Planning Commission

MINUTES Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium Building 99 West 10th Avenue—Eugene, Oregon March 29, 2010 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Heidi Bierle, Chair; Jeff Mills, Vice Chair; Randy Hledik, William Randall, Lisa Warnes, Jon Belcher, members; Planning Director Lisa Gardner; City Attorney Emily Jerome; Teri Harding, Carolyn Weiss, Lydia McKinney, Eugene Planning Division; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Mike Sullivan, Amanda Nobel Flannery, Community Devel- opment Division; and Sue Cutsogeorge, Finance Division. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, commissioner. Ms. Bierle called the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission to order. I. PUBLIC COMMENT George Brown reported that a Eugene City Council majority initiated an amendment process for the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan that the commission would hear about later in the meeting. He antic- ipated the possibility that if Council approves the amendment the decision might be referred to the ballot. Mr. Brown said that the amendment would increase the Plan’s spending cap by $16.15 million, $8 million of which would be directed to Lane Community College (LCC) for its downtown campus. He indicated he supported the LCC project but opposed the use of Urban Renewal Agency (URA) funds and preferred to see the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan sunset as scheduled on July 1, 2010. Mr. Brown noted that the project developer had later indicated to the LCC Board of Directors that the project was $8 million short, and he questioned how that gap would be filled given the City could not contribute more unless it rewrote the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan. He thought that such revisions would encounter public opposition. Mr. Brown asked if the funding shortfall envisioned was for the instructional building and noted that the plan also called for a dorm. He requested the financial package for both buildings, and questioned whether LCC was going to do two separate projects. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Referring to paragraph 5 on page 3 of the minutes of December 8, 2009, Ms. Bierle said the remarks attributed to Dan Terrell were unclear and asked that the recording be checked. Mr. Hledik said he was absent on January 11 and would abstain from voting on the minutes from that meeting. . Mr. Mills, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to approve the minutes of January 11, January 25, and February 8, 2010, as submitted. The motion on the January 25 and February 8 minutes passed unanimously, 6:0, the motion on the January 11, 2010, minutes passed 5:1:0; Mr. Hledik abstaining from the vote as he was not present at the meeting. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 29, 2010 Page 1 III. DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT UPDATE Ms. Nobel Flannery provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Amendments, which included background on the City Council decision-making process that led to the proposal to fund four projects, the Lane Community College Downtown Campus, Veterans Administration (VA) Clinic, infrastructure improvements to the Park Blocks for the Farmers’ Market, and support for the Broadway Place Garages and Downtown Safety Initiative. She provided details on each project. Ms. Nobel Flannery asked the commission to forward a recommendation on the amendment to the council. Ms. Bierle solicited commissioner questions. Mr. Hledik clarified with Ms. Nobel Flannery that staff proposed to use urban renewal funds to pay off the garage debt, and the Parking Fund could then dedicate those moneys to the General Fund for public safety. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Nobel Flannery indicated the commission did not have to act on the findings. City Attorney Emily Jerome noted that findings were being prepared for the council, and those could be provided to the commission. At the request of Ms. Warnes, Ms. Nobel Flannery reviewed the membership of the Eugene Redevelop- ment Advisory Committee. Ms. Warnes posited that the Downtown Urban Renewal District held surplus moneys. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that staff had estimated the amount over-collected if the council did not amend the Plan, which was about $3.3 million. She indicated that information was shared with and known by the council. Ms. Warnes asked if that money could be used. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the City had to raise the maximum indebtedness amount to use the funds. Mike Sullivan indicated that if the Plan was not amended, the moneys would be returned to the overlapping taxing jurisdictions, including the County, school districts, and the City itself. Ms. Nobel Flannery noted that the Plan was amended in 2004 by the City Council to include activities other than the library. Responding to a question from Ms. Warnes about the impact on other services if the amendment were adopted, Ms. Cutsogeorge referred Ms. Warnes to the information provided in the packet. Ms. Nobel Flannery said in regard to the schools, the State offset the impact from urban renewal. She estimated that School District 4J could receive an additional $20,000 per year, but the issue was complicated by the potential of compression from Measure 5. Mr. Sullivan concurred. He said compression could reduce that amount. Staff was still working on the calculations involved and would be presenting them to council in the next few weeks. Mr. Hledik noted the financial implications of other planning efforts and the advice the commission received that its purview did not extend to financial and fiscal impacts; because of that, he had been more focused on the projects in terms of their land use impacts and how they fit the goals and policies in the plan. He was not comfortable entering into a review of the fiscal impacts, and recommended the commission limit its purview to the land use aspects. Ms. Gardner concurred that was the appropriate framework. Mr. Randall declared a potential conflict of interest because he had a client with an interest in another site that the VA clinic could locate on. He did not think that impacted his decision making. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 29, 2010 Page 2 Mr. Mills referred to the expanded boundary area and acknowledged it was proposed to accommodate the VA Clinic. He asked how the group of properties in question was selected. Ms. Nobel Flannery indicated it was primarily the area owned by PeaceHealth. Mr. Mills noted land assembly was an option in the Plan and asked if it would be used for the VA Clinic. Ms. Nobel Flannery clarified that land assembly was included in the existing Plan but not part of the proposed amendment and would not be used for the VA Clinic. Mr. Belcher recollected hearing that were the VA Clinic not to locate on the site in question, it would be removed from the boundary and not included in the district. Ms. Nobel Flannery concurred. Mr. Belcher asked what would if the LCC project did not go forward. Ms. Nobel Flannery said the money would not be spent. Mr. Sullivan said the meeting referred to by Mr. Brown was a meeting in which the LCC Board of Directors received a feasibility report. The design was general and costs were based on that design. He anticipated that LCC would have the flexibility to change the design or get more money. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Mills, moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve the recommended plan. Mr. Hledik reiterated his belief that the commission did not have the authority, responsibility, or knowledge to go into the financial details of the plan. He planned to vote against the proposed motion but said he supported the types of projects being contemplated in the plan. Mr. Belcher withdrew his motion with the consent of his second, Mr. Mills. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved that the Planning Commission recommend council approval of the proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan amendment based on the commission’s review of the proposed new boundaries and the four new projects con- templated in the plan with respect to their consistency with the City’s land use policies. The motion does not include consideration of the financial aspects of the plan. Ms. Warnes said she supported downtown revitalization and the projects proposed, but did not support the urban renewal financing mechanism. For that reason, she would vote against the motion. The motion passed 5:1; Ms. Warnes voting no. IV. WALNUT STATION WORK SESSION Ms. McKinney provided the staff presentation on the Walnut Station Mixed Use Center (MUC), emphasizing the draft nature of the plan included in the meeting materials. She referred the commission to the Walnut Station Draft Form Based Code included in the packet and emphasized the form-based nature of the text, the height regulating plan, and the transportation element. She referred to a map of potential road improvements on page 10 and said staff was attempting to draft the code in a manner that created incentives for the development for the connections shown. She reviewed the reduction in parking and landscaping requirements proposed for the area. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 29, 2010 Page 3 Ms. McKinney reviewed the design/review process, a Type II application process focused on design. She noted that some elements were drawn from the Fairmount Area Plan, the neighborhood refinement plan. Ms. McKinney reviewed the amendments being proposed. She said staff would provide draft findings to the commission on the date of the public hearing, April 20. She anticipated the commission deliberations would occur about three weeks later, and a council hearing was scheduled for June 21. That hearing would be preceded by a council work session. Mr. Hledik commended the plan, saying that it took the City in a direction significantly different than the prescriptive code. He thought it had potential to create a harmonious new look along Franklin Boulevard. He asked the source of the code language. Ms. McKinney said staff relied heavily on other models but the majority of the work was done by scratch by the technical advisory committee, consultants, and staff. Mr. Hledik referred to the listed conditional uses and asked why the City would include any of them as conditional uses as opposed to prohibiting them outright. Ms. McKinney said the uses were currently permitted in C-2 with a conditional use permit, and the philosophy of the project was not to take away any current uses. She confirmed that a conditional use permit was required for structured parking over a certain height. Mr. Hledik determined from Ms. McKinney that structured parking was an outright permitted use. Mr. Mills commended Ms. McKinney’s work. He determined from Ms. McKinney that Fairmount Park would be rezoned to match its current Public Lands designation and use. Mr. Belcher asked if the plan included a provision to address bicycle traffic east of Walnut Street traveling east. Ms. McKinney noted that 15th Avenue was a bicycle path connection that ended at Franklin Boulevard. She said the plan did not include a proposal for any bicycle facilities on that side of Franklin Boulevard, although there were recommendations with regard to the bicycle east-west connection on the north side. She said one idea was to create a multi-modal path along the south side of the Millrace, but the proposal involved many properties and would be expensive to implement. That idea was retained as a recommendation, but staff was not requiring it in the plan. Staff was proposing a connection from where the path began to enter Garden Avenue, and the alignment for that connection would be determined in the Bicycle Master Plan update. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Inerfeld indicated there were no current plans to improve the bicycling experience along Franklin Boulevard but there was a regional vision for a bicycle path along the river. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was building a viaduct along the river that would accommodate that path. However, that path project was not yet funded or designed, so until it was completed bicyclists would still have to travel along the sidewalk along Franklin Boulevard. Mr. Belcher felt that was still challenging for bicyclists. Mr. Inerfeled concurred. He noted the limited space available for the City to work with. He invited more conversation with Mr. Belcher. Ms. Bierle asked what provision existed for covered bicycle parking to encourage year-round bicycling. Ms. McKinney said the existing code would govern that issue. She said staff proposed to increase the number of spaces as well as the number of covered spaces, but got feedback from TAC members that it would serve as a disincentive to development and was a fairness issue as well. Ms. Bierle asked how one would measure increased demand for covered bicycle parking. Ms. McKinney did not know. Ms. Bierle thought it would be nice if more such parking was available. Ms. McKinney said the commission could make that recommendation. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 29, 2010 Page 4 Mr. Hledik referred to the 150’ right-of-way of Franklin Boulevard and recalled that the commission was promised a diagram to see how that impacted existing uses. Ms. McKinney recollected that staff had shared that with the commission in November and indicated she would send it out again. Mr. Hledik said that 10-1/2 foot wide travel lanes seemed skinny. Mr. McNeel acknowledged the standards for arterials was 11 feet but indicated the City had 10-1/2’ lane widths in other areas, such as on Agate Street, which was an arterial, and on segments of Hilyard and Patterson streets. Mr. Hledik expressed concern because of the fact that Franklin would still be a major street traveling through the area. He pointed out the sidewalks were wider than the street lanes. Mr. Hledik looked forward to public testimony on the topic. He asked if the proposed canopies were intended to cover the sidewalk on Franklin Boulevard. Ms. McKinney said that for a canopy to project over a right-of-way, one had to have an irrevocable permit. Where canopies were shown, they were depicted on private property. Mr. Hledik determined from Ms. McKinney that the right-of-way included the sidewalk. Mr. Hledik questioned how the reduction in parking standards compared to the standards recently adopted for the adjacent residential neighborhood to the south and west. He wanted to ensure that everyone had a full appreciation of what could happen so that issue did not come up again. Ms. McKinney did not characterize the neighbors as happy with the proposal but believed they were comfortable with the proposed parking reduction. There were still some concerns. She believed that if the City saw a lot of housing construction with inadequate parking the City would hear concerns expressed soon, and she hoped that the code would be easy to review and amend. Ms. Harding indicated that there was no correlation with bedrooms in the MUC, so ratios would be significantly lower. Ms. Gardner suggested that the MUC differed from those areas in that it was located on an EmX route and there was an expectation residents would be less car-dependent. Mr. Hledik suggested students might opt to live in apartments in the MUC as well. Mr. Hledik asked if the City defined what a family was, as it spoke to the issue of the number of people living in a unit. He suggested staff might want to consider that issue. Mr. Mills agreed with Mr. Hledik that Franklin Boulevard was a major travel corridor with intermixed automobile and truck traffic. He was very concerned about the proposed lane reduction to 10-1/2 feet. Mr. Mills was also skeptical about the parking requirements given the high demand in the area. He suggested that it was wishful thinking to believe it would work. He pointed out the community did not know what it would actually experience when the arena was completed and more high-density residential development built. Mr. Randall commended the work of Ms. McKinney and expressed appreciation for the idea of a form based code as he believed it would help achieve more diversity in development. He thought the area in question a good place to try the concepts out as he thought they would work there. Ms. Warnes shared the concerns about parking and street widths expressed by Mr. Hledik and Mr. Mills. Mr. Belcher said he supported a requirement for continuous awnings along the sidewalks to encourage walking in the rain. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. McKinney said there was a three-story maximum for buildings along 15th Avenue and the Millrace, and that was illustrated in the section drawings. She referred him to page 8 of the Agenda Item Summary, which demonstrated Height Standard D. Mr. Belcher asked if page 22 of the Agenda Item Summary should be amended to make specific reference MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 29, 2010 Page 5 to the appeal process contemplated. Ms. McKinney agreed that might be beneficial. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik about the illustrations showing the window coverage for upper floors, Ms. McKinney said she was assured the depiction represented a 25 percent coverage area, although she agreed the illustration appeared to show more coverage than that. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik about façade articulation, Ms. McKinney indicated that there would be three percent building articulation every 100 feet for structures along the public right-of-way. A door would satisfy the requirement. She said that percentage was taken from the current code, and was triggered for large buildings over 50,000 square feet. Mr. Hledik hoped to hear more from architects about that requirement at the public hearing as he thought such articulation was critical to breaking up the mass that would otherwise exist. Ms. McKinney reported that the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) was doing a “test run” of the code.. Responding to a question from Ms. Warnes, Ms. McKinney said the building setbacks applied to the Millrace, which was a Goal 5 resource. Those setback requirements were already in effect, and were 40 feet from the top of bank and applied only to properties not developed. She reminded the commission that properties already developed to the edge of the Millrace did not have to comply with the setback, even if they redeveloped. V. ENVISION EUGENE UPDATE Ms. Weiss and Ms. Jerome provided the update. Ms. Weiss reviewed the timeline for Envision Eugene and described the scope of the public involvement process. She anticipated frequent check-ins with both the commission and council. Ms. Jerome discussed the legal requirements associated with the process as they related to Statewide Goals 9 (Economic Development), 10 (Housing), and 14 (Urbanization). She said Goal 14 mandated that the City must have sufficient land to accommodate 20 years of its needs for housing and employment within its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). How a jurisdiction regulated the use of land determined the amount of land available. The City was obliged to prepare a housing needs analysis and an economic opportuni- ties analysis, and Eugene had done that through the Eugene Comprehensives Lands Assessment (ECLA), which provided demand numbers based on a 20-year population. Continuing, Ms. Jerome said the City must determine how much need it could accommodate within its current boundary based on current density regulations, and if was insufficient without changes to current regulations, it must look toward an expansion of the UGB. She said it appeared that Eugene would lack sufficient land to meet the 20-year demand, and suggested that it was likely the City would look at a combination of actions that included additional densification inside the current UGB as well as an expansion of the UGB. She said that Eugene had already done a great deal to encourage densification and she anticipated it would be more challenging for the commission to find new measures to increase density. However, staff was working on measures now. Ms. Jerome said that Envision Eugene was the community’s opportunity to decide how it wished to grow in the future and determine where expansion was necessary if that among the choices made. State law provided for the community to look at “efficiency measures” intended to increase densities, such as mandating small lots, providing for financial incentives, and allowing for changes in land use designations. She cautioned that the City must be able to demonstrate that the efficiency measures would work. She said MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 29, 2010 Page 6 many variables were involved, and some of the variables were quite technical. Ms. Jerome referred to the flow chart in the meeting packet, saying it would be triggered by the council’s acceptance of ECLA, and she could answer questions about it a future work session. Mr. Hledik asked if code changes would be needed. Ms. Jerome indicated it would depend on the efficiency measures that the City contemplated. For example, higher buildings to accommodate more density could require code amendments. Ms. Jerome said the City was in continual conversation with the State about what was necessary, and the process was evolving. Other Oregon communities, including Springfield and Bend, were going through the same process, and the City was following the processes in those communities for what it could learn. Mr. Randall asked if something like Walnut Station could have an impact on the amount of residential lands that were needed, if the community could assume the percentage of residential demand associated with the form-based code. Ms. Jerome suggested that Walnut Station could be considered an efficiency measure. Staff would quantify the impact and if it believed the MUC would increase overall densities, that would be accounted for. Mr. Hledik asked if opportunity siting could be a consideration in determining what direction the community went. Ms. Jerome said yes, depending on the timing involved Mr. Mills envisioned that opportunity siting was a potential efficiency measure, and he questioned how much of a number the City could assign to that given the criteria that must be addressed and the fact it must be lived with for 20 years. Ms. Gardner reiterated Ms. Jerome’s point that such measures could not be merely aspirational; their benefit must be demonstrated. She did not think the City could assign densities that were incompatible with the work it had done. She said the work would be challenging. Mr. Belcher asked what one did with a plan for mixed use centers but only a few had been implemented; did that force the council to establish those centers? Ms. Gardner observed that the City had been in recent discussion with the State on the topic and said she would get back to the commission with the results of that discussion. Ms. Jerome added that staff was talking to the State to determine if a promise to do something could impact the numbers. She said that based on her reading of the law, the answer was probably not, but she had questions based on her observations of other jurisdictions. VI. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Gardner had no items. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Mills provided an update on the work of the Historic Review Board, noting that members had expressed concern about the lack of meetings and the potential a listening session would be scheduled. He offered to share those communications. Ms. Bierle thanked Mr. Brown for attending the meeting and encouraged commissioners to be in touch with their councilor ‘buddies.’ MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 29, 2010 Page 7 Ms. Bierle said that the chairs of the Sustainability Commission and Planning Commission met to discuss how the two commissions could work together in the public process for Envision Eugene and about a working group to investigate the triple bottom line tool. Mr. Belcher asked about the committee to be formed to examine the EmX process. Ms. Bierle said that work on that was in process. Ms. Harding announced a commission opening on the UO/City of Eugene Liaison Committee. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 29, 2010 Page 8