Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue February 26, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio, Denny Braud, Lisa Gardner, Terri Harding, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Paul Conte, Jerry Finigan, Majeska Seese-Green, Terry Connolly, Hugh Prichard, Zachary Vishanoff, Calvin Hall, guests. ABSENT: Jon Belcher. Susan Muir introduced Lisa Gardner as the new Planning Director. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Hledik nominated Mr. Duncan as Planning Commission President. On a vote of 7:0, Mr. Duncan was elected President of the Eugene Planning Commission. Mr. Duncan nominated Mr. Hledik as Planning Commission Vice President. On a vote of 7:0, Mr. Hledik was elected Vice President of the Eugene Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of September 26, October 3, 9, December 5, 2006 and January 8 and 29, 2007. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to approve the minutes from of September 26, October 3, 9, 2006, and January 29, 2007 as amended, and approve the minutes from December 5, 2006 and January 8, 2007, as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. II. UPDATE: INFILL STANDARDS AND OPPORTUNITY SITING Staff: Terri Harding, 682-5635 MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 1 III. WEST BROADWAY REDEVELOMENT RFQ Staff: Denny Braud, 682-5536 IV. OVERVIEW OF GREEN VALLEY GLEN PUD APPEAL Staff: Alissa Hansen, 682-5508 V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 2  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue February 26, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio, Denny Braud, Lisa Gardner, Terri Harding, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Paul Conte, Jerry Finigan, Majeska Seese-Green, Terry Connolly, Hugh Prichard, Zachary Vishanoff, Calvin Hall, guests. ABSENT: Jon Belcher. ELECTION OF OFFICERS PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Hugh Prichard, 2671 Emerald Street, introduced himself as a former Planning Commissioner. He came to the Planning Commission with hope and inspiration with photographs of a new development project in downtown Corvallis that contained almost all of the elements of a great public/private partnership, including ownership housing, commercial, retail, and a public agency in a combination of new construction and rehabilitation of existing structures. He said a similar project could not be built in downtown Eugene because the existing regulations would prohibit this development, just as they would prohibit Broadway Place, U.S. Bank Center, and 5th Street Market from getting permits today due to well intentioned, poorly written code. He asserted this year would be the year to undo the poorly written code through the amendment. He had spoken with city staff in Salem and Corvallis, and opined their codes were wonderfully better written than the City of Eugene’s, with the same intentions for dense, urban, compact growth, and mixed- use applications. He offered to provide a presentation to the Planning Commission on what he had learned through his research. Paul Conte, 1461 West Tenth Avenue, introduced himself as chair of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN), adding his comments reflected the adopted positions of the JWN general membership. He provided a written copy of his verbal testimony to Commissioners. He thanked those Commissioners who were able to attend the recent neighborhood summit. It was heartening to hear that those in attendance identified as one of their top three priorities was: ”Insuring that any increase in density in existing neighborhoods maintained the character and stability of the neighborhood.” He said residents had said repeatedly that incompatible infill was degrading and destabilizing many of Eugene’s neighborhoods at an alarming rate. Prompt and effective action was needed to protect neighborhoods from this blight. This concern had been expressed numerous times by the Neighborhood Leaders’ Council (NLC) during the past year. Furthermore, many residents spoke at the Planning Commission’s public forum in September 2006, requesting urgent action to stop the damage incompatible infill was causing. Citizens again demonstrated the desire to stem the damage caused by poorly sited, badly designed infill during MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 1 two public meetings addressing Land Use Code Amendment in December 2006 and January 2007. Mr. Conte said it was urgent that the Planning Commission revise the Draft Infill Compatibility Standards Project Goal to state the goal was to prevent negative impacts from residential infill when such impacts would threaten or diminish the stability, quality, positive character, and/or livability of established residential neighborhoods. Additionally, the Planning Commission should eliminate hedges in the current draft document, particularly the word “mitigate” which fell short of what the City Council had directed and what residents would support. He asked the Commission to revise the Citizen Involvement Plan to ensure maximum participation by residents. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, expressed his dismay at about the basketball arena because there was an overlap between what the City was doing with the Walnut Node and multi-way boulevard, and the arena. He asserted the project would tear the University of Oregon (UO). He suggested a broader public participation process for the arena. Jerrry Finigan, 1250 Irvington Drive, identified himself at the chair of the Santa Clara Community Organization. He said Eugene was currently facing the perfect storm in terms of land use planning. He said most of the neighborhood refinement plans were outdated and there were not resources were not available to update them. Demand for development had mushroomed. The City would not consider expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB) to respond to the demand. Residents who had felt the effects of unguided, increased density in their neighborhoods were being given greater voice in City decision making. He said the Planning Commission could either take a reactive mode and ride out the storm with the obsolete code, or use the opportunity to make changes. He asserted residents of River Road/Santa Clara were not opposed to dense development, but were opposed to treating all of Santa Clara the same. There were some areas that defined the character of Santa Clara and needed to be preserved and protected. The River Road/Santa Clara Urban Services Plan was no longer usable. It was essential that a new process be developed to meet the needs of the area. He urged the Commission to adopt a policy that would allow residents guide the Commission in those matters. Majeska Seese-Green, P.O. Box 11692, introduced herself as the chair of the Whiteaker Community Council (WCC). She seconded the comments of Mr. Conte and Mr. Finigan regarding infill compatibility standards. She distributed a handout from the WCC. It was important for neighborhood leaders be kept informed of the process in a manner that did not appear to be a struggle for citizen involvement. She stated there needed to be a way for citizen leaders to be able to work closely with staff. She noted Ms. Harding recently met with the WCC neighborhood association, but it was important for the neighborhood associations to collaborate and work together on citizen participation to prevent isolation of the neighborhoods. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of September 26, October 3, 9, December 6, 2006 and January 8 and 29, 2007. December 5, 2006 Study Session: Mr. Lawless offered the following corrections: Page 2, paragraph 2, sentence 1 should read: In Attachment B, pages 7 and 8, the titles of the proposed code language area listed as low to medium density, yet that phrase in the main body of MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 2 the test text is change from low to medium density to low density. Page 2, paragraph 5, should read: A question was submitted about the density difference between the current R-2 code density allowed in the density for the R-2 zone. December 5, 2006 Public Hearing: Mr. Hledik offered the following correction: Page 8, paragraph 9, should read: Mr. Hledik Duncan closed the public hearing. January 8, 2007, Regular Meeting: Mr. Hledik offered the following correction: Page 5, paragraph 1, sentence 4 should read: He said if the Planning Commission recommended an interim change to the City Council that the City Council understand the Commission was going beyond a “housekeeping fix” that was a policy change specifically in regard to the area north of the Amazon Channel. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to approve the minutes from of September 26, October 3, 9, 2006, and January 29, 2007 as amended, and approve the minutes from December 6, 2006 and January 8, 2007, as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. II. UPDATE: INFILL STANDARDS AND OPPORTUNITY SITING Ms. Harding provided the staff report. The Opportunity Siting and Infill Compatibility Standards subcommittees had been meeting since January 2007. Subcommittee documents were posted to the City website at: www.eugeneplanning.org. She said the Tools for Achieving compatible Density Opportunity Siting and Infill Compatibility Standards—Draft Citizen Involvement Plan (CIP) 2/15/07, developed by the subcommittees was also posted on the website, and suggested that the Commission discuss how citizen input would be solicited for the plan. Ms. Harding recorded and responded to comments and questions from Commissioners: • How were we currently getting input to the draft CIP? o Citizens were contracting staff directly. Staff planned to put a comment form on the website as requested by the Planning Commission. • Did we have a tight deadline on completion of the plan and would there be a deadline for public comment? Draft document did not carry weight; wants final document to be a living document. o There was not a deadline at the present. It was necessary for the Planning Commission to adopt the CIP, but it could evolve with the project. • Would comments from today’s meeting be added to the website or placed in a file? Language used that organized neighbor/community participation was a goal was inadequate. Not clear that the Planning Commission welcomed additional input and anticipated amending the CIP based upon that input. o Suggestions would be collected until the next consideration of the item by the Planning MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 3  Commission. Incremental changes to the website were not planned, but could be reconsidered. • Accumulation of incoming comments had a way of stacking up, and there was a value for Commissioners and citizens to see those comments throughout the process. o System could be developed for tracking comments. • What process timelines were before the Commission? o Draft timeline included in the CIP; need to be able to be flexible while making positive progress. • Agree to redraft the CIP following review by Planning Commission for final comment to be able to include comments made through the process? • Important to create timeline that reasonably allowed staff to meet with all neighborhood groups. How many groups have been contacted? o Seven groups have been visited, and the remaining twelve visits should be completed by the end of April. • Would prefer to conduct a comprehensive review of the running comments in the context of the original draft CIP. • Between phases two and three, need to look more closely at details. o Infill subcommittee had discussed this issue, noting there were issues that would be neighborhood specific and those that would cross neighborhoods. Assistance had been solicited from the Historic Review Board to better understand development patterns in the City. Issue workshops could be conducted across neighborhoods, because neighborhoods were political boundaries and not necessarily development boundaries. The topic would get much attention in phase two as issues and values, where they overlapped, and how an end product would be structured. • City Council put sunset on Jefferson Farwest amendment of July 2008 assuming infill standards would be in place. Need to move along more quickly. Dynamic process—need to get neighborhoods and other stakeholders involved to establish parameters on infill standards and opportunity siting. Liked getting comments as they came in. Need to do some type of survey. o City Council held a public hearing on the Jefferson Farwest Area 15 amendments on February 20, 2007. At that time, the Council suggested moving the sunset date out to January 1, 2009 to accommodate the CIP work. There was a window in the summer months where some time overruns could be recouped. • Possible to move on to Phase 2 and Phase 3 before all of Phase 1 was completed. • Moving on to Phases 2 and 3 while completing Phase 1 allowed for demystification of the process for groups that had not formally entered the process. • Appropriate to have target deadline for CIP review appropriate; should follow meetings with neighborhood groups and develop comment lists. • Hear similar themes from neighborhoods? o Every neighborhood was different, and there was a range of issues coming out in terms of both infill and opportunity siting through the neighborhood meetings. The process had great momentum and had been a heavy topic at the neighborhood summit. The level of chatter was increasing and would provide an opportunity for good conversations about not only the CIP but the projects as well. • It was critical for that growing excitement and understanding to come forward and be an available resource for others who may be interested. • These conversations may bring out common threads that could be addressed on a citywide basis. Other issues would be concerns on individual neighborhoods. • It was important to integrate the public comments into a draft to allow for subsequent comments by the public before it was voted on. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 4 • Add an online discussion forum to the proposed process. Summarizing the discussion, Ms. Harding said she would develop recommendation for the Planning Commission to consider for tracking comments. III. WEST BROADWAY REDEVELOMENT RFQ Denny Braud the purpose of his presentation was to bring the Planning Commission up to speed on responses received for a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the redevelopment of West Broadway. He said planning efforts that led up to the RFQ process included the 2000 Downtown Visioning, 2004 Downtown Plan Update, and the concept of great streets that emerged from these planning efforts. Broadway was one of the great streets identified in the Downtown Plan, while Broadway and Willamette Street was considered the city center. The Downtown Plan envisioned it as an area with density, activity and high quality urban design. He offered a PowerPoint presentation previously shown to the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) on Friday, February 23, 2007. Mr. Braud stated ERAC had recommended that staff move forward with the KWG and Beam proposals. Staff would go into discovery to clarify the proposals, and was scheduled to go to the City Council on March 12, 2007. Mr. Braud responded to questions from Commissioners and recorded their comments. IV. OVERVIEW OF GREEN VALLEY GLEN PUD APPEAL Ms. Hansen distributed copies of a document entitled, DECISION OF THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL FOR THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON—TENTATIVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT—February 9, 2007, the attachment to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) as well as the appeal and a portion of the file record. She explained the balance of the file record would be delivered to Commissioners by the end of the week. Ms. Hansen gave an overview of the proposed development to provide familiarity with the decision and appeal issues in preparation for a March 6, 2007 public hearing on the appeal. Additionally, the Planning Commission would hold a preparatory study session on March 5, 2007. She asked Commissioners to send any questions to her via e-mail so that she would be prepared to respond to them on March 5 or March 6. She reminded Commissioners that no new evidence could be submitted or considered on appeal. The Planning Commission decision would be based upon what was already in the record. Mr. Nystrom stated that the final date for a decision was the end of March. Ms. Hansen explained the purpose of the public hearing would be to take testimony on three assignments of error: • Appellant’s First Assignment of Error: The Hearings Official incorrectly concluded the application was not completed within 180 days of submittal, and therefore, incorrectly concluded standards enacted after the date the application was initially submitted applied to the application. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 5  • Appellant’s Second Assignment of Error: The Hearings Official incorrectly concluded the evidence submitted by Applicant’s engineering geologist did not demonstrate the Applicant can construct road improvement within the proposed areas of impact. • Appellant’s Third Assignment of Error: The Hearings Official incorrectly concluded development of the site bordered by two residential neighborhoods, and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power easement to the south, presented a wildfire hazard. In response to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Mr. Nystrom said the charge of the Planning Commission was to determine whether or not the Hearings Official erred on making the three assignments of error. Responding to Mr. Duncan, Mr. Nystrom stated although it was sometimes difficult at a public hearing to make determinations about whether or not testimony given was or was not part of the public record, the City Attorney would be present at the public hearing and subsequent deliberations to assist staff with that process. Mr. Nystrom stated the Planning Commission could uphold, modify or overturn the Hearings Official's decision. Mr. Duncan reminded fellow Commissioners that the appeal process was a quasi-judicial one, and cautioned them against having ex parte contacts through deliberation. Mr. McCown left at 1:15 p.m. Mr. Nystrom facilitated a discussion regarding how the March 6 public hearing would be structured, and the timing and agendas of Commission meetings to meet the statutory deadline of March 31, 2007. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Gardner said she had tentatively scheduled a follow up discussion on March 12 about the recent commission retreat and was preparing a document summarizing the retreat. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Hledik said he would miss the Opportunity Siting subcommittee meeting because he would be representing the Commission at the Airport Advisory Committee meeting. Mr. Duncan stated he was a member of ERAC and had attended the February 23, 2007 meeting and the West Broadway RFQ discussion. Mr. Carroll said the City Council was working on a method to create a fund to be able to respond to Ballot Measure 37 claims. He had been invited as a Planning Commission to serve on an MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 6 advisory committee to address this issue. Mr. Duncan said he was participating as a professional evaluator rather than a Commissioner. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:45 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc070226.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 7