Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue May 17, 2010 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, William Randall, Members; Lisa Gardner, Lydia McKinney, Steve Ochs, Carolyn Weiss, Planning and Development Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney; Mark Schoening, Public Works; John Barofsky, Llyod McEntire, Kevin Matthews, Josh Reckord, Jared Mason-Gere, Zachary Vishanoff, Chris Ramey, Cotter Millehrer, Sarah Murff, David Sonnichsen, guests. ABSENT: Lisa Warnes, member. I. PUBLIC COMMENT II. ENVISION EUGENE TIMELINE PROPOSAL Commissioner Jon Belcher III. WALNUT STATION MIXED USE CENTER DELIBERATIONS Staff: Lydia McKinney, 541-682-5485 IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2010 Page | 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue May 17, 2010 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, William Randall, Members; Lisa Gardner, Lydia McKinney, Steve Ochs, Carolyn Weiss, Planning and Development Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney; Mark Schoening, Public Works; John Barofsky, Llyod McEntire, Kevin Matthews, Josh Reckord, Jared Mason-Gere, Zachary Vishanoff, Chris Ramey, Cotter Millehrer, Sarah Murff, David Sonnichsen, guests. ABSENT: Lisa Warnes, member. Mr. Mills convened the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:30 a.m. He explained the agenda order may be revised. I. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Mills cautioned those who wished to offer public comment that comment on Walnut Station would not be accepted. The next opportunity to comment on Walnut Station would be before the City Council. Jeff Nelson, 2144 East 15th Avenue, offered comments on City planning processes. He had disagreed with some actions in the past and felt betrayed by recent events. He stated when looking at City ordinances, the word “should” was aspirational and was meaningless before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The word “shall” must be used in the ordinances related to the City’s obligations on land use issues. Staff needed to look at language related to mixed use centers (MUCs) and protecting transition from higher to lower intensity uses. He stated the term adjacent was ambiguous and encouraged the Planning Commission to address use of that term. Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, identified himself as president of Friend of Eugene. He addressed a recent story in the Register Guard regarding the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) Riverfront Master Planning Process that implied the committee had reached consensus on the master plan, which was false. He alleged the committee made false promises on resource planning which it failed to execute and undermined good faith efforts to have an effective open space planning process which led to non- consensus by the committee. He stated the Planning Commission should understand the proposal was controversial. Zachery Vishanoff distributed copies of the May 12, 2010 Oregon Daily Emerald, directing commissioners’ attention to an article entitled University applies to buy streets for parking on page 1. He expressed concern about making land use decisions during the summer when students were gone from campus. He again urged the Planning Commission to televise commission meetings which would give the community more confidence in the commission’s decisions, enable the community to better understand the process and encourage collaboration between the City and the community. He asserted the MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2010 Page | 2 EWEB process had not been an open process. He urged the Planning Commission to explain the Moss Street vacation process and asked that the process be delayed until fall 2010. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Gardner recently attended the Oregon American Planning Association Chapter conference in Portland and was elected to the board. She moderated a panel entitled Transportation Infrastructure Investments for Greenhouse Gas Reduction. All conference presentations were on the organizations website http://www.oregonapa.org. Ms. Weiss stated the Planning Commission had been invited to a forum for an Envision Eugene public workshop. She polled commissioners on their possible attendance, noting a quorum of commissioners could not attend the workshop. Ms. Jerome explained Walnut Station was legislative in nature, and the record was closed for public input. She was concerned about other testimony received related to alley vacation which was quasi- judicial, noting EWEB would eventually submit an application for land development. She opined neither of those issues would come to the Planning Commission, which made it acceptable for the Planning Commission to hear testimony. Ms. Gardner clarified that street vacation public hearings were only held by the City Council. Ms. Jerome added that street vacations were not appealed to the Planning Commission, but rather the City Council. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Randall reported that the climate and energy action plan was the topic of a City Council work session on May 12, 2010. An open house was scheduled for tonight. Mr. Hledik stated he would attend the University-Community Liaison Committee meeting today. Mr. Mills said Ms. Beierle would attend the next Historic Review Board meeting on his behalf and provide a Planning Commission briefing. II. ENVISION EUGENE TIMELINE PROPOSAL Mr. Belcher had sent a draft memorandum to commissioners for comments. He asked how the commission should proceed. Ms. Weiss provided information related to the May 24, 2010 staff presentation to the City Council at a work session related to the Envision Eugene approach. In response to issues raised by the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA) committee, concerns from the public regarding too short of a timeline, and a better understanding on the part of staff of the technical and legal analysis needed for the project, staff would request additional time for the Envision Eugene project. The request would be impacted by: • The desire for additional time for public engagement through at least November 2010. • Possible inclusion of land use recommendations from the Community Climate and Action Plan MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2010 Page | 3  which was scheduled for approval in August 2010. • Technical concerns of staff related to timing. After preferred growth scenarios were identified, and if potential expansion areas were needed, transportation findings would be needed to ensure the area could be served. • Goal 5 natural resources, which included wetland delineations and endangered species inventories, needed to be determined. • It was important to have a legally defensible plan findings needed to be determined • This process helped align with the TransPlan update. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Gardner said there was no legal responsibility related to timelines. The City was not mandated by the State to undertake the current process. The City was mandated to complete the residential lands inventory. Ms. Jerome asserted the City wanted to use valid data and was not concerned about extending the timeline. There were concerns that some parties would return to the Oregon Legislature to set a deadline related to H.B. 3337 compliance, but there was not one at the present time. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Jerome confirmed that the legislature had the authority to establish such a timeline. Mr. Duncan asked if there was a reason that the City Council could not accept an option with caveats that related transportation, environmental and other necessary studies would be done after the fact. Ms. Jerome said supporting findings would need to be attached to the adopted scenario. Ms. Gardner said the formal adoption process had a lead time of six or seven months to complete the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions’ and elected officials’ processes, as well as other unknown factors that could impact the timing. Mr. Duncan asked if ECLA was now the commission’s guiding study. Ms. Jerome said the City could not adopt the ECLA work until the solution to the need identified by the work was addressed. All current planning needed to be done based on the currently adopted residential and commercial lands studies. She was comfortable that the City had satisfied its obligations under H.B. 3337. Mr. Belcher understood that the efficiency measures needed to be completed and decisions made on how much could be absorbed through that process before looking at any expansion. Ms. Jerome said if the urban growth boundary (UGB) was expanded, the City, if challenged, would be required to show it did everything possible to meet the need within the existing UGB. Ms. Gardner said the City had contacted other service providers to determine how they might be able to serve unserved areas. Mr. Hledik expressed support for the proposal outlined by Ms. Weiss. Mr. Belcher wished to support the proposal but was uncertain since he had not yet seen all of the information and data. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2010 Page | 4 Ms. Gardner suggested the staff report to the City Council could reflect that the Planning Commission discussed the proposal but did not take action. The Planning Commission generally supported the timeline that allowed adequate time for public engagement, completion of Goal 5 work, and other needed elements. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Gardner said additional resources would not be requested of the City Council, but staff was working with the City Manager to fund the project through the budget process. She added the issue was not a financial constraint but rather a timing constraint. Mr. Randall supported allowing staff to request an extension, noting allowing time for more public input would provide better data to allow good decisions to be made. Mr. Belcher observed more resources may not make the process take less time, but the issue was whether a better product would result from a longer timeline. He supported providing resources to ensure a better product. Ms. Beierle arrived at 12:05 p.m. Ms. Gardner stated similar processes in the state were averaging 48 months for completion. Mr. Mills summarized commissioners’ comments, noting there appeared to be general support for a schedule extension or more intense process. Mr. Duncan understood the proposal but would not generally support it until he had sufficient information to enable him to understand the exact timeframe and associated costs. The discussions had been going on for 10-15 years and he was concerned that the end kept getting pushed out. If there was no rigid timeframe to get to the end, this would go on. Ms. Gardner believed compressing the process would not do the community justice, and it was important to take the time needed. Mr. Belcher suggested that if the process was changed through City Council action, the timeline would be brought back to the Planning Commission for affirmation of the public involvement process. Mr. Mills turned the meeting over to Ms. Beierle. III. WALNUT STATION MIXED USE CENTER DELIBERATIONS Ms. McKinney offered the staff report. She noted the agenda packet included a memorandum dated May 12, 2010 to the Eugene Planning Commission from Lydia McKinney, subject Walnut Station—Staff Response to April 20, 2010 Public Hearing Comments, which contained responses to questions raised by Planning Commissioners. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Walnut Station Mixed Use Center (MUC) on April 20, 2010. The purpose of today’s meeting was to form a recommendation on the proposed amendments to forward to the City Council. Staff had been in contact with several stakeholders and individuals since the public hearing to address any outstanding issues. May of the issues raised had been addressed in the plan documents to date. In some cases, additional policy recommendations or form based code changes were recommended, as detailed in the staff memorandum. The Draft Ordinance and attachments had been revised to reflect staff recommended changes, and were included in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2010 Page | 5 In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Jerome explained state law required the local code contain plan policies it wished to apply to subdivisions, partitions, or design reviews. Any other kinds of land developments required reference to plans. Staff reviewed the policy decisions made and determined which would be applied to limited land use decisions, such as subdivisions, partitions or design reviews. Those policy decisions related to limited land use decisions would live in the code at Eugene Code (EC) 9.9570, where all other plan policies that might apply were listed. There were other policies that may have broader application directives to the City, such as those applied to a conditional use permit (CUP) or planned unit development (PUD). Those policies could remain in the applicable refinement plan. Ms. Jerome confirmed the Form Based Code policy would be included in EC Chapter 9. Ms. McKinney reviewed the May 12, 2010 memorandum regarding Walnut Station—Staff Response to April 20, 2010 Public Hearing Comments and responded to commissioners’ questions. • Compensation for Property Acquisition Mr. Duncan asked what would happen if the set back made the property undevelopable. Ms. Jerome said the City would analyze the individual issue to determine if taking under the law was appropriate. Staff did not believe the special setbacks made any properties undevelopable. There were provisions in the code to ensure the City was not bound to force such action on a property owner. Mr. Duncan asked what the impact would be on the entire right-of-way if a parcel did extend into the right-of-way, because there were also right-of-way requirements. Ms. Jerome was reluctant to address such a hypothetical question. She said this was a forward looking project, attempting to ensure the City did not continue to authorize development that would prohibit future use of sections of roadway in ways that most people felt was the right idea. Either development would occur in a manner in which the setbacks necessary were on used land, a process was undertaken to acquire unused land or a condemnation process was used. At the present time, the City was working to ensure it did not make false promises by allowing development in areas that may eventually be needed for transportation. Mr. Mills averred it appeared property owners on the south side would be treated differently than those on the north side of the street. He inferred condemnations options would be used on the north side of the street. Ms. McKinney said there was an alternative for opting out on the south side of the street that was not available on the north side of the street. She concurred condemnation options would be required in places where property was required by the City. The amount on the north side was zero to eight feet, while the amount of the south side was about 23½ feet. Ms. Jerome said the code made a future multiway boulevard possible, but in and of itself did not include the City constructing a multiway boulevard. It was not known if or when such a facility would be built. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. McKinney confirmed the entire south side of the street consisted of blocks under one ownership. Mr. Randall asked if “significant redevelopment” had been defined. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2010 Page | 6 Ms. McKinney explained how the code would be applied to various proportioned and sized developments. • Appeal Body for Design Review Applications: Mr. Belcher proposed that the Planning Commission be the appeal body for the following reasons: o This was a new way of doing things, and it was difficult to anticipate what challenges would occur. The Planning Commission was the better body under these circumstances. o The impacted neighborhood had the most challenge in dealing with such issues, and they had a right to certainty to know they were heard by a body of their peers. o This should not happen often. Theoretically, under the Form Based Code, there should be few times when there was a need for any kind of change. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved that the Planning Commission be designated the appeal body for design review applications. In response to Mr. Hledik, Ms. McKinney said the Fairmount Neighborhoods favored the Planning Commission being the appellant body. She understood the neighborhood subcommittee co-chairs were less concerned about the Planning Commission being maintained as the appeal body if changes and recommendations were reflected as policy statements. Ms. Gardner stated the University of Oregon (UO) and Chamber of Commerce preferred the Hearings Official serve as the appellant body. Mr. Duncan said under the current practice, appeal of Hearings Officials’ decisions were appealed to the Planning Commission. He asked who the appellant body would be if the Planning Commission essentially became the Hearings Official. Ms. Jerome said not every Hearings Official’s decision could be appealed to the Planning Commission, noting the Hearings Official was often the final decision maker. Type II appeals would then go directly to LUBA. Ms. Gardner added if the Planning Commission was the appellant body, Type II appeals would go directly to LUBA. Mr. Randall thought the Planning Commission would have a better history on a project if an appeal occurred. Ms. Beierle asserted due process was about letting people know what to expect. Making deviations from existing processes could be confusing. Although the suggested process may not create legal problems for the City, she was concerned on whether or not people could appeal issues based on due process issues. Ms. Jerome said if the Planning Commission decided this would be a decision appealable from Planning Director to the Planning Commission, the code language would clearly explain the process and people who worked in this area would understand how to use the code. Mr. Mills asked for clarification on the positions of the UO, the Chamber of Commerce and the neighborhood. He understood the neighborhood was basically positive. Ms. McKinney said the technical advisory committee and stakeholders group helped review the draft MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2010 Page | 7 language and make decisions on proposed code language changes. The UO and the Chamber of Commerce had not been comfortable with the recommendation that the Planning Commission serve as the appeal body. The City did not have a preference on whether the Planning Commission or Hearings Official should be the appeal body. The motion passed 4:2, with Commissioners Belcher, Hledik, Mills and Randall voting in favor of the motion, and Commissioners Duncan and Beierle voting against the motion. • Addressing Use in the Form Based Code Ms. McKinney explained the form based code was revised to add conditional use permit (CUP) requirements for some uses agreed upon by the stakeholders’ group. In addition to allowing commercial and residential sues, some with a CUP requirement, there was also a prohibited use list for uses that had negative impacts that could not be addressed through design standards. Site review requirements were eliminated under the proposed language. All required standards remained in effect in the Walnut Station Special Area Zone. • Addressing the 15th Avenue Transition Edge Ms. McKinney noted staff concurred with the recommendation to include the intent to develop a graceful transition along the 15th Avenue edge and language had been included in the purpose section of the form based code to cover that issue. • Ownership Related to Use and “University or College as a Permitted Use Category The category of University use was proposed for the Matthew Knight Arena, and under appeal by the neighborhood, LUBA determined a CUP would be required for the University arena. This history created some tensions in the neighborhood regarding future uses the University might propose. It was recommended that the following policy be added to the Walnut Station Special Area Plan: “The City should evaluate the land use category “University or College” to better define which sues were permitted outright. • Off Street Parking Requirements in Walnut Station/Comparison to ICS Ms. McKinney explained the proposal included an allowance to reduce parking requirements. While the City intended to maintain the Residential Parking Program, the following policy was proposed for inclusion n in the Special Area Plan to ensure the parking program remained in place: “The city shall ensure that the neighborhood protections provided by the Fairmount Neighbors Event Parking District Section (5)(b) of the Arena Impact Mitigation Agreement are maintained.” In response to Mr. Hledik, Ms. McKinney confirmed the proposed language satisfied the neighbors’ concerns about parking. • How many parking spaces are lost by implementation of the multiway boulevard design and how many are gained in other places? Ms. McKinney explained approximately 99 spaces would be lost on private property but would be gained by new parallel parking on the multiway boulevard and proposed angled parking spaces on Orchard, Villard and Walnut Streets. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2010 Page | 8  • Traffic impacts/calming/mitigation In response to a question from Ms. Beierle, Ms. McKinney said a Fairmount traffic calming study had been completed and improvements were constructed by the City and the University. It as important to ensure that traffic impacts to the neighborhood would not result from this project. Mr. Duncan asked who would be responsible for paying for needed traffic mitigation measures, noting at some point, there was a limit to how much calming and mitigating could occur. He noted the code was being developed around the assumption that the multiway blvd would be developed. He asked what would happen if the funding never materialized and the boulevard was never built. Ms. McKinney said the changes being made in the plan would not result in negative impacts from traffic on the multiway boulevard or spill over into the neighborhood. She asserted the code did not rely on the construction of the multiway boulevard. In the event the multiway boulevard was not built, the form based code would still have good results with streamlined development, addressing the transition edge into the neighborhood and Mill Race area. Improvements could be made within the existing 120 feet of right-of-way within Franklin Boulevard, which would allow for sidewalk improvements and other design configurations that would be less costly than the multiway boulevard. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved that at the time of detailed design work for the multiway boulevard the City shall evaluate traffic and parking spillover impacts on the Fairmount Neighborhood. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Belcher asked what other than a zone change would trigger a TIA. Ms. McKinney responded there were four TIA triggers, the most common being more than 100 peak hour trips. Noting the time, Ms. Gardner suggested that the Walnut Station MUC deliberations be continued at the May 24, 2010 meeting. There was consensus to begin the May 24 meeting at 11:00 a.m. Mr. Mills said it appeared the multiway boulevard addressed qualitative issues important to many people but the quantitative issues did not line up. He was concerned that the width of the multiway boulevard, in addition to parking, traffic flow and traffic capacity issues, would slice the neighborhood in half and be a divisive force in the neighborhood. It would be important to review the plan in the future because he questioned whether this was the correct solution. He did not think the multiway boulevard as currently drawn was the answer. • Provide additional analysis on the multiway boulevard. Mr. Hledik observed that the travel lanes illustrated in the concept diagram on page 88 of the AIS were 10’6” wide, causing him great concern. Statewide Goal 12, Transportation, discussed “providing and encouraging a safe, convenient and economic transportation system”. Metro Plan Goal F-14 discussed addressing mobility and safety, including allowances for emergency vehicles. Information provided to the commission previously indicated that “the lane widths were less than the existing City standard” and an April 16, 2010 e-mail from Chris Henry cited configurations that were more typical for this type of arterial street, with a minimum lane width of 11 feet. Mr. Hledik was concerned about safety, truck, bus and emergency vehicle traffic. He shared Mr. Mills’ concerns that the road classification would be MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2010 Page | 9 reduced to level C and D. He saw this as a fatal flaw in the design. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Mills, moved to change the conceptual diagram to indicate travel lanes on Franklin Boulevard to a minimum of 11’ wide. Ms. Beierle would vote against the motion because she would prefer there be more flexibility for the travel lane widths. The motion passed 5:1, with Commissioners Mills, Belcher, Duncan, Hledik, and Randall voting in favor of the motion and Commissioner Beierle voting against the motion. The following topics were deferred to the My 24, 2010 meeting: • What is the impact of the multiway boulevard on existing businesses? • Will commercial development in Walnut Station Mixed Use Center draw away from downtown or other commercial areas? The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2010 Page | 10