Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue August 28, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Steve Nystrom, Ken Guzowski, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works; Rob Handy, Zachary Vishanoff, guests. ABSENT: John Lawless, Phillip Hudspeth, members. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. PREPARATION FOR JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL: PLANNING COMISSION ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PROGRAM II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue August 28, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Steve Nystrom, Ken Guzowski, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works; Rob Handy, Zachary Vishanoff, guests. ABSENT: John Lawless, Phillip Hudspeth, members. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Rob Handy, 455 ½ River Road, Eugene, Neighborhood Leadership Council (NLC) co-chair, distributed copies of recent NLC motions related to the FY07 work plan. He said the single dissenting vote on the first motion to establish implementation of infill compatibility standards and creation of enforceable neighborhood plans and the first and second priorities related only to a concern that items in the current work plan were not short shrifted. He said the NLC was developing stronger wording related to public participation and would provide that to the commission. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, Eugene, referred to a recent article in The Oregonian about modified crops as a potential business in Oregon and noted a second article about genetically modified crops mingling with regular crops. He was concerned about the possibility of research being conducted by the University of Oregon at three different sites in the community and asked the commission to research biopharming crops and forward recommendations to a panel reviewing the issue. He distributed copies of the newspaper articles and related materials. I. PREPARATION FOR JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL: PLANNING COMISSION ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PROGRAM Mr. Nystrom stated that the joint meeting with the council would cover the annual report of accomplishments and the proposed work program for the coming year. He said the work plan represented what the council had approved last year with edits to reflect the current status of those items and identify proposed additions to the list. He said that the agenda packet also included a list of suggested tasks based on public input; public comments focused on three themes: • Better infill standards, preservation of neighborhood character • Buildable lands analysis of commercial, industrial and residential • Providing greater flexibility in the land use code for “desirable” development, particularly downtown Ms. Colbath asked how the discussion with the council on infill standards and opportunity siting MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 1 had been incorporated into the work program. Mr. Nystrom said the new language reflected short-term, first step portions of those activities to be accomplished in the coming year, not the entire multi-year strategy. Mr. Yeiter pointed out the tasks and project descriptions for opportunity siting and infill compatibility standards set forth in the FY07 proposed work program on page 11 of the Draft Annual Report. Ms. Colbath called for comments from commissioners beginning with the Overview on page 7 of the Draft Annual Report. Mr. Belcher referred to the last sentence in paragraph 2 of the Overview and said the commission had not taken a position, as a whole, to restrict the number of meetings to those established in the bylaws. He said some members were willing to meet more frequently to address tasks in a more timely manner. Ms. Colbath asked if there was a specific reason why the commission would want to have fewer meetings. Ms. Muir commented that when she arrived three years ago the commission was meeting twice as often as the bylaws required; it was difficult to achieve a quorum and members at the time complained about the frequency and duration of meetings. She said staff now attempted to adhere to the bylaws, although those could be amended if the commission wished. She said that more frequent meetings also created problems obtaining a quorum. Mr. Duncan remarked that a large number of evening meetings during the summer likely contributed to quorum problems. Ms. Muir said that the frequency and times of meetings were factors in recruiting new commission members. Ms. Colbath said the report should also reflect the large amount of time that commissioners spent in subcommittee meetings working on emerging issues as those were not included in the regular meeting schedule. Mr. Hledik agreed that the report should include the ad hoc subcommittee activities and the first sentence of paragraph 4 in the Overview should be revised to show that the Historic Review Board was the only standing subcommittee to differentiate from the ad hoc subcommittees. Mr. Carroll asked if the commission’s retreat had been scheduled. Ms. Muir said a date had not yet been selected. Based on a request from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Colbath ascertained that commissioners would be willing to meet more frequently than the bylaws established if necessary to address emerging issues. Mr. Belcher said his concern was that the commission was not meeting often enough to keep up with emerging issues and he was in favor of meeting more frequently to avoid a backlog. Ms. Colbath agreed with Mr. Belcher. She would prefer to meet more frequently and have a month off during the summer as was the custom previously. Mr. Nystrom summarized that the commission wanted the report to acknowledge the ad hoc subcommittee work and its willingness to meet more frequently. He said an amendment to the bylaws could be discussed at the retreat. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 2 Ms. Muir reiterated the concern of potential applicants about the time commitment required of commissioners. Ms. Colbath called for comments on the FY06 Project Summaries on pages 9 and 10. Mr. Belcher said that the word “of” should be inserted between “couple” and “demonstration” in the last sentence of the notes on the first project under high priority tasks on page 9. Mr. Duncan suggested substituting “degrade” for “destroy” in the first sentence of the same section. Ms. Colbath called for comments on City Council Priorities/Planning Division FY06 Work Program on pages 11 through 14. Mr. Hledik suggested modifying the first bulleted item under Task 1, Item A. Opportunity Siting as follows: Identify demonstration project sites and complete studies that determine appropriate infill higher density opportunities of these sites. He said that would avoid confusing Item A with Item B. Infill Compatibility Standards. Mr. Duncan asked that language be added to clarify that the activities identified under Task 1 were only the first year initial steps and did not represent a completed project. He suggested that opportunity siting and infill compatibility standards be made into two separate tasks instead of remaining two items, A and B, under Task 1 to further distinguish between the two issues. Mr. Belcher said that although growth metrics related to both opportunity siting and infill standards, it should be a separate task. He proposed moving the last bulleted item under A and B in Task 1 into a separate item or task and adding another bullet that addressed determining future steps for the project. Ms. Colbath asked commission members whether opportunity siting, infill compatibility standards and growth metrics should be three separate tasks—1, 2 and 3—or three separate items—A, B and C—under Task 1. Mr. Hledik preferred retaining separate items under one task in recognition that they were integral. Mr. Carroll asked if metrics was a high priority item requiring a separate listing. Mr. Hledik said metrics was part of Council David Kelly’s amendment and should be recognized as Item C as suggested by Mr. Belcher. Mr. Duncan said that opportunity siting and infill standards were discussed as high priorities at the joint meeting and metrics were discussed but not given as much emphasis because in the first year there would be little to analyze. He was not certain metrics would be a high priority for FY07. Ms. Colbath pointed out that metrics was already included in the proposed FY07 plan. She felt that metrics should remain a high priority but in a different configuration. Mr. Belcher agreed that metrics could be a third item under the first task. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Nystrom pointed out that every task and activity in the plan would not necessarily be accomplished in a year, but they represented parts of the strategy the division and commission was starting to pursue. He said the plan was drafted in accordance with the council’s discussion and the council was hesitant to call metrics out as a separate work task but did support testing the strategy. He said for that reason metrics was embedded in the two items but could be identified as a separate item if the commission wished. Mr. Duncan commented that metrics could be left at it was if the presentation to the council indicated that that not much measurement would occur in the first year and explained how that would occur. Mr. Hledik said he was inclined to separate metrics as another item because it was a distinct part of the original motion. Ms. Colbath determined there were not objections to identifying metrics as Item C under the first task. Referring to Task 2 Mixed Use Centers, Mr. Duncan urged a debriefing be conducted on the status of earlier mixed use projects, particularly the Chase Gardens and Royal nodes, to determine what worked and what did not. Mr. Nystrom replied that the task was still on the list specifically as part of the education process and to flag the issue for the council. He said a work session could be scheduled. Mr. Carroll asked how the work plan format, with high priority items as the beginning, was developed. Mr. Nystrom said that the plan was based on previous formatting and the purpose was to illustrate the list of tasks assigned by the council and the prioritization of those tasks. Mr. Carroll suggested organizing the work plan thematically from a planning instead of an administrative perspective to illustrate how the tasks were related in a comprehensive strategy. Commission members expressed interest in discussing Mr. Carroll’s proposal at the retreat. Mr. Belcher said there were no specific references in the list of activities to making opportunity siting work for residents and work for developers. Mr. Sullivan said that the term “market analysis” could be used instead of “costs” in the second bulleted item. There was consensus to accept the suggestion. Mr. Yeiter said he understood from the commission’s previous meeting that the alternate path aspect of finding sites acceptable to the development community and neighborhood leaders would be downplayed. Ms. Colbath asked if there were any objections to moving Task 8, related to an alternative path review process, higher on the list of priorities. Mr. Belcher asked if staff was clear on his earlier point regarding opportunity siting. Mr. Yeiter replied that he understood Mr. Belcher wanted to have highlighted the compatibility issue of how sites were located and the cooperative element of opportunity siting. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Belcher remarked that if development was going to happen differently in Eugene it would be necessary to work with both neighbors and developers to identify what should be done differently in order for the project to succeed; that went beyond picking a site both parties liked. Mr. Sullivan added that could include determining what the market considerations for this type of development were and could that development emerge in this market. He said the analysis could identify the gaps between reality and expectations and how those gaps could be bridged. Ms. Colbath said another element was what neighborhoods would need to feel comfortable with having those changes occur in their areas and make the alternative path process successful. Mr. Sullivan asserted that the tasks were in two silos: one was an analysis of what happens in the market place and whether the City was configured well to achieve the sort of development envisioned; the second was how to address compatibility issues and assure development worked well within neighborhoods. Mr. Belcher asked for better clarity that compatibility was a factor in both opportunity siting and infill standards. He said it was important to state that concerns of participants in the process were being addressed. Mr. Nystrom said there was no particular intent with listing alternate path as Task 8 and it could be moved closer to the front of the list. Mr. Hledik suggested making alternate path Task 2, between Opportunity Siting/Infill Compatibility Standards and Mixed Use Centers. Ms. Colbath determined there were no objections to Mr. Hledik’s suggestion. Mr. Duncan said that a residential land study should be on the list of emerging issues. Mr. Nystrom replied it was present generically as “buildable lands supply issue.” He said the only activity under way on that issue was the commercial/industrial lands inventory study. He said the issue remained on the list as a placeholder but there had been no further discussion by the council. Mr. Duncan asked that a residential land study be specifically acknowledged as an emerging issue. Ms. Muir suggested doing a scope of work for next year’s budget cycle to establish completion of the second half of the commercial/industrial land study and conducting a study of the residential buildable land supply as priorities and determine the cost. She said those would be relatively low impact work tasks to get in the queue for funding. She said scoping would be for a full analysis, both supply and demand, of commercial, industrial and residential land. Mr. Belcher said that would be a part of growth metrics. Ms. Colbath determined, following a general discussion, that scoping a full land analysis would be included in the list of high priority items. Mr. Belcher noted that the River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project was shown as completed. He asked if there was a next step. Ms. Muir replied that there were some funds remaining and the City would be conducting follow-up discussions with the neighborhood associations to review task lists. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Belcher expressed concern that there were ongoing issues related to River Road/Santa Clara that would not be reflected in the work program if the transition project was deleted. Mr. Nystrom replied that specific tasks or next steps were unknown but the commission could retain River Road/Santa Clara as a standalone project if it wished. Mr. Hledik agreed with Mr. Belcher that River Road/Santa Clara should be recognized as an ongoing project. Mr. Carroll asked for staff response to testimony about neighborhood engagement in the land use process and the slow death of neighborhood refinement plans. He said it appeared to be an emerging issue. Mr. Nystrom responded that it would be difficult to establish as a separate task with a standalone product as it was a component of many other projects in the work program. Mr. Carroll said if there was agreement on a goal to get neighborhood more involved, it should be identified in a discreet way in order to determine whether progress was being made. Ms. Muir said that staff could provide a briefing on the 20 tasks approved as part of the neighborhood association initiative action plan. She said broader, earlier participation in land use decisions was one of those tasks. Mr. Belcher proposed that the commission review its citizen involvement role to determine how to further involve all citizens, not just neighborhoods. Mr. Carroll suggested moving the neighborhood initiative out of the “other” category and into a higher place on the list. Ms. Colbath agreed with Mr. Carroll. She said the neighborhood initiative was funded and should be moved into the high priority category. Ms. Muir said the neighborhood initiative was a priority for the council and an action plan was adopted. Mr. Nystrom commented that it was a very broad initiative and the roles of the Planning Commission and Planning Division were uncertain. He said the item could be moved to the emerging issues category if the commission wanted it to have more prominence in the work program. Ms. Colbath said that the neighborhood initiative item should be moved higher on the list to indicate the commission’s responsiveness to council priorities. Mr. Belcher commented that the commission had two roles with respect to the neighborhood initiative; one was code amendments and the other was citizen involvement. He said that citizen involvement was broader than just neighborhood associations, but the associations should be included as participants in the process. Ms. Muir clarified that Mr. Belcher was suggesting the addition of a citizen involvement item in emerging issues to include issues associated with the neighborhood association initiative action plan and increasing the effectiveness of citizen involvement plans. Mr. Sullivan stated that the Community Development Division was on point with the neighborhood association initiative and when products were available those relevant to the commission’s work would be referred to it. Ms. Muir asked if the neighborhood initiative item would be moved from Task 39 to a higher place on the list under emerging issues. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 6 Following a discussion by members, Ms. Colbath determined there was consensus to identify the neighborhood initiative as a separate task under emerging issues instead of including it in the task related to citizen involvement. Ms. Colbath asked why Task 38 related to Senate Bill 82 was not included under Item g. State rule making or as a separate Item h in emerging issues. She said eminent domain was also an emerging issue. Ms. Muir replied that the commission never dealt with eminent domain, nor did the planning staff. Mr. Nystrom said that Senate Bill 82 was simply identified on the list but staff did not know what might happen and in any case it would likely be several years before there was activity. Ms. Colbath remarked that the NLC had a strong interest in refinement plans and updates. She asked why that item was far down the list as Task 36 in the “other” category. She asked if there was any interest in having the task funded and moving it higher on the list. Mr. Belcher pointed out that the task only addressed fixing problems with existing refinement plans and was a large part of the City with no refinement plans. He was encouraged by action to initiate a refinement plan change with Jefferson Westside Neighbors. He felt that refinement plans should be included in the citizen involvement task as an emerging issue. He said refinement plans were difficult, cumbersome and expensive and the task could examine whether they were still the right tool. Mr. Hledik speculated whether it might be possible to accomplish a general “fix” of refinement plans, such as converting them to guidelines, instead of trying to amend or update the individual plans. He suggested an evaluation of refinement plans and their effectiveness. Mr. Duncan concurred with Mr. Hledik’s remarks. He said it was necessary to take some action with respect to refinement plans as in the future they would become increasingly difficult for all players to work with, whether it was the neighbors, neighborhood groups, the City and developers. He noted that most plans were two or three decades old and areas had changed. He said considerable time and resources would be necessary to try to update each plan and hoped a more streamlined approach as suggested by Mr. Hledik could be found. Mr. Nystrom reminded the commission of a similar conversation last year and that refinement plan review and update was the only item added to the list. He said neighborhoods were also struggling with the question of whether refinement plans were still the appropriate tool. He asked if the commission wished to do more than identifying plan reviews and updates under ongoing items in the work program. Mr. Belcher indicated he did want to do more as refinement plans offered a limited amount of protection for neighborhoods. He said when a plan was determined not to be acceptable the City unilaterally changed it without neighborhood involvement, which was not the intent of a neighborhood refinement plan. Mr. Carroll suggested adding a scope of work on refinement plans to either the emerging issues or high priority list, similar to the scope of work item for a residential land study. Ms. Colbath determined there was consensus to add a refinement plan scope of work, which would include identifying problems with current plans and potential new tools, to the list of high MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 7 priorities. Mr. Nystrom clarified that the scope of work would address evaluation and issues assessment for refinement plans. Ms. Colbath called for questions and comments on the Historic Review Board (HRB) work program. Mr. Carroll pointed out that the first item in the work program reflected the board’s interest in the lower River Road mixed use center and its desire to help, as did the second work item related to opportunity siting and infill development standards. He said the remaining items on the list were similar to previous years’ work programs. Ms. Colbath said that local special assessments for historic properties seemed to be an emerging issue and asked in what context those assessment would come before the HRB and what type of input the board would have. Mr. Guzowski replied that the special assessments referred to in the work item were specific to National Register properties that chose to enroll in the State’s program to freeze property taxes for 15 years. He said the program required owners to conduct an open house for their properties annually; the board help facilitate a resolution to the City Council that allowed all residential properties to apply for a second 15-year period. Mr. Belcher said he was pleased to see the second work item related to infill standards and opportunity siting as there was the potential for impacts on neighborhoods when a property was designated as historic, which allowed it to become a commercial use. Mr. Duncan said during his term on the HRB there was a discussion about some historic properties that had significant amounts of land surrounding them that might be subdivided. He said the discussion focused on the need for “buffer sites” to be created, but the current code prohibited a site in a subdivision to be no larger than 13,500 square feet. He said that site size might be too small for some historic homes, particularly in the River Road area. Mr. Guzowski replied that there were exceptions in the River Road area and many of the old farm houses were on larger parcels of land than those that were subdivided. Mr. Nystrom said a joint Planning Commission and Historic Review Board meeting was scheduled for October 23, 2006. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom said that the topic of a tree ordinance was addressed in Item 35 of the division’s work program. Ms. Colbath asked that Item 11 under Planning Commission accomplishments on page 8 be reworded to clarify that the Delta Sand and Gravel issue was not finalized. Mr. Duncan asked that the last item under Looking Ahead on page 15 be modified as follows: The Planning Commission has a desire to will look at and review their bylaws and… He also requested that the Looking Ahead section include development of a process to better measure land use actions against growth management goals and revisiting growth management goals by discussing with the community whether they had been effective as potential items for a future work program. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Nystrom said that the issue of the City’s role in MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 8 annexations remained on the Looking Ahead list as the status of the Boundary Commission was raised during each legislative session. Ms. Colbath and Mr. Hledik volunteered to work with staff to develop the joint meeting presentation. Mr. Duncan and Mr. Belcher said they could be available if necessary. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff There were no items from staff. B. Other Items from Commission There were no items from commissioners. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:35 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 9