Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Eugene Planning Commission Special Meeting Campbell Senior Center—155 High Street July 12, 2007 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, John Lawless, Jon Belcher, Randy Hledik, Phillip Carroll, members; Lisa Gardner, Kurt Yeiter, Steve Nystrom, Planning Division; Cathy Corliss, Angelo Planning Group, Doug Zenn, facilitator; members of the public. I. PLANNING COMMISSION ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION: MINOR CODE AMEMDMENTS MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2007 Page 1 Round Table Discussion  MINUTES Eugene Planning Commission Special Meeting Campbell Senior Center—155 High Street July 12, 2007 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, John Lawless, Jon Belcher, Randy Hledik, Phillip Carroll, members; Lisa Gardner, Kurt Yeiter, Steve Nystrom, Planning Division; Cathy Corliss, Angelo Planning Group, Doug Zennn, facilitator; members of the public. I. PLANNING COMMISSION ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION: MINOR CODE AMEMDMENTS Mr. Duncan called the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission to order. Mr. Zenn introduced the agenda for the meeting: I. Opening Presentation II. Top Priorities III. Selections IV. Discussion/Revisions I. Opening Presentation Ms. Corliss provided the opening presentation, noting the background for the minor code amendments process, the purpose of the project, which was to address issues raised by community members, and project tasks. She noted the establishment of the code amendments library, which included more than 200 suggestions; that list must be narrowed to a manageable list of approximately 15 to 20, and a white paper would be prepared for each proposed amendment. Ms. Corliss indicated that several groups had been solicited for their top priorities as a means to narrow the list. Ms. Corliss emphasized that all the suggested changes were important to those who proposed them, but it was necessary to narrow the list to get the “most bang for the buck.” Ms. Corliss called attention to the annotated library of code amendments prepared by staff and the criteria used by staff to assess the proposed amendments. The consultants had identified the reason for the proposed change, the complexity of the change, the operational costs involved, the resource level required to make the change, related projects, and whether the proposal was put forward by the Eugene City Council. Ms. Corliss noted the sheets listing each proposed code amendment mounted on the meeting room wall and indicated that the priorities already identified by the groups that were solicited for their priorities and the suggestions of the City Council were identified as such already. She proposed the commission participate in a dot exercise to indicate its top 15 priorities; MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2007 Page 1 Round Table Discussion alternatively, the commission could review the list of priorities already identified to winnow the list and e-mail its preferences to staff. Ms. Corliss reviewed next steps, which included a council check-in, the preparation of the white papers, another round table to discuss the white papers, followed by the commission and council public process. Paul Conte, a member of the audience, raised a concern about the fact that people were not informed they could submit priority lists and the inequity that created. Mr. Zenn acknowledged the process imperfections. Mr. Hledik wanted the public to know that even if an item was selected, there was no guarantee a code amendment would result. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Corliss explained that items identified in Category C required considerably more process and outreach than the commission had time for this year. Mr. Duncan asked what would happen if an item listed as a Category C item was selected. Ms. Corliss indicated a white paper would be done and it could be that the item could be accomplished more simply; if that was not the case, it was likely the item would fall off the list. She recommended that the commission keep in mind the limited white papers that could be done and the fact that a white paper for an undoable item might displace a white paper for a doable item. Mr. Duncan asked the commission should consider having a process that allowed it to replace an item removed from the list with another item. Ms. Corliss thought by the time that occurred, it would be late in the process and the division would be running out of money. Mr. Nystrom concurred. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Corliss reiterated that there was time for only 15 to 20 white papers. Mr. Belcher suggested a preliminary analysis of each item be performed before the white papers were done. Ms. Corliss said the work would be in the research and she did not think the suggestion would save time or money. She had initially thought that 15 papers would be the maximum, and in the end the staff team and consultants agreed on a cushion that allowed for up to 20 white papers. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom said he believed if there was low-hanging fruit that could be identified fairly early in the process. Mr. Lawless asked what type of process filters each candidate would be put through and if there was a way to shorten the process. Ms. Corliss said that staff would try to identify if there were different ways to accomplish what was desired, conforming amendments that might be needed to avoid conflicts, the pros and cons of doing what was proposed and the unintended consequences of what was proposed. Mr. Lawless asked how the commission could sort out those items that were community and policy based. Ms. Corliss suggested that the groups solicited for their priorities had identified those items with the most benefit that were still doable. Members of the audience asked questions clarifying the process and suggesting improvements. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan about whether items could be added, Ms. Corliss said that staff had collected the items that came in late and made them available. The commission or council could choose to move one of those suggestions forward if they wished. She pointed out that the process was public and ideas could come up at any time. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2007 Page 2 Round Table Discussion Mr. Hledik asked the difference between the resources needs for white papers in Category A as opposed to Category B. Ms. Corliss did not think there would be much difference in regard to resources, but she thought the Category B items might be more complicated to get to the end of the process. Mr. Nystrom said Category B included a wide range of issues and the items in the category included more variables to deal with. Some of the items were very complex but they could be doable. He envisioned a majority of the items addressed through the process would be in Category A with some Category B items. II. Top Priorities Mr. Hledik asked how many people wished to submit priority lists. Several people in the audience indicated interest in submitting lists. Mr. Belcher recommended that people be allowed to indicate their priorities during the priority setting exercise. There was general concurrence. Mr. Zenn highlighted the priorities identified by individuals and groups to this point as well as the items referred to the process by the City Council. He solicited additional priorities from the audience, which staff checked on the list. David Hinkley, on behalf of the Friends of Eugene, identified the group’s priorities related to downtown items: 60, 216, 217, 87, 171, and 53; related to one-year waiting periods: 1, 2, 3, and 116; related to permit alley access parcels: 49, 5; related to early neighborhood input into application process: 114; related to land use appeal fees: 123, 189, 166, and 195; related to traffic impact analysis: 54; related to tree cutting: 119, 117, 160, and 162; related to residential parking requirements: 41, 42, 185, 192, and 229; related to solar access: 82, 127, and 190; and related to the manner in which refinement plan policies were incorporated into the Land Use Code: 143, 145, 146, 168, 170, and 172. Roxie Cueller, on behalf of the Lane County Homebuilders Association, identified item 149 as a priority and added an item calling for specific criteria for needed housing; and recommended the deletion of code sections 9.8520(5) and 9.8325(5) related to proposed grading on development site related to 20 degree slopes, which prevented the installation of utilities in some instances. Theresa Bishow of Arlie and Company identified items 95, 96, 155, and 188 as priorities for her firm. On behalf of the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) and himself, Mr. Conte identified items 136, 137, 139, 143, 227, 104, 123, 195, 14, 26, 31, 102, 110, 221, 222, 226, 30 and 103 as an integrated set, 229, 21, 205, 118, 168, 170, 172, 124, and 137. Responding to a question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Conte indicated the difference between the list submitted by the NLC and the list he just recited was that the NLC list was a highly recommended subset of a larger list of items developed by a subcommittee of the NLC, and the list he offered included the whole group. Deborah Brewer of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) identified an immediate need in regard to commercial solar rooftops and suggested that item 127 be amended to be specific to that, which could drop it from Category C to Category B. Ms. Corliss concurred, and adjusted the category to C/B. Suzanne Meininger had additional priorities to suggest: 5, 53, 97, 196, 197, 173, and suggested gray water as an item. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2007 Page 3 Round Table Discussion “Drix” identified 21, 23, 39, 41, 42, and 43 as priorities for the West University Neighborhood. Rob Handy added item 204 to the priority list and endorsed the inclusion of 206, 209, and 177. Mr. Hledik determined that staff continued to have concerns about the level of complexity related to the items that the NLC requested be changed in category. III. Selections This item did not occur. IV. Discussion/Revisions Commissioners discussed next steps and how to proceed with the narrowing of the list. After an extensive discussion of possible approaches, the commission agreed to rank the items identified as priorities in all three categories as High, Medium, and Low and provide that information to staff electronically. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2007 Page 4 Round Table Discussion