Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue June 14, 2010 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Lisa Warnes, members; Gabe Flock, Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Lydia McKinney, Steve Nystrom, Steve Ochs, Carolyn Weiss, Heather O’Donnell, Terri Harding, Planning and Development Department; Emily Jerome, Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney; Mary Salinas, Zach Mitge, Jared Mason- Gere. ABSENT: Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, William Randall, members. I. PUBLIC COMMENT II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Corrected December 8, 2009 minutes submitted for approval Minutes of February 9, March 8, and April 20, 2010 Approval of December 8, 2009, February 9, March 8, and April 20, 2010 was deferred to a future meeting. III. FINAL ACTION: GOODPASTURE ISLAND PUD APPEAL Staff: Steve Ochs, 541-682-5453 Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved that the Planning Commission affirm the decisions of the Hearings Official to approve the zone change, tentative Planned Unit Development (PUD), traffic impact analysis (TIA) and adjustment review requested for Goodpasture Island PUD based on the findings and modified conditions contained in the final order. The motion passed, 3:1, with Commissioners Ms. Beierle, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Hledik noting in favor of the motion and Ms. Warnes voting against the motion. IV. ENVISION EUGENE Staff: Terri Harding, 541-682-5635 and Heather O’Donnell, 541-682-5488 V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 14, 2010 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue June 14, 2010 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Lisa Warnes, members; Gabe Flock, Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Lydia McKinney, Steve Nystrom, Steve Ochs, Carolyn Weiss, Heather O’Donnell, Terri Harding, Planning and Development Department; Emily Jerome, Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney; Mary Salinas, Zach Mitge, Jared Mason- Gere. ABSENT: Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, William Randall, members. Ms. Beierle convened the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:30 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT Mary Salinas, General Delivery, Eugene, said there were many invisible homeless children in downtown Eugene. She objected to Mayor Kitty Piercy’s plan for trash cleanup downtown by convicted offenders. She said homeless people had no rights. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of December 8, 2009, February 9, March 8, and April 20, 2010 was deferred to a future meeting. III. FINAL ACTION: GOODPASTURE ISLAND PUD APPEAL Mr. Ochs reviewed the changes incorporated into the final order, including assignments of error, scriveners’ errors, and erroneous references, as described in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) prepared for the meeting. Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved that the Planning Commission affirm the decisions of the Hearings Official to approve the zone change, tentative Planned Unit Development (PUD), traffic impact analysis (TIA) and adjustment review requested for Goodpasture Island PUD based on the findings and modified conditions contained in the final order. Ms. Warnes noted the Hearings Official had required additional geological studies. She asked if Dr. Schlieder’s recommendations would be followed. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 14, 2010 Page 1 Mr. Ochs said the Hearings Official had turned two of Dr. Schlieder’s specific recommendations into conditions of approval. The applicant would be required to address those during the final PUD approval process. The motion passed, 3:1, with Commissioners Ms. Beierle, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Hledik noting in favor of the motion and Ms. Warnes voting against the motion. IV. ENVISION EUGENE Ms. O'Donnell reviewed the technical analysis for the project and directed commissioners to the matrix entitled Efficiency Strategies Categorized by the Approaches to Growth. The next step would be to review the strategies and determine which should be pursued further. A more detailed list would be available following the next public event on June 23, 2010. She noted during the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA) key assumptions were based on how development had occurred within the city limits during the last eight years. The key assumptions for the residential land assessment were based on recent data about development in Eugene. Future development may be different from that in the past due to multiple factors, including changes in housing type demand or in public policy. Potential adjustments to those assumptions were being analyzed and would be brought to the commission in the future. In response to a question from Ms. Warnes, Ms. O'Donnell said staff would bring an analysis to the Planning Commission on housing needs, including affordable housing. Ms. Warnes opined there was no affordable housing in Eugene, which was forcing people to live in other communities. Ms. Gardner asserted although there was affordable housing in Eugene, there was a relatively low supply for the population. Mr. Duncan asked if Goal 10 interpreted affordability as having a full spectrum of housing. Ms. Jerome said Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) through Goal 10 established what types of housing were needed, and was specific to jurisdictions. Affordability was a separate issue from needed housing types. Mr. Hledik expressed concern that the type of housing consisting of smaller houses on smaller lots, and denser development was due in part to the constraints imposed by the urban growth boundary (UGB). He suggested the satellite communities of the City of Creswell, the City of Veneta, and others should be looked at during the process. He hoped the City would not be so myopic about what happened recently in Eugene and ignore what some people suggested that people were being driven to areas outside of Eugene. Ms. Warnes knew people who were loosing their homes because they could no longer afford them due to job losses. People were moving outside of Eugene or into apartments. Mr. Duncan heard at a recent workshop that neighborhoods were accepting infill, but he also heard that the City should go slowly and do it the right way. Mr. Hledik hoped the lessons learned through the Chambers revisited, the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS), work around the university area and River Road processes would lead the City to be mindful of the impact of increased density on adjacent, lower density, established neighborhoods. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 14, 2010 Page 1 In response to a question from Ms. Beierle, Ms. O'Donnell stated when properties were redesignated, the city was required to look at transportation impacts, and would have to do the same if the UGB was expanded through the Envision Eugene process. Ms. Harding reviewed the public engagement process. The comments from the May 26, 2010 workshop were posted on the website. The next public workshop was scheduled for June 23, 2010 at Willamette High School. She directed commissioners to the information provided in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) related to the workshops. She announced the high school art contest had received 37 entries which would be featured during the First Friday Art Walk in the Atrium on July 2, 2010. Art work from sixth graders would be included in an Atrium display. Ms. Gardner announced the City Council had requested that Planning Commission meetings be televised to provide more opportunity for people to engage in City government. The Sloat Room would be wired and the meetings provided via webcast and televised. Ms. Gardner reported 50 people convened by invitation of City Manager Jon Ruiz in early June in an effort to build trust, break down stereotypes, create desired outcomes, and learn how to have a different community conversation on land use issues. Commissioners Belcher, Duncan, and Hledik represented the Planning Commission. Mr. Duncan believed the workshop was helpful, and brought people with different views together. There was a consensus that the community could move forward and deal with issues more positively than in the past. Ms. Weiss explained during the next two or three months, the community group would be expanded to create a broader representation of the community. It would develop a draft scenario of what the 20 year UGB and efficiency measures should look like. The group would meet through July and August and fold its work into the broader public outreach activities in the fall. In response to a question from Ms. Warnes, Ms. Gardner said people who could be considered proponents of no growth had been invited to the workshop but had not attended. Ms. Weiss asserted the foundations of the group’s work were the consensus model, technical analysis, expertise of community members, and the jaws of uncertainty. The City would work with the State of Oregon to identify options on assumptions and land supply, and would monitor trends to determine whether the plan should be modified in five or ten years. At the conclusion of the group’s work, proposals would be brought to the community. The hope was that by working with Lane County and the State, an expedited, legal adoption process would be the end result. In response to a question from Ms. Warnes, Ms. Jerome said the City could not adopt a new UGB unless Lane County and the City agreed upon it. If the public involvement process ended in a stalemate, the State may find a way to intervene. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Weiss said the City Council held a work session on Walnut Station last week and the City Council public hearing was scheduled for June 21, 2010. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 14, 2010 Page 1  B. Other Items from Commission Ms. Warnes said she may miss a couple of meetings this summer. Ms. Beierle said she would be gone until mid-September. The meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 14, 2010 Page 1