Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue June 11, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, Anthony McCown, members; Allen Lowe, Lydia McKinney, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; David Knowles, Marcy McInely, project consultants; Chris Ramey, Mark Gillem, Erik Bishoff, Mary Ann Holser, Jeff Nelson, Nancy Reckord, Josh Reckord, David Sonnichsen, Zachary Vishanoff, Debbie Jeffries, guests. ABSENT: John Lawless, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. WORK SESSION: FORM BASED CODE—WALNUT STATION Staff: Allen Lowe, 682-5113 II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue June 11, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, Anthony McCown, members; Allen Lowe, Lydia McKinney, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; David Knowles, Marcy McInely, project consultants; Chris Ramey, Mark Gillem, Erik Bishoff, Mary Ann Holser, Jeff Nelson, Nancy Reckord, Josh Reckord, David Sonnichsen, Zachary Vishanoff, Debbie Jeffries, guests. ABSENT: John Lawless, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Jeff Nelson, 2144 East Fifteenth Avenue, identified himself as former co-chair of the Fairmount Neighborhood Association and actively involved in the east campus area zoning efforts. He lived across the street from the State of Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) property, the site currently under discussion for inclusion in the Walnut mixed use center (Mixed Use Center). He said the area consisted primarily of low and medium density residential properties. Mr. McCown arrived at 11:35 a.m. Mr. Nelson said the East Campus Plan R-1 designation contained an overlay that prohibited certain uses and contained height limits, but permitted other uses allowable under PL, to which the neighborhood was responsive. He could see the same language working on the ODOT site, with an overlay or other treatment that limited the number of uses or allowable types of uses, and included a height limit. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, urged the commission to conduct a cultural resource study of the Fairmount Neighborhood, the most recent having occurred in 1987. He expressed concern that the University of Oregon (UO) had not been straight forward with its East Campus plans, and asked the commission to keep the Walnut Node process separate from UO plans for the area. He asserted Franklin Boulevard was currently blighted and needed improvement. I. WORK SESSION: FORM BASED CODE—WALNUT STATION Mr. Lowe provided the staff report. He explained the Walnut Station Open House May 9, 2007 Summary of Comments document was included in the agenda packet to help commissioners better understand the progress that had occurred during the last six months on resolving issues identified MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 1 in the emerging vision. Mr. Lowe drew commissioners’ attention to two letters in the packet, noting that time would be scheduled in the fall for commissioners to discuss these and other correspondence from property owners in the project area. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Lowe said the attendance at the meeting had not been broken down to identify business and residential property owners. Mr. Lowe introduced project consultants David Knowles and Marcy McInely. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Lowe said adoption of the Charter of New Urbanism was not an ODOT/TGM requirement, but rather a piece of information that identified the city-directed philosophy. Mr. Knowles explained the purpose of the meeting was to undergo a two-meeting decision making process, at the conclusion of which the Planning Commission would be asked to provide direction about whether or not a Form Based Code (FBC) should be pursued for Walnut Station. The purpose of today’s meeting was to provide the commission with information about FBC’s and to elicit information from the commission regarding what additional information it needed to enable it to make a decision at the June 25, 2007 meeting. Mr. Knowles emphasized this work was part of an ODOT funded work program. If at the conclusion of the June 25 meeting the commission decided it did not want to pursue FBC, the work program for the Walnut Node Mixed Use Center (MUC) would change. In response to Mr. Duncan’s question, Mr. Lowe said FBC as a regulatory tool had emerged in an attempt to implement new urbanist ideals. He explained a requirement by the City of Eugene by contract to make the FBC respond to the Charter of New Urbanism. Ms. McInely reviewed the materials in the agenda packet. She said the consultants viewed the FBC as a better way to implement the Walnut Station MUC plan. Ms. McInely offered a PowerPoint presentation entitled A Primer on Form-Based Codes—Form-Based Code Options for Walnut Station, and distributed paper copies of the presentation to commissioners. Responding to Ms. Kneeland, Mr. Knowles said the Walnut Station plan was creating an emerging vision, and there was a choice to either stay with the existing code, possibly with revisions, or to create FBC that had a clear and objective track with which a planner at the permit counter could compare a plan to the code and know that it fit. Whereas a discretionary track in which the planner would need to evaluate the plan through a more discretionary process. Either process would potentially involve notice of public opportunity to participate, followed by a recommendation by a decision maker. The reason was there was predictability with the clear and objective track, because the applicant and the public would know what the outcome would be. With the discretionary track additional process needed to be provided. Mr. Lowe said the intent was to replace standards in the existing code with new standards for the clear and objective track, and to create guidelines, where there are currently no guidelines for a discretionary process, to create an alternative process that could be used in conjunction with the standards for discretion. In response to Mr. Hledik, Ms. McInely found that most of the people who disliked the idea of a FBC tended to architects, possibly because they mistakenly thought the FBC would limit their creativity. In the most objective track, she would not recommend development of an objective for every detail. There had not yet been discussion about what level of architectural specificity MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 2 would apply to the skin of buildings. However, the FBC would set an envelope within which buildings would need to be constructed, which would actually allow a huge amount of freedom for architects. The advantage of the second track was that it allowed for the desired flexibility and there was incentive for developers to go through the objectives track. This would allow the most desirable buildings would be the most easily and quickly achieved through the objective track, while allowing more creativity to be expressed through the discretionary track. She said her preference was to establish criteria for important things, such as the appearance of the first several floors of a building. She did not like codes that specified materials or window proportions because they often required people to use materials that did not weather well in a way that imitated historic styles. FBC was about how buildings faced and enclosed streets or open spaces, and how they worked together as a group, rather than each building and its architecture. Mr. Lowe said if the commission agreed that the form based structure should be pursued, it was important for staff to know from commissioners and the community whether the issues raised should be addressed. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Lowe said clear and objective standards for needed housing would be developed in compliance with State requirements, primarily replacing existing standards with new or revised standards. Mr. Belcher understood that in order to develop FBC, it was necessary to clearly understand the goals for an area being designed. He said there was still much to be resolved about the design of the Walnut Station area. It was difficult to develop a FBC for a set of expectations that did not yet exist. Mr. Lowe opined the Walnut Station Open House May 9, 2007 Summary of Comments document went a long way toward answering the question what was the vision for the area based on resolving issues left from a year ago. For example, the multi-way boulevard was the design type that would be assumed for the area. Issues related to the Mill Race and building heights were yet to be proposed to the Planning Commission. Staff would return to the commission in the fall with a clear statement of the vision and seek a clear agreement from the commission. Work on code structure would continue through the summer. Mr. Yeiter said as the design for the boulevard moved forward, images would become more specific, either helping to define the vision or the vision would fall apart. Mr. Duncan understood the emerging vision included development of some substantial buildings over time on Franklin Boulevard including a residential component. He said many of the lots on the north side of the street were small, narrow lots, and it would be difficult financially to construct buildings that fit the desired form on 40 feet wide by 100 feet deep lots. He asked how the FBC would fit this example. Ms. McInely stated that discussions to date would not require five stories, but rather require a minimum height of perhaps 25 feet, regardless of the number of stories, which would allow property owners to continue their current usage, while encouraging some redevelopment. The FBC would also allow buildings up to the maximum allowable height for the parcels. One of the advantages of the two track system would set some building development standards that might require that some lot assembly prior occur prior to submitting construction plans. She added that the second track would allow for a range of creative responses, which may provide an opportunity site development. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 3 In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Lowe wanted to ensure that the code was in place to allow the market to adapt to different times, noting market conditions changed over time. It would be important to allow housing to be developed without requiring that it be developed. Responding the Mr. Hledik, Ms. McInely said in a FBC, buildings would need to meet minimum and maximum building heights, but there would be no restrictions on what residential or commercial applications could be housed on a site. She iterated it was most important to regulate the appearance of the first couple of stories, including use of high quality materials and other options. She said identification of prohibited uses was still under discussion. Mr. Lowe said early in the process the community told staff it wanted Franklin Boulevard to serve as a gateway, which could be achieved through landscape, street redesign or through signature buildings. If signature buildings were desired in some locations, the public would be given an opportunity to provide input on what constituted signature buildings. Mr. Hledik expressed concern that the project would start with median and local access lane construction, preferring the project start with sidewalk construction, landscaping and sidewalk amenities. Mr. Lowe acknowledged it was important to know how issues identified by commissioners should be addressed. Responding to Mr. Duncan, Mr. Lowe said the term “drive-through” as used in the FBC conversations was intended to be considered as typically used for banks, pharmacies, fast food restaurants, rather than “driveways”, used for access and egress off of the street. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Lowe said there were no unique requirements or agreements that would need to be reached with the UO. Mr. Belcher said he was particularly concerned about uses in the area that existed because they were regionally oriented and served the needs of visitors to the UO, including Eugene’s “hotel district”. He was concerned that the multi-way boulevard would preclude the ability of those businesses to exist and survive because of access, signage, or building code requirements. Ms. McInely said the second track would allow businesses to use their existing retail formula on their sites. There may be access, landscaping or architectural requirements the business would need to meet, but they would be able to keep their footprints, parking, drive-through, meeting additional standards. The second track would also require that the business go through a more open, public, discretionary process. The incentive was built into the first track. If a business was willing to make required changes, meet specific standards and still make the site work, the business would move through the expedited process. Mr. Carroll two issues that arose through the visioning were the connection to the Riverfront area and the potential restoration of the Mill Race. He asked how the urban frontage standards that called for more pedestrian friendly features, may make development more difficult, and letting people know where the river and Mill Race were. He asked if there was a need for customization of the transition edge to the Mill Race. Mr. Lowe said staff did not yet have the necessary input from property owners about their visions for growth and property development. He was scheduling a meeting with Mill Race fronting property owners to discuss design ideas, which was related to parks and open space, and how the MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 4 businesses might relate to the Mill Race in the future. He added Goal 5 regulations needed to be included in the conversations. Responding to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Lowe confirmed that development along the Mill Race was subject to state and federal regulations regarding protected waterways. Ms. McInely stated the parks and open space strategy would address a system that provided a connection to the Mill Race and river, noting there were still several unresolved issues. Mr. Hledik opined the commission should move forward, saying the FBC provided opportunities to help achieve harmonious development and redevelopment in the community. He said there needed to be something that the property owners and architects in the community could react to. Mr. Lowe noted consensus from the commissioners that what was being described as design review or discretionary process was the alternate path described in the 2000 land use code update. Mr. Lowe agreed to address Ms. Kneeland’s question if lessons were learned from the experimentations with FBC with the Royal Avenue, Chase Gardens and Chambers Reconsidered projects that could be applied to the Walnut Station project. Mr. Duncan was intrigued by the process and at the same time concerned by how challenging it would be to create a pedestrian friendly environment on a major corridor such as Franklin Boulevard. He opined the changes perhaps could better occur along the side streets. He was concerned about increased noise and traffic levels in the area, and asked if there was a true community vision for the project. He wanted to ensure that the plans developed for the area would be able to be created. Mr. Lowe said he would continue to work with the property owners and hold a public meeting in the fall, and would bring a vision to the Planning Commission when he was comfortable that sufficient information had been received from the public. Noting there were several historic properties on Garden Avenue, Mr. Carroll asked that they be identified and given consideration through the process. Mr. Belcher stated he was not opposed to the process, but wanted to be pragmatic about the direction the project was taking. He was encouraged that the Planning Commission would have an opportunity to review FBC and how it could be applied throughout the City. The Planning Commission took a short break from 1:15 p.m. to 1:20 p.m. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Mr. Yeiter reported two bills of particular interest to the Planning Commission had been introduced in the 2007 State Legislative Session. One bill would abolish the Lane County Boundary Commission, which would result in annexations being processed by the City and require public hearings before the Eugene City Council. House Bill (H.B.) 3337 would split the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) between the City of Eugene and City of Springfield, requiring each city to conduct a buildable residential lands study within two years. Staff would keep MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 5 commissioners posted on progress of the bills. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Duncan reported he recently had lunch with Mayor Kitty Piercy, and she thanked the Planning Commission for its very hard work, recognizing the commission was working much more than it typically did. Ms. Piercy was surprised that H.B. 3337 had passed, and Governor Kulongoski had indicated he would sign it. Mr. Duncan said Ms. Piercy was pleased that the commission was working on in-fill, and hoped the standards that could be supported throughout the community, rather than neighborhood specific plans, would be put in place. Ms. Piercy said the work program presentation last year had been very effective, and hoped a similar format would be used when the commission and City Council met jointly in the fall. Mr. Duncan raised a concern about an e-mail sent to all Planning Commissioners. He found it very disheartening that a policy maker would describe the commission in such a way and make comments in a public forum. He stated he had contemplated submitting his resignation, feeling as a volunteer, all of the hours he spent were important to the community, and to be lashed at was very troublesome. He opined if commissioners or other city personnel had done something like that, there would have been an incredible outcry from a City Councilor. He was bothered that a City Councilor would make a decision to make those kind of comments in an e-mail to the public. Mr. Belcher said given H.B. 3337 and the issues before the Planning Commission, this was time that public officials needed to work better together, not worse. He said the e-mail pushed the commissioners in the wrong direction. He said the commission had a motion on opportunity siting that probably had eight different perspectives from the City Council, none of which were as the motion was written. He said Councilor Bettman, the maker of the motion, had said the work done did not quite fit what she wanted originally. He encouraged the commission to take any decision points to the City Council for a vote of approval or disapproval so the commission knew it had a clear mandate to look forward, rather than having people “taking shots” at something the commission had not yet done. Although he thought a majority vote would be achieved, he did not believe there would be consensus on the part of the Council. He stressed the need to have clear and objective guidance from the Council to move forward. He iterated the importance of having the Council make a clear decision. Mr. Belcher expressed concern that the Neighborhood Leaders’ Council (NLC) had formed an in-fill subcommittee but was not looking at opportunity siting. Mr. Hledik said it was one councilor’s opinion and hoped Mr. Duncan would not make a rash decision, noting Ms. Piercy had thanked Mr. Duncan for his work. He expressed concern that River Road in-fill timeline decisions were slipping until fall 2008. It was imperative that the commission have substantive progress to take to the City Council this fall. Mr. Carroll expressed concern about in-fill progress and felt the first criticism would be why the process was taking so long. He said to have a judgment that was so disjointed from the product was almost irrelevant in terms of the commission’s work. He suggested discussing the need for transparency at the upcoming opportunity siting meeting. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:35 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc70611.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 6