Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Atrium Building, Sloat Room 99 West 10th Avenue October 15, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, members; Terri Harding, Steve Nystrom, Heather O’Donnell, Gabe Flock, Kurt Yeiter, Ken Guzowski, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Peggy Keppler, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney; Steve Graves, Mike Howard, Kate Kelly, Carleen Reilly, Rick Satre, Lauri Segel, Rob Zako, guests. ABSENT: Randy Hledik, Anthony McCown, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT I. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 16, 2007 Staff: Steve Nystrom, 682-8385 II. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 18, 2007 Staff: Heather O’Donnell, 682-5488 III. FINAL DRAFT REVIEW OF PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM Staff: Terri Harding, 682-5635 IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Atrium Building, Sloat Room 99 West 10th Avenue October 15, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, members; Terri Harding, Steve Nystrom, Heather O’Donnell, Gabe Flock, Kurt Yeiter, Ken Guzowski, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Peggy Keppler, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney; Steve Graves, Rob Handy, Mike Howard, Kate Kelly, Carleen Reilly, Rick Satre, Lauri Segel, Rob Zako, guests. ABSENT: Randy Hledik, Anthony McCown, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Carleen Reilly, a recent member of the River Road Community Organization, said she was overwhelmed by the land use regulations and activities that needed attention, citing several examples (she provided the text of her remarks). She felt that development in the River Road/Santa Clara area was out of control, leaving no time for the community to assimilate new people. She did not want taxes used on short-term infrastructure, and said help from the Planning Commission was needed to “slow the chaos” so the area could “find a vision of a livable community that we can be guided by.” She thanked the commissioners for their help. Rob Zako handed out written testimony, then summarized his thoughts about the Planning Commission’s 2008 work program: See the forest for the trees. He noted the effects of global warming and increased use of oil, then cited the increase in housing being built in areas near Eugene, even as the majority of jobs continue to be in Eugene. He said this greatly increased commuter traffic. Mr. Zako said there was no effective forum for regional planning, noting that the Region 2050 project was now dead and that the Metropolitan Policy Committee dealt with only part of the region, and focused on transportation planning, not land use planning. He listed several other things that would affect land use planning, including recent legislation and upcoming ballot measures. Mr. Zako concluded by saying that there was no shared vision for Eugene’s downtown, and that the City’s land use code was “broken.” At Mr. Duncan’s request, Mr. Zako said he would provide copies of his testimony to the City Council. Rob Handy agreed with Mr. Zako that recent legislation caused the Metro Plan to be MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 15, 2007 Page 1 inconsistent with what was happening “on the ground.” He said it would be helpful if draft ordinances would refer to the statutes they were meant to modify, to save a lot of research effort by concerned citizens. Mr. Handy spoke highly of the public participation around the infill compatibility standards process, and commended the Planning Commission and staff members for engaging the community. This contrasted, he said, with the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), which he felt did not appear to take public participation seriously. He provided the example of a poorly-attended MPC hearing about the Regional Transportation Plan. Mr. Handy said that making transportation decisions before land use planning was in place was putting the cart before the horse. He thought it was important to integrate transportation and land use, and urged the Planning Commission to make that a key component of their work plan. He thanked the commissioners and staff for their work in the metro community and wished the other partners “had half the energy that you all do.” Mr. Belcher remarked on last week’s session on opportunity siting, saying he was discour- aged by the lack of public engagement in that topic. He encouraged Mr. Handy to try to have both sides of the issue surface in the public so matters could move forward. Lauri Segel, appearing on behalf of Goal One Coalition, said the Planning Commission was their last hope, as the current situation was dismal. She agreed with the previous speakers about the need for coordinated land use and transportation planning, and felt the Regional Transportation Plan was being pushed forward ahead of Transplan and ahead of the metropolitan planning that was required. She said most transportation projects were looking for federal funding, and the authority that came with such funds “railroaded” local planning opportunities. Ms. Segel asked the commissioners to please find a way to incorporate the necessary transportation planning into their discussions about land use. I. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 16, 2007 Mr. Nystrom said there would be a public hearing about an ordinance dealing with the transition of annexation procedures, given the legislated demise of the Boundary Commission. A process needed to be put in place by January 1, 2008. Mr. Nystrom said he would review key features of the process of shifting annexation responsibility to the City and other key jurisdictions. As the shift involved state law, Emily Jerome of the City Attorney’s Office was present to comment on legal issues. The City Attorney was pulling together affected statutes to craft an ordinance that worked for Eugene and was consistent with state law. Mr. Nystrom noted that annexation policies and resolutions adopted by the Council would remain in effect, except for small changes required by state law. Mr. Nystrom reported that he had not received any written testimony for the following night’s meeting, so did not know how extensive the discussion would be. He said it was important to get the new procedures adopted and in effect prior to January 1, and that council hearing dates had been scheduled accordingly. He hoped the commissioners could deliberate at the October 16 meeting, but noted that they were scheduled for the following Monday to further deliberate and put forth a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Nystrom pointed out that while the Planning Commission would be involved in developing the ordinance, they would have no role in dealing with annexation requests. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 15, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Duncan asked what effect annexation requests would have on staffing requirements. Mr. Nystrom said there were 35 – 40 annexation requests per year, and administration was looking at the time and effort involved in processing these, along with a new fee structure. (The fees would not be a part of the subject ordinance, but were under a separate mechan- ism.) He added that funding previously received from the state for this process would be disappearing, thus creating an added burden for the City. The ordinance, at the discretion of the Council, would likely parallel the existing process, with a two-track process of expedited review as well as public hearings. Mr. Duncan asked why the Planning Commission would not be involved in annexation requests, as they involved land use. Mr. Nystrom replied that the annexation criteria were more cut and dried, as the Metro Plan was in place, so there was usually no question of whether an annexation could take place, but rather a question of could it be served. Ms. Kneeland asked that citations of relevant statutes be added to future reports, as Mr. Handy had requested. Mr. Nystrom said some issues involved a large number of statutes, but they would comply, to the degree possible. Emily Jerome said Chapter 199 governed the Boundary Commission activities, but with its being abolished, the new ordinance would fall into Chapter 222. She noted that there were numerous references in 222 to other statutes as well. Mr. Lawless asked for clarification about the impact of annexation procedures on City policy. Mr. Nystrom said the current effort involved getting the procedural steps in place, but that the Council could decide later that it wanted to review overall policies. He said the latter task would require significant resources. Ms. Jerome said that because the Council had always been a recommending body to the Boundary Commission, they had, over time, developed criteria for deciding to recommend or not recommend annexation or extraterritorial extensions. Some of those policies would be incorporated into the ordinance, but could be added to or changed. Mr. Belcher asked if Oregon cities with a population over 50,000 typically had planning commission involvement. Ms. Jerome said that smaller cities nearly always had their planning commissions involved; larger jurisdictions tended not to, as the statute said the final action had to be council action. In response to questions from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom and Ms. Jerome said that approval of annexation requests for non-contiguous property would depend on a variety of factors, and that they may be doing more annexation agreements that would take effect if the property became contiguous to the City. It was further clarified that the City would continue to do building inspections using the County-adopted version of the Eugene code. Mr. Carroll asked a number of questions that elicited the following information: ƒ The majority of parcels for which annexation was requested were under single ownership. ƒ The provision calling for a majority of the electors in an area to concur with the annexation came from state law. ƒ In order to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB) into or around another MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 15, 2007 Page 3  jurisdiction, an amendment to the Metro Plan would come to the Planning Commission, subject to prescriptive state laws and criteria around Goal 14. The ordinance under discussion applied only to land in the UGB. Ms. Kneeland noted that the ordinances reflected 222, but that the Metro Plan contained Boundary Commission language; she asked how the inconsistency would be rectified. Ms. Jerome said that while some of the language would be changed, the majority of references to “Boundary Commission” could be changed to “City.” Regardless, the Metro Plan would have to be updated. Mr. Nystrom said the principal effort was to ensure that policy decisions and direction were kept in place, and that references to the Boundary Commission would be cleaned up over time. Ms. Jerome noted that the Metro Plan did not set out prescriptive policies, so the need for updating would not be problematic in the short term. She added that they had not had any proposals from Springfield or Lane County regarding conforming language changes to the Metro Plan. Ms. Kneeland asked what provisions would be made for an appeal of a City Council decision regarding annexation. Ms. Jerome said any appeals would go directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Other questions produced the following information: ƒ If a private entity requests annexation, the City can consider street annexations as part of that application, within limits. ƒ Under the Boundary Commission, annexation could be requested for a non- contiguous territory; that will no longer be the case. ƒ There was recent legislation about “island annexations;” the City Council has indicated that it does not intend to do involuntary island annexations. ƒ A process exists to “un-annex” a property: a withdrawal of territory. It is very rarely requested. ƒ Requests for extraterritorial extensions were also rare, but need to be accounted for in the code, as they were previously handled by the Boundary Commission. ƒ The property owner was almost always the one to initiate a request; however, requests could also come from EWEB (Eugene Water & Electric Board). II. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 18, 2007 Heather O’Donnell of Planning & Development provided a brief summary of the agenda packet and approval criteria. She noted that the property in question was located on the east side of River Road and south of Hunsaker Lane. The site includes 7.3 acres north of Green Lane, which is the former Santa Clara Elementary School site, and 1.3 acres south of Green Lane. Ms. O’Donnell drew members’ attention to color maps provided by the applicant that showed general zoning, metro plan, and refinement plan, both existing and proposed. Ms. O’Donnell said the applicant was requesting the following: MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 15, 2007 Page 4  A Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 07-2) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram to re-designate approximately 7.3 acres of site north of Green Lane from Low Density Residential to Commercial, and to re-designate 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from Commercial to Medium Density Residential. A Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 07-1) to amend the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan land use diagram to re-designate approximately 7.3 acres from Government and Education to Commercial; to re-designate 1.3 acres from Commercial to Medium Density Residential; and to amend the refinement plan subarea text to include site specific development requirements. A Zone Change (City file Z 07-3) to rezone 7.3 acres from the existing zoning of PL and C-1, Public Land zone and Neighborhood Commercial zone, to C-2/PD/SR, Community Commercial zone with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays; and to rezone 1.3 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential zone to R- 2/PD/SR, Medium Density Residential with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays. Site review and planned unit development applications would be required later to actually develop the site with the proposed mixed use center. Ms. O’Donnell said the applicant included a conceptual site plan but noted that it was for reference only and was not part of the refinement plan amendments. Ms. O’Donnell reported that staff found the proposal met the quantitative requirements, such as compliance with the Goal 12 Transportation Planning Rule for appropriate traffic mitigation. However, it was staff’s opinion that the policy direction did not support the proposed amendments. Ms. O’Donnell further noted that the applicant had called attention to the staff report’s citing of previous Oregon Administrative Rules for compliance with Goal 9, the Economic goal. Since the commercial land study analysis was still relevant, Ms. O’Donnell said it would be moved to the section regarding analysis of refinement plans and would be brought to the public hearing. Ms. O’Donnell pointed out that the approval criteria for all the proposed applications were listed in full beginning on page 2 of the public hearing AIS. She reminded the members that their role was to provide the City Council with a recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny. Mr. Belcher recalled a Hearings Official decision in July regarding an application in the Jefferson West Side neighborhood that involved a conceptual drawing that staff had said was not applicable. However, the Hearings Official said it was, as what was planned should be part of the approval process. Mr. Belcher asked for an explanation. Gabe Flock said that it was a different situation in that it was a Type 2 application for a partition and that the criteria were very specific as to existing development. He said a proposal with a conceptual plan was typical of a policy-level planning action and would provide context to help inform the decision-making. Mr. Lawless asked for more detail about the purpose, intent and context of a conceptual site plan that was not a part of the land use action being requested. He wanted to know how it did or did not fit in, why it was there, and what they should be looking for, and why. Ms. O’Donnell said the applicant was trying to provide a graphic representation of the intent of their proposed text amendments. Mr. Belcher received clarification that an approval of the MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 15, 2007 Page 5 land use actions would not mandate adherence to a conceptual plan. Mr. Flock said the text was the important part for members to look at. If they wanted to add more specificity to the text, that would have to be part of the deliberation. III. FINAL DRAFT REVIEW OF PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM Terri Harding referenced charts and survey reports in the packet materials and handouts. She and Mr. Nystrom noted that the priorities shown on the first chart reflected priorities that had been identified by Planning Commission members, as well as some resource information. They noted that the chart reflected a near-final plan. There was some discussion of terminology, priorities, and the content and structure of the plan. Mr. Carroll wanted to include monitoring of the Willamette United Act legislation on the plan as a separate item, not under the “legislative tracking” section. Mr. Duncan thought that they had previously discussed developing a property inventory or data collection for City property pursuant to HB 3337 requirements. Mr. Nystrom said staff wanted to clarify the intent of the discussion. He understood that the suggestion was to have something beyond a full buildable lands analysis, to include commercial, industrial and residential properties, plus a comprehensive land inventory. Mr. Duncan preferred the term “property inventory,” with the idea of identifying older, decaying areas that could use assistance with redevelopment. He observed that they currently had no mechanism for determining where there was potential for redevelopment or mixed centers. Mr. Duncan also felt that natural resource lands should be included in the property inventory, resulting in a full land resource study. He provided some examples of the utility of such a study. Mr. Nystrom confirmed with the members that they supported such a comprehensive property inventory and analysis. Ms. Harding noted that there was existing property data; Mr. Duncan agreed, but said it was in several different places and thus was not useful for many types of analysis. He thought that gathering all the existing data into one place would be a good start at a useful database. Discussion ensued regarding compliance with HB 3337, the extent and timing of the proposed inventory, and how it should be presented to the City Council. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff There were no other items from staff. B. Other Items from Commission There were no other items from commissioners. Mr. Duncan adjourned the meeting at 1:17 p.m. (Recorded by Bernie Burson) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc071015.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 15, 2007 Page 6