Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue September 11, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Ken Guzowski, Steve Nystrom, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Jim McLaughlin, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Terri Harding, ODOT; Rob Zako, Rob Handy, Jan Spencer, Zachary Vishanoff, guests. ABSENT: None. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. RASOR PARK MIXED USE CENTER CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Staff: Ken Guzowski, 682-5562 Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend approval of the Citizen Involvement Process as outlined in the Agenda Item Summary and the Statement of Work, as amended by discussion at this meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. PREPARATION FOR JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL: PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM Staff: Steve Nystrom, 682-8385 III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue September 11, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Ken Guzowski, Steve Nystrom, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Jim McLaughlin, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Terri Harding, ODOT; Rob Zako, Rob Handy, Jan Spencer, Zachary Vishanoff, guests. ABSENT: None. Ms. Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, Eugene, expressed concern about fewer involvement opportunities for the public, citing the West University Park swap that occurred without a public hearing. He said the City Parks department said there was no funding for the park. He claimed the students would no longer trust the City. He said it was time for a conversation about Agate Hall and Condon School on the University of Oregon. He thought it was a good candidate for historic designation and was a real asset for the community. He added the former Joe Romania showroom on Franklin Boulevard was another candidate for historic preservation. Rob Handy, 455 ½ River Road, Eugene, stated that the River Road/Santa Clara transition project recently completed its work. The task force had identified a number of recommendations that were important to the neighborhoods including preserving and enhancing the Willamette River greenway; having River Road being a unifying rather than dividing element in the community; to develop and implement heritage planning development standards along with context sensitive street design applications; environmentally sound surface water management. He said these values, aspirations and goals should be part of hard code whenever possible. Rob Zako, 1280-B East 28th Avenue, Eugene, recommended that the Planning Commission add Meadowlark Prairie in the development of its draft work plan. He said I-2 zoning was not appropriate for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owned wetlands, and reflected that the plan had not caught up with reality. He noted the Metro Plan had not been updated since 1985 and the city did not have a clear vision of how and where it wanted to grow. Mr. Duncan said the current commercial industrial lands study due out in the near future showed the area as available industrial lands in the inventory. He said the Planning Commission had previously discussed concerns with a process that did not allow for changes. Jan Spencer, 212 Benjamin, Lane County, said many of the people in the neighborhood supported doing something responsible, with design standards, and neighborhood involvement that respected the neighborhood and the characteristics of River Road. He said the sooner the MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 1 urban areas could be redesigned with less automobile dependence would be better. He suggested looking at the Hilyard area in the study as a main local street that branched out throughout the neighborhood. He added he wished to see more trees and use of natural drainage features. I. RASOR PARK MIXED USE CENTER CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Mr. Guzowski offered the staff presentation. He distributed a handout which provided information for the four public workshops scheduled in early 2007. Mr. Guzowski introduced Terri Harding, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), manager of the local TGM grant program. He said the funding had been assigned for the project. He said the purpose of today’s discussion was to approve the Citizen Involvement Process. The citizen involvement process would include: • Four public forums to engage the public through informed discussions about the future of the area. • Two meetings with established interest groups including neighborhood representatives, park and transportation advocates, property and business owners, to share reports and gain feedback in a focus setting. • Seven Technical Advisory Committee meetings to provide coordination for the varied perspectives of the consultant and local responsibilities and reinforce interagency coordination. • Two neighborhood meetings consisting of project presentations for the River Road Community Organization (RRCO) and Whiteaker Community Council (WCC). • Additional opportunities for public involvement would be solicited by updates in the RRCO and WCC newsletters. The City would establish a web site so that the public could access key documents and information as it became available. Mr. Guzowski reviewed the history of the project as outlined in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). He also referred to several charts on the walls, including: • Rasor Park Mixed Use Study Area—Natural Resources • Rasor Park Mixed Use Center—Zoning • Rasor Park Mixed Use Center—Historic Property Survey He said the project timeline had been compressed from fifteen to ten months, with a required completion date of June 30, 2007, due to the State of Oregon biennial funding cycle. In response to questions from commissioners, Mr. Guzowski said the project boundaries had not yet been finalized. That decision would be made by consensus of the project group. Referring to the AIS, Mr. Guzowski noted a Realistic assessment of the Study Area’s potential as a MUC, including: appropriate boundaries; feasible number of size of MUC(s); and appropriate mix and location of uses. Mr. Belcher wanted to see a product that could be brought forward to the Planning Commission and embraced by everyone. He noted consensus was hard to achieve in Eugene. Ms. Harding added the scope of work included a series of technical activities that happened at the consultant level, and technical advisory committee meetings to review the draft work products. The stakeholder and public involvement meetings would provide additional feedback loops. The MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 2 intent was to check in with the appropriate groups throughout the entire process. Mr. Yeiter recalled the Chase Gardens MUC process in which the technical advisory committee had been split, two widely different design opportunities evolved, and were brought back to the Planning Commission. He said the grant funding for the Rasor Park MUC did not have sufficient funding to explore all the paths. In past MUC projects there was a high level of consensus as the consultants talked to the community and looked at what was economically feasible. Mr. Yeiter said the west side of River Road had not originally been included in the River Road boundaries based on the push back from the Fairmont Neighborhood in the early days of Walnut Station. The boundary delineation was interpreted by the residents as a redevelopment proposal into the residential section of the neighborhood. Mr. Yeiter said the Hilyard commercial area had been included based upon neighborhood feedback in the draft boundary. However, the funding is limited in that one MUC would be chosen for detailed study. Mr. Lawless said the Planning Commission had heard repeatedly about context sensitive street design standards. He asked if the timing of the grant and the guidelines had been updated to include the new stormwater management rules and street improvement standards. Ms. Colbath said there had been many transportation related questions during the Planning Commission tour of the area. She said context sensitive street design and a pedestrian friendly environment were important for the neighborhood. She asked for a check in with the Planning Commission in the future that provided information on the boundary discussion. Mr. Hledik asked if the project would encompass one or multiple MUCs, and if the walkable cities concept would be revisited. Mr. Yeiter said each MUC had been defined differently, with a 5-15 minute, ¼ mile walk as the general template, on which the original reports were based. The work for Rasor Park would need to focus commercial areas on one primary area due to funding limitations. In response to Mr. Duncan, Mr. Guzowski said there was no plan for a Rasor Park Steering Committee. Mr. Duncan opined one of the benefits of a steering committee ensured a good cross representation of business, property owners and tenants. He asked that tenants be included in the interested parties. Mr. Duncan asked if there was a plan for measuring the “success” of a MUC, noting it had been identified as a goal in previous plans, but those measurement tools had not been identified. Mr. Carroll expressed support for having a Planning Commission member on the Rasor Park technical advisory committee to keep the commission informed of the process. In response to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Guzowski said there would be opportunities to involve the RRCO and the WCC, by providing periodic updates and solicit input. Mr. Carroll suggested accelerating the public involvement process to meet the tight timeline. He asked if there were sufficient resources to look at the entire study area. Mr. Guzowski anticipated a Planning Commission pubic hearing in July 2007. He said the consultant was conducting an opportunity and constraints analysis for the entire study area which would provide a focus for determining where the intensive work should occur. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 3 In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Guzowski opined that the River Road neighborhood groups had followed MUC planning in Eugene, had developed their own ideas, and articulated very clearly those ideas, which would be helpful with the current process. Mr. Lawless said the Planning Commission’s participation on the steering committee and the technical advisory committee had been valuable in the Walnut Node process, and encouraged other commissioners to be active in the Rasor Park process. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Guzowski noted at the September 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the commission did not support the idea of a steering committee for the Rasor Park process. He said he would continue to keep commissioners informed of the process. Mr. Carroll expressed an interest in representing the Planning Commission through the Rasor Park process. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend approval of the Citizen Involvement Process as outlined in the Agenda Item Summary and the Statement of Work, as amended by discussion at this meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. PREPARATION FOR JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL: PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM Mr. Nystrom facilitated a discussion with the commission for their presentation for the joint meeting with the City Council on September 27, 2006. At the August 28, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Annual Report of the Planning Commission and provided specific edits. The commission’s edits had been incorporated into the revised report, and the commission was asked to confirm those edits for the final document. Commissioners offered several modifications for the final document which were recorded by staff. Commissioners talked about the value of joint meetings, as well as the value of less formal ways to interact with councilors. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Mr. Nystrom reviewed the commission’s September schedule. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom said the PROS Plan was in the appeal process. B. Other Items from Commission In response to a question raised by Mr. Belcher via email, Mr. Yeiter noted the commission was interested in having more public input on opportunity siting prior to the joint meeting with the City Council. Commissioners offered input on the format, the content, presentation, and time from the commission. The commission reached consensus that a forum would be held on MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 4 September 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at a location to be announced. Mr. Belcher suggested reviewing the IAB Public Participation Schedule when time permitted. He suggested the Planning Commission retreat be scheduled as soon as possible after the new commissioners had been appointed. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:37 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc060911.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 5