Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue January 8, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, Ann Kneeland, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Terri Harding, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Paul Conte, Angela Rooney, Vicki Mercer, John O’Donohue, Zack Vishanoff, Wendy Coner, Pauline Hutzon, Ginny Osteen, Matt White, W.P. Moser, Janice Gotchalk, Stephen Franzen, David Gusset, David Hinkey, Ed Murphy, Charles Snyder, Ron Larson, Steve Celeste, Howard Lundeen, Marilyn J. Stevenson, Brianna Jackson, Jamie Floyd, Isaac Markeke, Carol Westlake, Walter Vos, Sarah Petersen, Garrick Mishaga, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 24, 2006 Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved that October 24, 2006 minutes be approved as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. UPDATE: CITY HALL MASTER PLANNING Ellen Teninty, T’ N T Consultants III. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: JEFFERSON/FARWEST PLAN AMENDMENTS Staff: Terri Harding, 682-5635 Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Metro Plan Amendment, Refinement Plan Amendment and Code Amendment as modified in the Planning Commission deliberation. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 8, 2007 Page 1  B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 8, 2007 Page 2  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue January 8, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, Ann Kneeland, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Terri Harding, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Paul Conte, Angela Rooney, Vicki Mercer, John O’Donohue, Zack Vishanoff, Wendy Coner, Pauline Hutzon, Ginny Osteen, Matt White, W.P. Moser, Janice Gotchalk, Stephen Franzen, David Gusset, David Hinkey, Ed Murphy, Charles Snyder, Ron Larson, Steve Celeste, Howard Lundeen, Marilyn J. Stevenson, Brianna Jackson, Jamie Floyd, Isaac Markeke, Carol Westlake, Walter Vos, Sarah Petersen, Garrick Mishaga, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the meeting of the Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Paul Conte, 1461 West Tenth Avenue, distributed copies of a January 3, 2007 letter from the Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN) to the Eugene Planning Commission from JWN co-chairs Rene Kane and Paul Conte regarding “City Council action on Measure 37 claim and Chamber Special Area Zone.” He said regarding the Land Use Code process currently underway, he had heard rumors that the City of Eugene had contracted with someone at the University of Oregon (UO) to look at alley development and other development issues. He said he had not heard much public comment about that. He claimed one of faculty members involved had submitted a recommendation to the Land Use Code amendment process. He was concerned about a contractor submitting individual comments to the process. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, distributed copies of a newsletter entitled Just Do It Somewhere Else!.” He expressed concern that the UO and the City of Eugene were getting too close together regarding contracting issues. He noted the UO had a public relations agenda, and said the City should be looking ahead at UO problems related to sustainability and updating cultural resources studies for the West University Neighborhood and Fairmount Neighborhood. There was consensus by the Planning Commission to Mr. Duncan’s suggestion that the agenda be revised to limit the time for the City Hall Master Planning Update. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 24, 2006 Approval of the October 24, 2006 minutes was deferred. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 8, 2007 Page 1 II. UPDATE: CITY HALL MASTER PLANNING Ms. Gardner introduced Mike Penwell, Central Services Facilities Project Manager for the City Hall Master Planning project, and Ellen Tenity, T’ N T Consultants. Mr. Penwell reviewed the history and status of the City Hall Master Planning project. He said Phase 2 of the City Hall Complex Master Plan was completed in December 2006 with decisions reached by the City Council on four major issues. An important part of this effort was a public involvement process conducted in support of the Council’s decision-making process. Phase 3 of the master planning process would commence shortly with additional public involvement efforts designed to further inform the Council’s decision-making process about more detailed issues such as phasing, financing, and timing. Existing City Hall deficiencies identified included: • Seismic deficiencies. • Obsolete electrical and mechanical systems, single glazing, uninsulated slab, resulting in excessive energy consumption; energy consumption in a new building could be reduced to ¼ or 1/5 that of current building. • Dispersed services around downtown—the City currently has twice as much space away from City Hall as compared to within City Hall, a figure which would increase with the addition of the Police Auditor’s office and offices for City Councilors, creating further inefficiencies. • Civic presence and connection—currently City Hall site underutilized (with 80,000 square feet of usable space on a 100,000 square foot site), a figure deemed blight by State of Oregon standards for economic development. In 2004, the City Council established the City Hall Master Plan a council priority and adopted an action plan with four phases: • Phase 1—Policy advisement phase in 2005. • Phase 2—Development plan phase in 2006. • Phase 3—Implementation plan phase in 2007. • Phase 4—Design and construction phase timeline to be determined. A major question was whether the existing City Hall should be rehabilitated or built new. After review, the City Council decided to build a new facility. On the issue of where to locate Police services, the City Council decided on a 7:1 vote to locate police patrol outside of City Hall, and house the Police Chief and police administration in City Hall. Upon reviewing the 26 different sites considered by the project team, the City Council identified the Rock N’ Rodeo and Lane County Butterfly parking lot (or the Rockin’ Butterfly site) as the preferred site. In 2007, costs, phasing and financing mechanisms would be researched. Ms. Teninty stated that the public participation format used for the project was developed according to standards established by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). She explained that these guidelines had been used because it was in the city’s Request for Proposals, showing a high level of thought about public participation. Mr. Belcher stated two people asked why construction of a new City Hall was under consideration at a recent City Club meeting, opining there was still public concern, not about where and how, but rather whether, a new City Hall should be built. He added that people would respond to this proposed project based upon their feelings about City government rather than whether they felt a new facility was appropriate. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 8, 2007 Page 2 Ms. Teninty acknowledged that anti-government sentiments exist nationwide for many reasons Mr. Lawless continued to be impressed with the public involvement efforts, commending the high sense of transparency in the project. He recommended finding a way to engage those citizens who shared his opinion to participate in the process. In response to Mr. Hledik, Ms. Gardner stated initially she anticipated no land use issues to arise, but the process could identify some. She added no Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) changes were needed. Ms. Muir added the Downtown Plan and current zoning allowed and encouraged this dense type of development. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Penwell said public comment throughout the process had suggested that a new building be able to accommodate other public uses such as farmers’ market or a youth center, and the Rock’n Butterfly site could accommodate those types of uses. Ms. Teninty added that other people had asserted a government building should be just a government building and not house other uses. She added that discussion of this topic would be a fruitful area for public involvement in 2007. Responding to Ms. Kneeland, Mr. Penwell said the City of Eugene currently required LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) silver certification on all new buildings, adding gold was easily achievable on the proposed structure, with platinum achievable at a higher cost. Ms. Gardner advised the Planning Commission that as a resident of the area considered for the project, she was stepping aside, and Kurt Yeiter had assumed lead on the project. [Jan - I believe this goes with the next item.] III. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: JEFFERSON/FARWEST PLAN AMENDMENTS Ms. Harding provided the staff report. She said the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Metro Plan amending the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan and amending the Eugene Code (EC) for a portion of the Jefferson neighborhood known as Area 15 in the refinement plan. The area subject to the request was located south of West Thirteenth Avenue, east of the Lane County Fairgrounds, and north of West Eighteenth Avenue. The eastern boundary followed portions of Lincoln Alley, Charnelton Alley, and Willamette Alley. The area was wholly within the Eugene city limits. She referred to the following diagrams during her presentation: • Area 15 Aerial Photo. • Area 15 Number of Structure Addresses by Tax Lot. • Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan. The request included approval of the following: • Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 06-5) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram from a designation of Medium Density Residential to a designation of Low Density MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 8, 2007 Page 3  Residential for the subject area. • Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 06-3) to amend the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan land use diagram from a designation of Low-Medium Density Residential to a designation of Low Density Residential for the subject area and amend the text by revising the description of the subject area’s plan designation. • Code Amendment (City file CA 06-1) to revise the language codifying the refinement plan policy describing the area’s plan designation. Responding to Mr. Hledik, Ms. Harding said the only distinction between the portions of Area 15 north and south of the Amazon channel would be that the impetus for the proposed action was to override the Metro Plan action that occurred south of the channel through the housekeeping amendments. She added in terms of policy making, the Planning Commission could make the policy apply to the whole Area 15 or not, noting the Refinement Plan treated the whole area the same. In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Harding opined the area north of the channel was designated Medium density on the Metro Plan diagram because the area was close to fronting on West Thirteenth Avenue, which was an arterial, and the best interpretation of the original adopted “blob” diagram. She added although the Area 15 Number of Structure Addresses by Tax Lot map should have included all residential units, there may be units that had been constructed without building permits and therefore no record of them existed. Mr. Yeiter added there were a number of multiple unit properties in the area that dated back to 1982 when it may have been seen as more consistent. He noted the original City Council motion was more broadly stated, thus the entire Area 15 was notified of the proposal. Responding to Mr. Lawless, Ms. Harding understood that if the ordinance was allowed to sunset, the areas north and south of the channel/West Fourteenth Avenue would revert to their current density designation, as intended by the City Council. Mr. Yeiter suggested the Planning Commission clearly stated their intent in their recommendation to the City Council on the plan amendments. In response to Mr. Duncan, Ms. Harding confirmed that if the ordinance was allowed to sunset, it would sunset back to the plan language in place today. She added the intent of the sunset clause appeared to be to incorporate newly developed infill developments standards that could be in place by the time the sunset occurred. She added that staff would work with the City Attorney to ensure that inconsistent language in the current ordinance was eliminated in the new ordinance. Mr. Yeiter asserted the intent was that the maps and text would revert if the language was not clarified prior to the ordinance sun setting. Mr. Belcher said another issue was where the sunset clause was imbedded in the land use code. He expressed frustration in the past that refinement plans were frequently modified by the Planning Commission and City Council as part of land use decisions when individuals applied for a zoning change, without taking the issues back to the neighborhood associations. He was encouraged that this was a neighborhood initiated request. Mr. Lawless asked staff to request an opinion from the City Attorney to clarify what language was being rescinded. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 8, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Hledik said he supported the direction the Planning Commission was taking. But, it was important to acknowledge the situation was an awkward one, with refinement and metro plans, plus work done by the neighborhood organization in 1983 buying into getting higher density development with a zoning ordinance that evolved over time into something they did not anticipate. He noted the density today was two times what had originally been projected. He said if the Planning Commission recommended an interim change to the City Council that the City Council understand the Commission was going beyond a “housekeeping fix” that was a policy change specifically in regard to the area north of the Amazon Channel. Mr. Carroll stated the reversion date was arbitrary. He wanted to ensure that the Commission had completed its work, and suggested the reversion date be modified to meet the completion of work. Ms. Harding said the City Council could change the sunset clause. In response to Mr. McCown, Mr. Yeiter said although the language could be changed from a date certain to the time of implementation, the question of adequate action would remain open. Mr. Hledik opined that infill compatibility standards needed to be in place by the July 2008 deadline to meet the City Council intent. Mr. Belcher preferred a date certain. He said the original intent was deliberative planning and site review would occur in the neighborhoods before changes would take place, but that did not happen. His experience in almost every case had been that site review had been “rubber stamped”. Ms. Harding directed the Commissioners to Attachment C—Staff Findings included in the AIS. Mr. Belcher stated that the Growth Management Policies (GMP) were not part of the Staff Findings, and would like the issue addressed at some point. In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Harding confirmed that the proposed changes would incorporate new refinement plan policy language. She understood the GMP adoption language was directed at the land use code update process rather than at individual land use applications, which was the current practice. She said the GMPs would be applicable to the infill standards project and more general legislative updates to the code. Mr. Belcher asserted whenever the Planning Commission was dealing with issues that were in the refinement plan policies and were proposing to adopt code changes, they should be part of the deliberations and findings. Mr. Yeiter said the policies were too broadly stated to be applicable to specific sites, but would be used as guidance for City action, which was reflected in the ordinance language. The staff findings in the AIS did not specifically address local policies such as growth management policies adopted outside of the Metro Plan or refinement plans. He reminded the Commission that it could correspond with the City Council outside of the findings, and make specific recommendations outside of the criteria. Additionally, if the Commission had concerns or wanted to make a statement that the action was or was not consistent with growth management policies, Mr. Yeiter recommended that the Commission submit those concerns independently from the refinement plan recommendation before the Commission. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 8, 2007 Page 5 At Mr. Belcher’s suggestion, the Commission tabled further discussion by consensus until a later time. Ms. Harding facilitated a review of changes noted by staff in Attachment C—Staff Findings and recorded those comments. She said the City Council would conduct a public hearing on the proposed refinement plan amendments on February 20, 2007. In response to Mr. Duncan, there was consensus to include the staff response to the findings raised at the December 5, 2006 public hearing in the information forwarded to the City Council. Responding to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Harding stated there were no applications in Area 15 that would be affected by the proposed changes. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Metro Plan Amendment, Refinement Plan Amendment and Code Amendment as modified in the Planning Commission deliberation. There was consensus that the findings would be sent via e-mail all Commissioners to review and approve. Ms. Muir reminded Commissioners of a City Attorney directive that the intent of the e- mail communication was not to discuss the issue, but only review and approve as submitted. Any discussion on the issue would need to be brought to a Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 24, 2006 Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved that October 24, 2006 minutes be approved as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Gardner distributed copies of a Eugene City Council Agenda Item Summary regarding the Update on Commercial/Industrial/Residential Lands Studies scheduled for January 17, 2007, and reviewed the AIS. There was consensus to advise the City Council that the Planning Commission had a continued interest in the topic. Mr. Yeiter stated the buildable lands study was a report prepared on behalf of the Lane Council of Governments for the three metro area jurisdictions (City of Eugene, City of Springfield, and Lane County), that reviewed the supply side of what land was available for commercial and industrial lands. It did not include the demand side of the equation. It was also an attempt to create a data base for use by the public as well as public agencies. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Carroll asked if the City Council was interested in buildable lands scoping through intergovernmental cooperation or only for the City. Ms. Gardner said the Council was interested in scoping buildable lands for the City of Eugene. In response to Mr. Carroll, Ms. Gardner staff MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 8, 2007 Page 6 would work on inviting Ed Weeks to participate in the Planning Commission discussion about GMPs. Mr. Lawless said he would be interested in learning more about the newly adopted Land Conservation and Development Department (LCDC) urban growth boundary (UGB) rules. In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Gardner said a tentative date had been set for the hospital certificate of need. Ms. Muir cautioned Commissioners against discussing the topic prior to its inclusion on a Commission agenda, or engaging in ex parte contacts. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:37 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc070108.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 8, 2007 Page 7