Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Special Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue November 13, 2007 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Jason Dedrick, Lisa Garner, Ken Guzowski, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Heidi Beierle, Charles Kittleson, Steve Norris, Becky Riley, Dennis Sandow, Jolene Siemson, Miaya Sustaita, Rasor Park Mixed Use Center Citizen Advisory Committee members; Chris Watchie, Julie Fischer, Rasor Park Mixed Use Center Citizen Advisory Committee facilitators; Bob Buckner, Carl Roach, Mark Frohnmayer, Rob Handy, Pat Reilly, Carleen Reilly, Anastasia Sandow, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT REALTED TO RASOR PARK MIXED USE CENTER I. PROJECT UPDATE: RASOR PARK MIXED USE CENTER Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved to support the Rasor Park Citizen Advisory Committee recommendations for continued Mixed Use Center Planning in the Rasor Park Mixed Use Center Study Area with the current /ND overlay as the baseline. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 13, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Special Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue November 13, 2007 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Jason Dedrick, Lisa Garner, Ken Guzowski, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Heidi Beierle, Charles Kittleson, Steve Norris, Becky Riley, Dennis Sandow, Jolene Siemson, Miaya Sustaita, Rasor Park Mixed Use Center Citizen Advisory Committee members; Chris Watchie, Julie Fischer, Rasor Park Mixed Use Center Citizen Advisory Committee facilitators; Bob Buckner, Carl Roach, Mark Frohnmayer, Rob Handy, Pat Reilly, Carleen Reilly, Anastasia Sandow, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the meeting. Planning Commissioners, Rasor Park Mixed Use Center (MUC) Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), and the CAC facilitators introduced themselves. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT RELATED TO RASOR PARK MIXED USE CENTER There was no one wishing to offer public comment. I. PROJECT UPDATE: RASOR PARK MIXED USE CENTER Mr. Guzowski explained that Elizabeth Ledet, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Transportation Growth Management Grant Coordinator, had sent her regrets she would be unable to attend this evening’s meeting. Mr. Guzowski stated he had collaborated with Jason Dedrick on the project, and commended Mr. Dedrick for his work. Mr. Guzowski provided a brief history of the project, beginning in October 2006, noting the public participation element of the project offered an opportunity to do public participation differently and to do it well. He said the Commission was being asked to support, support with stipulations or not support the November 2007 Statement and Recommendations of the Rasor Park MUC Citizen Advisory Committee, included in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). Mr. Dedrick explained his role in collaboration with Mr. Guzowski was to lead the CAC process. He said the process had been very positive for staff, experiencing innovation in the public involvement process. He commended the facilitators, Julie Fischer and Chris Watchie, for their consulting and advising efforts. Mr. Dedrick reviewed the public involvement process, noting the CAC was a piece of that process. The CAC was intended to be a short duration, intensive, small group focus on a very specific question, i.e., MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 13, 2007 Page 1 should the project move forward. It was not intended to be an all encompassing, representative at public involvement, but rather a core group of citizens to help advice on where to go next and how to go about that. The group consisted of eight members, seven of whom were present tonight. The CAC attempted to represent the diversity of interests in the study area, including the River Road Community Organization (RRCO) and the Whiteaker Community Council (WCC), both of which were represented on the CAC. Mr. Dedrick said the CAC worked off a series of operating agreements identified early in the process, including protocols on discussions during meetings, interactions outside of meetings, consistent meeting attendance, not including alternates due to the time constraints of the process. The CAC used the concepts of the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) and leaned heavily on the public input received before the CAC convened as well as during the process. The CAC considered a market study and a transportation study prepared by consultants who presented to the CAC, and held a business open house at the Goodwill Industries retail store on River Road. Each week, staff responded in writing to all of the questions raised by the CAC at the previous weeks’ meeting. Mr. Dedrick reported the CAC did consensus voting at both the October 27, 2007 retreat and the November 1, 2007 meeting, on broad based recommendations to forward to the Planning Commission. Following the November 1 meeting, CAC members prepared the document before the Planning Commission tonight, Empowering Innovation: Vital Neighborhoods as Sustainability Engine, Statement and Recommendations of the Rasor Park MUC Citizen Advisory Committee, November 2007, a copy of which was included in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) for the November 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Exit interviews would be conducted with CAC members to look at what worked, what did not work, what might be done if the project moved forward, and thoughts for advisory committees the City would appoint in the future. Mr. Dedrick introduced CAC member Jolene Siemsen. Ms. Siemsen thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present the neighborhood vision for a MUC in the River Road neighborhood, as well as CAC members, the facilitators and staff for their efforts on the project. She offered an overview of the process detailed in the CAC Recommendation included in the AIS, noting unanimous support of the nodal development overlay, and iterated the steps proposed for the conservation and expansion of a vital neighborhood: • Create River Road Corridor Conceptual Design Plan. • Conduct a Greenway Enhancement Plan. • Develop a Neighborhood Sustainability Plan. Mr. Norris echoed Ms. Siemsen’s comments regarding the CAC members, facilitators and staff. He noted the CAC offered unanimous support for the recommendations. He provided a map showing the incorporated and unincorporated areas in River Road/Santa Clara. Mr. Norris suggested adding one statement to recommendation 5. Neighborhood Input, Participation and Empowerment on page 10 of the AIS: Conduct empowerment and consult planning processes with the property owners within the Rasor Park MUC. Consider approaching the R-2 and C-2 zones separately to make the process more manageable. The outcome would provide an assessment of issues and the level of the controversy involved. He encouraged identifying the opinion leaders and property owners in the River Road/Santa Clara area, to enable them to participate in development of the area. The City of Eugene was a stakeholder in the MUC and had been a good neighbor. He asked that the City of Eugene strive to include human rights in all of its programs. Mr. Sandow expressed appreciation for Mr. Norris’ involvement, noting he had walked the street and MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 13, 2007 Page 2 talked with all of the business owners, which was a fine example of public participation. He opined the recommendations prepared by the CAC writing team was a positive and visionary document and would serve River Road and the City of Eugene well. He noted there were fatal flaws in the beginning of the process, including flaws in the market and transportation analysis, as well as use of too few variables in the analysis. Mr. Kittleson stated although he had not participated in the initial study group, the market study was “from outerspace.” The group learned that the market had not delivered in other MUCs and perhaps could not be trusted. The community should be telling the market what to do. He explained the CAC members had an “off the record” meeting without staff, and reached consensus that new institutions were needed to turn things around to enable the neighborhoods to develop their visions and development plans, with the full support and cooperation of the City, after which the market could enter the process. Ms. Riley asserted there was no implied priority in the order of the recommendations. She said it would be hard to reach consensus in the community, noting change was hard to face. She emphasized the need to protect the greenway from too intrusive development and to provide a more functional neighborhood and pedestrian friendly River Road. Ms. Siemsen stated the CAC did not want a “cookie cutter” overlay or “cookie cutter” analysis, but rather wanted the unique needs and characteristics of the neighborhood to be taken into consideration, which had been reflected in the public input received. The greenway, river, and bikeways benefited all of Eugene. Challenges faced in River Road included pollution and economic concerns, and multi- jurisdiction oversight by the City and Lane County. She opined if the City failed to address human needs of the area, it would lead to further degradation of the neighborhood. Mr. Kittleson said the CAC collaborated well with City staff on the project. Flexibility with the nodal overlay would lead to continued collaboration. He thought the credit market crunch would impact the area for a long time, and said that the area would need help to underwrite credit for developing the area. Mr. Duncan thanked CAC members for participation for their hard work through a long process. He opened the floor to questions from Commissioners. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Ms. Riley said the CAC discussed floor area ratios (F.A.R) and height limits in the C-2 next to the river. Further discussions were needed before recommendations could be made regarding zoning and boundary requirements. Mr. Lawless was encouraged by the grassroots process used by the CAC and hoped the CAC members would stay engaged as the process moved forward. Ms. Kneeland appreciated the work of the CAC, noting it was impressive and visionary. She asked how the CAC dealt with dissention in the community and how it incorporated the differing opinions in its work. Ms. Beierle said it had been useful to have all of the public input previously accumulated available to the CAC to be able to integrate into the discussions. Mr. Kittleson said although the CAC was diverse in its politics and views, he was proud that the CAC reached consensus. It had approached the task from a perspective of good will for a new way of life. During the process, the CAC became militant about River Road and not wanting it to become something that was market controlled. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 13, 2007 Page 3 Ms. Siemsen said the CAC represented diverse voices and was interested in helping to guide development over the next 20 years. Mr. Sandow said conflict would occur in the future, and asked the Planning Commission for its commitment to support the recommendations. Using the consensus approach used throughout the CAC process, Ms. Siemsen noted consensus to accept the additional language suggested previously by Mr. Norris. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS RELATED TO RASOR PARK MIXED USE CENTER Mr. Duncan opened the floor to public comment. Rob Handy, 455½ River Road, reviewed the long history of the transportation issues in the River Road area. A key shift in the process that supported success with the current endeavor was a shift from market base to a neighborhood vision. It was important to integrate transportation, land use, sustainability and density elements. He cautioned the Planning Commission to take a lesson from the Chase node experience which resulted in large office use. He commended staff and the facilitators for their work on the process. Carl Roach, 394 Lombard Street, said he lived close to the Housing and Community Service Agency (HACSA). He was member of a group of neighbors with a great deal of angst that felt things were progressing too fast and they were not properly represented. After listening to the presentation tonight, he felt those feelings had been antiquated by the CAC. He reinforced the desire to have local input in the development of the MUC. He referred to two memorandums, a November 11, 2007 email to the Eugene Planning Commission from Lee De Veau, and a November 13, 2007 email to the Eugene Planning Commission from Candace Nelson that were distributed to Commissioners at the meeting. Anastasia Sandow, 123 Fir Lane, said she had read the document and noted it was very responsive to the needs, ideas and passions that have come from the River Road and Whiteaker neighborhoods. She said 200-300 neighbors who had attended the forums had been very responsible. She encouraged the Commission to endeavor to prevent the negative outcomes that occurred at the beginning of the process. Mr. Duncan said he was very impressed by the Rasor Park MUC CAC process. The task for the Planning Commission was to approve continuation of the project, modify the project or deny approval of continuation of the project. Mr. Guzowski said Ms. Ledet was apprised of the work of the CAC and had all of the written materials. Mr. Duncan stated one of the concerns with Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grants was the timeframe in which they needed to be used, and acknowledged the concern expressed tonight that a slower pace was needed. Mr. Guzowski suggested staff would negotiate with Ms. Ledet, who was aware that the timeframe issue was problematic. Ms. Ledet had been amenable to continuing with the CAC to develop a collaborative process to speak to property owners and get the project started. Ms. Gardner opined TGM grants were not a great source of funding to match the pace for MUC implementation. It may be possible to draft a scope amendment that would allow completion of a MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 13, 2007 Page 4 targeted task such as identification of next steps. The process rather than the funding should drive the timeline. Mr. Dedrick stated there were some items in the recommendation that were a suitable match for TGM funding, while others were more suited to other funding sources. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Siemsen said the CAC wanted to have some input into aesthetics of future development and understood establishing form based code would be a way to influence future development and facilitate work for a developer. Mr. McCown expressed his appreciation for the work and results of this CAC process. Mr. Duncan stated the Planning Commission was working diligently to incorporate the City’s Growth Management Policies in all of its work, and would appreciate it if any future recommendations on the Rasor Park MUC addressed those policies, with both positive and negative perspectives. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved to support the Rasor Park Citizen Advisory Committee recommendations for continued Mixed Use Center Planning in the Rasor Park Mixed Use Center Study Area with the current /ND overlay as the baseline. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Duncan thanked the Rasor Park CAC for its work. He encouraged the CAC to continue to be creative in developing recommendations. Mr. Guzowski thanked everyone for their good work and support for the project. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff None. B. Other Items from Commission None. The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc071113.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 13, 2007 Page 5