Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Special Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Atrium Building—Sloat Room—99 West 10th Avenue August 29, 2007 5 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Cathy Corliss, Angelo Planning Group; Paul Conte, Marilyn Moore, Jerry Finnegan, Bob Lorenzen, Charles Snyder, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. I. MINOR CODE AMENDMENTS: SELECTION OF PRIORITY AMENDMENTS MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 29, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Special Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Atrium Building—Sloat Room—99 West 10th Avenue August 29, 2007 5 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Cathy Corliss, Angelo Planning Group; Paul Conte, Marilyn Moore, Jerry Finnegan, Bob Lorenzen, Charles Snyder, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan called the meeting to order. I. MINOR CODE AMENDMENTS: SELECTION OF PRIORITY AMENDMENTS Staff Report Mr. Nystrom provided an overview of the code amendment process and agenda materials. He distributed written public comments regarding stormwater issues that were received after the staff report was prepared. He said the purpose of the meeting was to identify the amendments to move to the next phase of the process, which would include preparation of white papers on each amendment. He said the commission would then review the white papers, discuss the amendments in greater depth and determine which amendments staff would develop formal code language for. Ms. Corliss provided a synopsis of the rating process used to develop the list of 22 potential amendments. She pointed out that the comments section in the table of amendments identified closely related issues that had been separate items on the original list of over 200 items, but could be covered in the white paper for a particular amendment on the refined list. She also noted some redundancies in the list and said it could be further refined to a list of 18 items. She emphasized that being on the list only meant that a white paper would be developed and the amendment concept would be studied further; the commission would then give directions to staff regarding developing formal code language. She said the commission could add or delete items on the list, but if new items were added it might be necessary to remove some current items to accommodate the process within existing resources. Mr. Nystrom pointed out that an item suggested by the council related to dogs and kennels was not on the priority list of 22 amendments and his staff report pointed some amendments identified by the Neighborhood Leadership Council (NLC) as high priority that were likewise not on the list. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 29, 2007 Page 1 Planning Commission Discussion Mr. Duncan called for a discussion by the commission that would give staff direction on the development of white papers for amendments. He thanked the commission and the public for their work on the 230 items originally considered. He said it was likely that there would be more items in the future and intended to suggest in the commission’s work plan and joint meeting with the council that more resources were needed to effectively address the code amendment process in the future. Mr. Duncan indicated he supported the list as presented and recommended adding those items on page 3 of the staff report that could be merged with other issues on the list and done within the current resources. Mr. Hledik asked if white papers could be produced for the list of 22 items, related items in the footnote on page 8 and additional priority items on page 3 within the resource constraints. Ms. Corliss replied that it would be possible to summarize all of those items into 18 white papers. Mr. Hledik asked how those items identified as related in the comments section of the table would be handled. Ms. Corliss said some of the closely related items could be handled within the white paper on that issue; others represented a substantial amount of work that would need to be undertaken as a separate project. Mr. Nystrom confirmed that some of the related items represented a substantial amount of work and were not included on the list for white papers. Mr. Hledik asked for clarification on how stormwater issues would be handled. Ms. Corliss explained that the process would look at conforming amendments and related issues in the white papers. She said, for example, even if the impact of a change in definition was not pointed out as an issue that would be addressed in the white paper. Mr. Hledik was pleased that the Planning Commission and NLC were in agreement on so many issues, but concerned that the requests from Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) and the Home Builders Association of Lane County were not included on the list of issues for further consideration. Mr. Nystrom said there was some uncertainty regarding the impact of EWEB’s request and determining any unintended consequences amid the many other amendments being considered was a large and complex task beyond the scope of the current process. Mr. Hledik asked if EWEB’s issue could be included with the infill compatibility standards. Mr. Nystrom said that possibility had been discussed with EWEB. He said another possibility was including it in the sustainability initiative. Ms. Gardner said there were several options for addressing EWEB’s request, including many of the council and mayor’s goals regarding sustainability. She said that it could be the subject of a recommendation to find the right place for the issue. Mr. Nystrom explained the City adopted needed housing standards to comply with State mandates and adoption had involved considerable time to address complex policy issues; opening the issue would raise those same policy issues and require a more intensive effort than the current process could accommodate. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 29, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Duncan agreed that the EWEB issue was too large a project to include in the process, but asked staff to coordinate with EWEB and schedule a work session for the commission on the issue. Ms. Kneeland stated that she generally supported the list, but had some concern that the flag lot and alley access amendments also represented significant policy issues. She was less inclined to move those items forward until they had been looked at within the context of infill standards and opportunity siting and policies was more developed. Mr. Duncan asked that the white paper address Ms. Kneeland’s concerns. Mr. Belcher observed there were eight items on the list related to infill and wondered if it was wise to begin the infill process with those items without looking at all of the issues at the same time. Mr. Hledik said he was comfortable having white papers prepared on those items to initiate the process. He said the white papers would not lead to a conclusion and the commission could always suspend its consideration until a later date. He felt it was important to begin the process because those issues were a priority with the NLC. Mr. Nystrom said the white papers would identify related issues and decision points. Mr. Lawless asked for clarification of the request to include Laurel Hill Creek in items 204 and 206. Mr. Nystrom said Item 206 was put forward in an attempt to emphasize onsite filtration as a preferred alternative. He noted that recent stormwater standards allowed developers a menu of choices. He said the item was intended to encourage filtration. He Item 204 was a more comprehensive look at the combined effect of the stormwater ordinance and design manual and would add best management practices around natural and open waterway designs. He said the resources required for Item 204 were outside the scope of the minor code process. He noted there were other ongoing efforts related to the issue. He said whether it related to a specific geographic area or was citywide was another question that would need to be resolved. Ms. Corliss said the white paper would consider all of those issues. Mr. Hledik asked if Item 35 could be added to the list of items for which white papers would be developed. Mr. Nystrom said it could be added but would need to be limited in scope in order to be manageable and only dog-related issues would be addressed. Mr. Duncan determined there were no objections to the inclusion of Item 35 if it did not hinder work on other code amendments. Mr. Belcher proposed adding to the list a modified version of Item 114 as follows: “Require meeting with neighborhood association prior to submitting initial development application for significant projects.” He distributed the revised language and an excerpt from the City of Albany’s code as an example. Ms. Corliss agreed the item was an important one and said it was not on the initial white paper list because of the many complex logistical issues that would have to be addressed in a code amendment, including timelines, notification, meeting and responsibility requirements. Mr. Hledik asked if the item would fall within the subject of incentives and alternate path related to infill compatibility and opportunity siting. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 29, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Belcher said he did not see it was being directly related to all opportunity siting, although it could be included when appropriate. He said the intent was to require developers to meet with neighborhood associations and submit notes of the meeting along with the initial development application for projects of a certain magnitude. Ms. Gardner noted the item emerged as the highest priority from the neighborhood summit. Mr. Nystrom said that a white paper could be developed on requiring developers to avail themselves of neighborhood meetings as a vehicle for discussion of a project. Mr. Duncan determined there were no objections to including the item proposed by Mr. Belcher to the list for white paper development. Mr. Duncan invited comments from the public. Public Comments Paul Conte, 1461 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, appreciated the commission’s work and felt the white paper list was balanced. Regarding Ms. Kneeland’s concern about taking a policy direction on flag lots and alley access only lots, he said none of the items on the list would establish or change policy. He said one of the items would correct the definition and clarify the code’s current ambiguity about allowing flag lots in R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones. He said the larger issues should be addressed during the development of infill standards. He said that the council’s prohibition of alley access was well documented but the code language implementing the prohibition was ambiguous. The amendment would clarify language but not change policy. Marilyn Mohr, 1085 North Park Avenue, Eugene, was pleased that infill issues were included on the list. She spoke in favor of Item 92, which would exclude the square footage of private roads from the square footage of lots. She said that was allowed under the current code and it had the effect of reducing lot size below the minimum of 4,500 square feet. She said that created greater impacts on neighbors and also increased the amount of impervious surface, which increased the stormwater impact. She said it also created parking hazards. She said more developers were beginning to propose bioswales and onsite filtration and that was a good first step. She said code amendments proposed by Becky Reilly would take that a step further and encourage more developers to use that approach. Jerry Finnegan, 1250 Irvington Drive, Eugene, Santa Clara Community Organization, spoke to Item 209. He said a major concern in the Santa Clara area was development that intentionally or unintentionally disturbed drainage ways and caused flooding of neighbors’ yards during storms. He said other efforts to address the problem, such as the basin study, were under way but not likely to be completed soon. He thanked Mr. Belcher for including the item related to requiring developers to confer with neighborhood organizations. Bob Lorenzen, EWEB, said it was important to examine the solar access ordinance as the changes made under the land use code update (LUCU) process only guaranteed building height as opposed to providing some guarantees for solar access. He said the EWEB proposal was intended to stay within the scope of minor amendments, but understood the larger implications related to densities and infill. He said EWEB would be very willing to have a work session because the energy situation had changed dramatically since LUCU and MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 29, 2007 Page 4 the demand for the new solar electric technology was increasing. Charles Snyder, 990 West 12th Avenue, Eugene, said it was satisfying to watch the minor code amendment process reach another milestone and urged the commission to weigh the interests and wishes of the hundreds of Eugene residents who shared their concerns, especially the neighborhood associations and the NLC. Planning Commission Comments Mr. Duncan asked staff to schedule a work session with EWEB and provide a briefing on Item 204. Mr. Belcher commented that since 1998 the commission had been remiss by not determining how code amendments affected the City’s growth management policies. He said the commission was required to consider the impact on growth management policies when considering zone changes and asked staff to propose a method for doing that. He noted that the policies were not to be used for individual land use applications. Mr. Duncan supported Mr. Belcher’s request and noted the commission frequently discussed how land use issues fit within the growth management policies. Ms. Corliss said that white papers would include a section on compatibility with growth management policies. Mr. Belcher suggested the section could address whether the amendment affected neighborhood quality or the urban growth boundary. Ms. Gardner said a work session to update the City Council on the process had been tentative scheduled for September 24. Mr. Belcher asked that the white papers also identify any policy implications. He noted that public comments about the commission’s work on the hospital code had been uniformly positive. Mr. Hledik reported on an airport plan update meeting. He said the subject was improvements to the airport. He noted that the airport was outside of the urban growth boundary and the City’s code did not apply. Ms. Gardner announced there would be a commission discussion of the 2007/08 work plan update on September 10, 2007. She noted that the City was currently recruiting applicants for vacancies on boards and commissions. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 6:25 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 29, 2007 Page 5