but not interdependent. He said in particular the complexities of opportunity siting, which was an experimental tool that initially would support an ongoing mixed use center program, should not affect moving ahead with infill standards. He urged the commission and staff to keep in mind that opportunity siting and infill standards were two high priority projects addressing the same set of goals but should not be linked in a way that problems with one would impede the other. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 21, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Duncan agreed that it was important to keep the two issues separate because there was a significant part of the community that would be much more interested in infill compatibility than perhaps opportunity siting. Mr. Hledik commented that from his perspective people needed the opportunity to discuss both at a meeting to make best use of staff resources. He said while the issues were on parallel tracks they were intertwined. Mr. Carroll cautioned against discussing the topics simultaneously as one was about density and how to fit it in to the community and the other was about preserving lack of density. He felt that residents would prefer to keep the discussions separate. Mr. Sullivan remarked that the discussion was density and the two aspects of it: how density affected neighborhoods and how density needed to be introduced into the community in some form. He thought that although the issues were on parallel tracks neighborhoods would be able to see the balance point between them. Mr. Lawless said Mr. Sullivan’s remarks highlighted the gray area between opportunity siting as a replacement for infill in existing neighborhoods versus a pressure relief valve for high density development. He said earlier discussions by the council and with neighborhoods were not about eliminating infill altogether but rather making sure that what infill did happen, in parallel with the promise of opportunity siting, was also compatible and did not degrade the character and quality of a neighborhood. He was not comfortable with an either/or situation for dealing with emerging population growth and increased density and was not in favor of neighborhood allocations. He agreed that both contributed to overall growth management goals and while opportunity siting could take the pressure off it would not totally eliminate the potential for good quality infill that did not negatively impact a neighborhood. Mr. Belcher asserted that the third piece of the equation was metrics and until the City knew how it was doing it could not trade opportunity siting for infill. He hoped that neighborhoods would identify both options to achieve their visions. He said that the demarcation between opportunity siting and infill should be made clear in meetings and outreach or the public would be confused. Mr. Carroll said one point of confusion was population estimates, which would mesh with opportunity siting, and infill compatibility was something different. He said infill related to the degradation of the quality of neighborhoods and not directly to an effort to achieve certain densities. Mr. Yeiter responded that at the last joint meeting it was clarified that it was not necessary to allocate populations to areas of the City until after the compatibility toolkit was created. He understood that the direction was to proceed with a couple of opportunity siting test sites to better understand its affect and look at various ways to make new development more compatible and assess the net impact along the way. Mr. Carroll asked if the independent studies in metrics could result in the elimination of a compatibility tool because it was not consistent with the metrics. He understood that the commission would be working with neighborhoods to discuss how those neighborhoods could be stabilized and their quality preserved through a process of change, not subject to something discovered later on. Mr. Yeiter anticipated working with individual neighborhoods to determine appropriate levels of regulating or eliminating infill, but returning those discussions to a higher policy level about what MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 21, 2006 Page 7 was good communitywide. Mr. Nystrom said the goal was a balance between reducing density through infill standards and increasing density through opportunity siting. Mr. Carroll expressed concern that if both programs moved forward and one was hung up it could jeopardize gains in the other. Mr. Yeiter said he thought the commission had previously expressed concern that if compatibility standards eliminated growth to a certain extent and that proceeded too far ahead of opportunity siting, it was not desirable. He thought the purpose in keeping the issues on parallel tracks was to avoid a situation where infill potential was eliminated to a significant degree citywide without the means to compensate for that. Mr. Belcher agreed that the issues should not be in lockstep but thought there should be a qualitative evaluation of the impacts of what the commission proposed to do. He gave several examples of how impacts could be evaluated and remarked that the more successful opportunity siting was at increasing density the more comfortable the commission might be with compatibility standards that reduced the opportunities for densification. Mr. Lawless said that density was driven by the fact that opportunity siting was initially directed specifically at mixed use centers in order to find a primary alternative to achieving the density standards within that mixed use center. He said that did link infill to opportunity siting density in that context and opportunity siting was still philosophically a way to relieve the pressure of infill in existing neighborhoods to achieve a higher density. Mr. Hledik supported metric information gathering but felt there should be further discussion about how that information would be used. He emphasized the need for parallel development of opportunity siting and infill standards at the same meeting to avoid the problems experienced during the Chambers project when the question of where higher density would go was not answered. He said it was incumbent on the commission and staff to clarify those distinctions for the public. Mr. Yeiter summarized that the overall work program would be the lead topic for the joint meeting. He clarified that the draft work program for opportunity siting and compatibility standards represented only the first stages of the project. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Mr. Yeiter announced that the August 22 joint meeting with Lane County Planning Commission on Delta Sand and Gravel was cancelled and would be rescheduled for the following week. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Duncan asked commissioners to consider, because of the heavy work program, whether they would be willing to meet more frequently and discuss that at a future meeting. Mr. Carroll said he would provide commissioners with an update on the Historic Review Board MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 21, 2006 Page 8 via e-mail. Mr. Sullivan reported that the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee had reviewed and commented on preliminary elevations of the parking garage to be built on East Broadway adjacent to the Whole Foods store. He said reaction to the elevations was positive. Mr. Duncan added that the bank had agreed to remove its drive-through window as a part of the project. Mr. Belcher asked if there was any consideration of a pedestrian bridge. Mr. Sullivan said that the idea of separating people from the street in that area had received little support and the reconfigured crossing would be more pedestrian-friendly. Mr. Belcher disagreed and felt that a pedestrian bridge was a part of early discussions of the federal courthouse project. Mr. Sullivan stated that the deadline for Request for Proposals for the development of the Sears site had been extended to September 15 because of significant interest from outside the community. He said the extension was made in the interests of getting good proposals for the site. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:35 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 21, 2006 Page 9