Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A - Measure 37 UpdateEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: Measure 37 - Update and Effect on Planning and Development Department Work Plan Meeting Date: January 10, 2005 Agenda Item Number: A Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Susan Muir and Glenn Klein www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5208 ISSUE STATEMENT On November 24, 2004, the City Council adopted an ordinance implementing Measure 37 (Ordinance no. 20331). During the work sessions related to that implementation ordinance, staff noted there would be additional issues related to Measure 37 for the council to discuss after the first of the year. This is the first in that series and will focus on the possible effects of Measure 37 on items on the Planning and Development Department (PDD) and Planning Commission work plan. During the work session, staff will also provide the council with an update of Measure 37 related activities occurring around the state. BACKGROUND In November 2004, the voters of the State of Oregon passed Ballot Measure 37. In brief summary, that measure requires that the owner of private real property be entitled to receive just compensation when certain land use regulations are enacted after the owner became the owner of the property if the regulation restricts the use of the property and reduces its fair market value. The measure also allows local government to choose to "remove, modify or not apply" the regulation instead of providing compensation. Staff (including the City Attorney's Office) has reviewed the PDD work plan in light of Measure 37 to determine whether portions of the work plan should be adjusted. Measure 37 certainly will have an impact on how the City does business. Future regulations or legislation enacted by the City of Eugene should go through a Measure 37 analysis, or test, during the consideration phase. In addition, work program items that are non-mandatory should be considered and evaluated if there are any Measure 37 risks involved. As discussed in greater detail below, staff' s review of the PDD and Planning Commission work program has identified only one task that has a high likelihood of creating additional Measure 37 claims: the Goal 5, natural resources protection work. Other tasks on the work program can be completed without necessarily creating any additional Measure 37 claims. The attached modified work program (Attachment A) is for discussion (it is edited in legislative format). The last time the City Council saw the work program was at the joint work session in October 2004. Since then, staff and the Planning Commission have updated the list by removing what has recently been accomplished, as well as added a few new items that are proposed to be included in the new work L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050119\S050119A. doc program. In addition - and most importantly for purposes of this work session - the work program now has a 'notes' column to indicate any comments or Measure 37 considerations that need to be made. (Additional information is included in this packet to provide the City Council with a tentative Planning Commission schedule, and to provide the City Council with a response to questions regarding the use of funding related to mixed use development and code amendments. While these documents are not related to Measure 37, they are related to the work plan and to responding to questions the council previously had raised related to that work plan.) Overall, while we believe each project on our work program will require additional technical and legal staff time to review the possible implications or risk under Measure 37, we do not believe we should make significant changes to the work program. The item of most concern to staff is the state-mandated Periodic Review, especially the remaining work tasks required to comply with statewide planning Goal 5 related to natural resources. At this point staff can assume that the Goal 5 tasks will need to have some type of regulation to protect important resources and to bring the City into compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR). Staff is currently having discussions with the State Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to better understand what it proposes to do with jurisdictions who have remaining periodic review work tasks and who may be facing some exposure under Measure 37 if they are required to complete those tasks. It is the staff opinion, however, that regardless of the outcome of the discussions with DLCD, staff should continue on and complete the very important natural resource inventory work that is underway at this time. This has been a 1 O-year process, and there has been a lot of difficult work done that should not go to waste. At the time the staff work is done under Goal 5, staff believes a policy discussion should ensue with appointed and elected officials about how the City moves forward to protect natural resources in light of Measure 37. The other work program items may or may not have a Measure 37 implication. On a case by case basis, staff will provide the Planning Commission and City Council with an analysis on each item as it moves forward in the adoption process. Staff believes there are not only risks associated with Measure 37, but is also working hard to understand and develop any opportunities from the Measure. For instance, the "alternative path" to the Land Use Code's regulations may provide some new and unique ways of assisting staff in working with property owners who come forward with Measure 37 claims. Staff reviewed with the Planning Commission the conclusions related to Measure 37 and the work plan. The Planning Commission discussed staff' s conclusions and made some additional changes on January 10, 2005. The attached work plan incorporates the Planning Commission revisions. Staff expects that the revisions to the work plan proposed by the Planning Commission will be the subject of the annual joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting which is scheduled to occur in June 2005. However, if there is time at this work session and the council would like to provide comments about the Planning Commission's proposed revisions, staff can take those comments back to the Planning Commission. COUNCIL OPTIONS Based on staff' s review of the PDD and Planning Commission work plan, staff is not proposing any changes to the work plan at this time based on Measure 37's passage. Therefore, staff is not suggesting that the council take any action at this time. Should the council disagree, certainly one option is for the council to modify the work plan. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050119\S050119A. doc CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION None; this is a work session only. SUGGESTED MOTION None; this is a work session only. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed Planning Commission work program dated January 10, 2005 B. Proposed 6-month Planning Commission calendar C. Memo addressing funding allocated in FY 02 for mixed use development planning and code updates FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Susan Muir Telephone: 682-5208 Staff E-Mail: susan.l.muir~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050119\S050119A. doc Planning Commission Recommended Work Program January 10, 2005 The following work program contains the original version approved by the City Council on October 20, 2004. It has been modified in legislative format to include staff recommended changes, notes related to Measure 37. Following the legislative formats an entirely clean copy can be found. las l~JProj eot DescriPtion Notes/comments HIGH PRIORITY 1 ixed Use Centers Potential M37 implications, no alteration to two-year · Council funded site specific planning through FY05 for priority nodes, work program proposed (see staff memo dated · Review and amend nodal development strategy. 12.27.04 for additional information regarding · Advise staff, public, and prospective developers regarding previously funding). master planned nodes (Royal, Chase). 2 Minor amendments to Land Use Code Minimal M37 risk, most of the 'minor' fixes are Since adoption of LUCU (Land Use Code Update), many major and minor proposed to address administrative clean ups. amendments have been identified by numerous stakeholders. Task includes gathering all comments, prioritizing, and processing those that are considered to be 'minor'. Include review of medical facilities provisions. ~.. Measure 37 implementation and tracking New task: includes preparing and maintaining city ordinance, tracking state legislation and processing potential claims. 4_ Refinement Plan Audit - check for inconsistencies and obvious problems in New. Planning Commission requested staff propose existing refinement ortunities for refinement p.!.~!!r!.i.!!g., setcost of this effort and request full funding to move framework to prioritize future refinement plan work. into high priority status. 3 Downtown & Courthouse associated projects Minimal or no risk under M37. ~ · Downtown Area Housing Policy Analysis (DAHPA). ~.~ r~ ..... ~ ..... m~. · T.~ DONE. · Preparing preservation plan (which will explore relocation and demolition) for historically significant structure on the Federal Courthouse site. Mandated by MOA with GSA. Lead is Development Division. Page 1 ATTACHMENT A · Follow-up/implementation from the Courthouse District Concept Plan. Work includes coordination with GSA and courthouse architect, meetings with developers interested in area development, and technical expertise to other staff (e.g., street improvements). · Downtown Zone - Phase 1 involves research and outreach to determine if new or modified zone is appropriate for downtown area. Phase 2 will include code adoption and rezoning of properties. · Civic Center Planning (moved up from Emerging Issues) · Great Streets: Implement Downtown plan provisions by adopting special design. · ~,~ A ~ T ...... ,-~;~, c,,~., ~ A TC~ DONE. 4 Goal 5 (Natural Resources) associated projects Largest M37 risk of the high priority projects. This is _6 · Eugene Goal 5 Process a mandated task under Periodic Review with a © adoption of G5 inventory DONEAND ONAPPEAL deadline of June '05. Discussions are underway with © local wetland inventory the state to determine M37 implications. Risk © ESEE analysis analysis will be done prior to any regulations being © protection program proposed. · Metro Goal 5 Policy Update © ~; .... ~,,~ c~,~, ...... !0 o~ DONE · West Eugene Wetlands Zoning Implementation of Natural Resource Zone and Wetland Buffer/Waterside Protection Overlays. · ESA/Salmon Strategy Implementation Includes development of strategies and adoption of implementation measures, oversight of several staff teams and multiple products. · West Eugene Wetlands Plan policy issues (WEWP is complete, but requires periodic updates and review). 5 Emerging Issues _7 a) River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project (PDD staff advisor for report to (DONE), service provision,-an&possible transition of River Road/Santa Clara area,, and potentially update existing Refinement Plan); b) Buildable Lands Supply issue; c) Economic Development, Hospital & other major projects; and Page 2 ATTACHMENT A ,.,,-,-,;,~,.,o, d'n (Moved to #3) ~)__~_pecial Districts (_~grr_~_p_ro_posal is before Lane County) e) Coordinated Population Projections (state requirement currently being man tracked byEugene staff). f) Legislative tracking - several rule amendment proposals (Goal 9 & 14) currently underway at state level ~. Investigate an alternate path review pr.9.~.~.~.~..parallel to the p.r.~.~.~rjptive code This is perhaps the one area of opportunity under M37. The alternate path could provide us with a tool to enter into a development agreement with potential 'claimants' to work through potential M37 issues. 6 Cell Tower Ordinance Update Staff will be returning to Council by March '05 with _9 a scope of work and proposed budget following the December 2004 work session. ONGOING 8 Implement LUC 1._Q Process applications. 9 Provide public information 1~1 Public Information Center staffing from 1:00-5:00 daily. ........... v .................................................. DONE N- Implement Zucker Report (General Admin.) 1~2 * Develop overall strategy for Planning/Clarify approach to planning (mission statement) · Training for staff · Develop email file to distribute code interpretations. · Perform detailed analysis of planner case loads. · Improve PIC service time to 15 minutes. ~ TransPlan implementation report 1~3 Provide report to state on TransPlan implementation. t3 Periodic Review: Policies The Director of the Department of Land 1~4 Part of Metro work program shared with Spfld and Lane Co. Policies Conservation and Development found in our favor in scheduled for CC hearing February 10, 2004. DONEAND ONAPPEAL a recent decision. That has been appealed by the 44 Periodic Review: Diagram Homebuilders Association to the Land Conservation 1~5 Part of Metro work program shared with Spfld and Lane Co. Diagram and Development Commission and will be heard in Page 3 ATTACHMENT A scheduled for CC hearing February 10, 2004. DONE AND ON APPEAL February 2005. 45 GIS evaluation and coordination 1~6 Coordination with other divisions, PW and LCOG. t6 Historic Program 1...l · Administer SHPO Grant - Eugene is Certified Local Government. · Staff Historic Review Board - HRB is a subcommittee of Planning Commission. · Process applications for all new historic properties and alterations. County adoption of Land use Code allows review of historic resources in RR/SC area for first time. · River Road area historic context statement. -t--:/Annexations Potential M37 implications here, currently under 1___8 All annexations must be approved by City before Boundary Commission will legal review. accept. 48 University and community outreach 1~9 Includes subcommittee of Planning Commission, meets quarterly. t9 Bus Rapid Transit 20 - Phase 1 - Coburg Corridor Two projects underway: Phase 1 (downtown Eugene to Downtown Springfield) and Coburg Road Corridor. Member of technical staff working with 15 member citizen advisory committee to develop conceptual plan to introduce BRT to Coburg Rd. corridor. 2-0 Census 2__1_ Respond to state and federal data needs, census, and population estimates. gl- Neighborhood Meetings 2......~ Attend neighborhood meetings upon request and available time to facilitate discussion about Metro/Community Planning issues. OTHER 22 Service provision/special districts issue. Lead by Central Services and CMO. Investigate 2_3 effects of shifting City services to county-wide special districts. Fire district discussion leading the way on this 23 Stormwater Development Standards. 24 Page 4 ATTACHMENT A 2-4 South Hills Study: Update South Hills refinement plan to clarify regulations and 2~5 strengthen environmental protections. 25 See high priority item #6 26 Big Box 26 27 Modern Context Statement r~;,~ ~,~ .... ~;,, .... t, ~.., .... ~ DONE. Next steps include determining the significance of the modern era resources. 28 College Hill Update survey of historic features. 29 South University Historic District Currently in mediation with report due to City Council in January 2005. 30 Iqous'mg-Standards Completed 3-t- Millrace 3_~ Work has focused on framing the possible Millrace options and ensuring that the Millrace implications are considered in planning and transportation concepts. 3g EWEB Master Plan May not be necessary if hospital locates on EWEB 3__!_ Exploring grants and other funding opportunities to create master plan for property. EWEB properties. May require joint applications. 33 EWEB Service Extensions 3_3 Advise EWEB re future growth areas, facilities needs, land use coordination. 34 2050 Plan 3~3 Member of technical advisory team that supports Policy Team. Exploration of regional growth strategy. Draft scenarios recently released for public review. DONE 36 Santa Clara parks acquisition and UGB swap proposal 3__4_ Planning advisor to PW/Parks for opportunity to exchange UGB area: Santa Clara vs Laurel Hill ridgeline. Page 5 ATTACHMENT A 3~7 Park and Open Space Master Plan 3~5 Member of technical staff group charged with drafting comprehensive Parks, Recreation, Open Space Plan. Project updates the 1989 plan. 38 Willamette Greenway Updates 36 Staff advisor to LCOG. Has been removed from Periodic Review Task List per SB 920. 3-9 Willamette Water Company Legal actions have ceased. Coordination over water 37 m~..; .......... ,~,;.,,~ · ....... ,4 ,,. ~,~ ~,.,; .... **,~,-~,.,;.~ ,,. ,~v,,~.a ,.;,., distribution continues. DONE. Coordinate with EWEB and Boundary Commission. 40 Wellhead protection Springfield has indicated that they will request City 3__~ Advisor when Springfield created regulations for wellhead protection. EWEB of Eugene action soon. now testing Willakenzie area for similar use of groundwater for back-up supply. Could have large land use implications if groundwater pursued. 44 Annexation Policy revisions 3_~ Respond to CMO directives regarding annexation policy, coordinate with other staff, PWE, Lane county, Boundary Commission 42 Conduct comprehensive review of the city's zoning map in conjunction with 4__0 asset mapping. 43 Deal with LUCU LUBA remand concerning Goal 9, Goal 10, and the Chapter 6 4~1 tree provisions Page 6 ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B January 3, 2005 · State of City Address January 10, 2005 · Land Use Code minor fixes · Capital Improvement Program · Work Program January 24, 2005 · Land Use Code minor fixes · Alternate Path Discussion · Parks and Recreation Open Space briefing February 1, 2005 - Joint Public Hearing · Metro Plan Amendments - Public Safety Special Districts February 14, 2005 · Land Use Code minor fixes · Chambers Infill/Redevelopment Code February 28, 2005 · Key Code Amendments discussion March 14, 2005 · Key Code Amendments discussion March 28, 2005 · Land Use Code minor fixes · Goal 5 Work Session March 29, 2005 - Joint Public Hearing · Goal 5 Natural Resources April 11, 2005 · Land Use Code minor fixes · Goal 5 Natural Resources April 18, 2005 · Land Use Code minor fixes · Goal 5 Natural Resources April 25, 2005 · Goal 5 Natural Resources April 26, 2005 - Public Hearing · Land Use Code minor fixes May 9, 2005 · Goal 5 Natural Resources May 23, 2005 · Chambers Infill/Redevelopment Code June 13, 2005 · Chambers work session June 27, 2005 -- Public Hearing · Chambers Infill/Redevelopment Code Note: This is a tentative schedule that may change due to new assignments, appeals or other unforeseen issues. For information regarding the current Planning Commission agenda please visit: www. eugeneplanning, org ATTACHMENT C Planning & Development Administration City of Eugene 99 W. 10tH Avenue MEMORANDUM (541) 682-5477 (541) 682-8335 FAX www. ci.eugene.or, us Date: January 10, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council CC: Planning Commission From: Susan Muir, Planning Director Subject: Follow up from October 2004 Joint Meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission On October 20, 2004 the City Council met with the Planning Commission in a joint work session and adopted the proposed work program. At that meeting additional questions were raised that are addressed in this memo. Funding In May 2003, the City Council allocated a total of $200,000 to facilitate an update to the Land Use Code (LUC) and for furthering Mixed Use (nodal) development. Code Amendments (LUC Update) The process for amending the code has been divided into two general categories; minor fixes and key amendments. In September of this year, staff began processing minor fixes with the Planning Commission. The processing of key amendments will commence following the completion of the minor fixes. Of the funding provided by the City Council, approximately $60,000 has been allocated to this project. This money will be used to fund consultant work on the key amendments. As of this date, staff reductions, vacant positions and competing work program items have left limited staff availability for this project. As such, the ability to complete the review of these amendments is dependant upon an efficient and strategic process, both at the Planning Commission and City Council level. Following, is a brief outline of the projected timeline for both phases of the code amendment process. Minor Fixes October '04 - March '05: Planning Commission review of suggested minor fixes. Planning Commission will screen potential amendments to determine which will be considered at a future public hearing. Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT C April '05: Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation on minor fixes. May '05: City Council public hearing on Planning Commission's recommendations. City Council adoption of amendments would occur at the following meeting. Kev Amendments Winter '05: Discussion/direction from Planning Commission (CIC) on public involvement process. Winter '05: Request for Proposals and selection of consultant to process Key Amendments ($60,000 available). Spring '05: Public input on desired key amendments. Summer '05: Prioritization of possible amendments. Summer '05: Consultants prepare prioritized amendments and facilitate related public involvement. Summer/Fall '05: Planning Commission public hearing(s), study sessions and recommendation to City Council. Fall '05: City Council public hearing, work session(s) and adoption of amendments. Mixed-Use Development Project Regarding the mixed use money allocated for FY 04, funds were spent to support staff wages at $26,535 and materials and supplies at $4,217. Staff wages account for in-house and temporary help. Materials and supplies are all related to a specific planning process known as 'Chambers Reconsidered.' The costs include printing reports and maps required by a grant agreement with the state, and printing and mailing costs for newsletters and meeting notices (mailing list of about 1,900 names). Staff has developed a mixed use development two year work program (FY 05-07) that includes several items that were anticipated to have costs associated with them. The Planning Commission has reviewed that work program, which contains the following components: o "Education and Marketing." The money allocated to date for these products has been minimal. The State, through a grant, will fund most of the future costs associated with that item. Please see: http://www, ci.eugene.or.us/nodal/index.htm (in progress). Completed tasks include new maps, two public information brochures (Design Standards for More Livable Neighborhoods and Frequently Asked Questions) and the updated web page. Tasks remaining include completion of a mixed-use glossary. PowerPoint presentation(s) are being explored. o "Potential Nodes Status Report". Through this work we now have a complete set of presentation/discussion maps that we can take to every neighborhood group in the city with a potential mixed use center in it. (In progress) o "Mixed Use Zoning and New Tools." Two of several products being considered to expand the number of tools available to facilitate Mixed Use development in a variety of settings and circumstances. Staff is currently considering grant opportunities for this as well. Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT C o "Site Planning." The Chambers Reconsidered project (in progress) explores two implementation strategies recommended from the Chambers Nodal Development Study, 1998: compatibility guidelines for infill development and traffic control measures. Opportunities for site specific planning work are being explored for other high priority Mixed Use Centers. TransPlan Compliance There was much discussion at the joint work session (October 2004) about compliance with the TransPlan requirements. Staff has summarized, for your information, some quick points related to compliance. 1. Eugene has zoned 900 of the 1,000 regional acres required to be rezoned for nodal development by 2005. Springfield has told the state that they expect to rezone approximately 400 acres by mid-2005. Eugene, alone, meets 90% of the performance target. With Springfield acreage, we expect to exceed the State's 2005 performance goal by about 30%. 2. Initial LCOG research from last winter indicates that of the 12,000 dwelling units built in the region since 1994, approximately 4,000, or 1/3 of the total dwelling units, were built within mixed use (nodal) development areas. Since the nodes only represent 12 percent of the total land area, housing is being built in nodes at a much higher rate than in non- mixed use areas. The dwelling unit performance not only exceeds the 2005 performance goal, it exceeds the 2015 performance goal by more than 10 percent. 3. The same LCOG research shows that new employment in the Eugene UGB is about 11,700 jobs between 1994 and 2003. The net increase in employment in mixed use areas is about 4,100 jobs - or 35 percent of the total. Again, a very high percentage of the increase in jobs is within the nodes. This exceeds both the 2005 and the 2010 TransPlan performance goals of 10 and 25 percent, respectively. We do not have figures readily available regarding other TransPlan performance measures, such as changes in modal share or reductions in per capita Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT). In November 2004 the Land Conservation and Development Commission heard an update on the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) which included a compliance report of statewide Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPOs, of which we are one). The Commission took no action in November 2004 but did direct their staff to consider TPR amendments in the context of the broader review of the TPR. According to the state staff, any amendments to the requirements for MPOs will occur later in 2005 as part of the department's long term efforts with ODOT to revise the TPR and other state transportation policy. Attachment: 2 year Mixed Use work program Page 3 of 3 Nodal Development Implementation Two Year Work Program April 26, 2004 1. Planning Commission Program Adjustments Explanation During late spring and summer (2004), planning staff will initiate discussions with the Planning Commission aimed at redirecting the implementation of the Nodal Development program. Major Tasks · Planning Commission tour node sites (May 24) · Review and discuss Two Year Implementation Work Program · Consider potential node map revisions. Remove some, add types, and change boundaries of a couple. (June) · Consider program name change (Nodal Development to Smart Growth or other) (June) Timeline: May - July, 2004 2. Develop Smart Growth/Nodal Development Education and Marketing Materials Explanation Develop education and marketing materials to expand general community awareness of smart growth/nodal development initiatives. The materials will enable city staff, elected officials, appointed officials, neighborhood and civic leaders to access smart growth/nodal development information in a variety of formats. Major Tasks · Develop work program and communications plan for the project · Identify key audiences and stakeholders · Identify goals and objectives for program marketing · Identify necessary printed materials, presentations (Powerpoint), displays, workshops and feedback mechanisms for program marketing · Produce materials Timefine July - November, 2004 3. Amend Overlay Zone to correct identified problems Explanation In May, 2003 the City Council voted unanimously to initiate amendments to the/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone regulations adopted in November, 2002. The Council motion reads as follows: Councilor Nathanson, seconded by Councilor Pape, moved to initiate amendments to the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to address issues raised in the Planning Commission report dated April 8, 2003, andpubfic testimonv to allow infill and redevelopment to occur in a transitional manner consistent with neighborhood considerations, and with area-specific development histo(v and market conditions within each node. The Planning Commission should analyze the amendments for consistency with TransPlan ' s nodal development poficies and pe(formance measures. The Planning Commission report identified contained three recommendations for amending the code: 1. Commercial Zone Requirements: Amend the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to replace the FAR requirement for the commercial and industrial zones with a "menu" of standards, with a required minimum number of standards which must be met. FAR would be one of the standards on the "menu". 2. Residential Zone Requirements: Amend the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to: a. Exclude residential development from 9.4270(3), which applies the/ND requirements to an expansion of 30% or more of the total existing building square footage on the development site; and b. Exclude residential zones from the standards in 9.4290(2) Building Setbacks and (3) Parking between Buildings and the Street to commercial and industrial zones. c. Exempt residentially zoned lots or development sites in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones that are developed and are 13,500 square feet or less in size from the minimum residential density requirements. 3. Adjustment Review: Amend Section 9.4250 Purpose of/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to expand the intent statement, currently limited to the residential density objective, to include the additional fundamental characteristics of nodal development to this section. These additional fundamental characteristics are: a. Design elements that result in pedestrian-friendly environments that support transit use, walking and bicycling; that promote a sense of community and that improve livability; b. A transit stop that is within walking distance (generally % mile) of anywhere in the node; c. Mixed land uses that offer a variety of services, activities and destinations within easy, comfortable walking and biking distance of most homes; d. Public spaces, such as parks and open space, and other facilities that can be reached without driving. Major Tasks: · Develop Request for Proposals · Develop specific work program for this task · Develop Citizen Involvement Program 2 - Include major outreach effort w/PowerPoint presentation and handouts - Consider convening "task force" for one or two meetings to look at proposed changes or help craft them - principles from the 8 high priority nodes would be good. · Interview and hire consultant · Prepare draft code revisions · PC and Council Work Sessions and Public Hearings Timeline: September, 2004- May, 2005 4. Status Report and Inventory of Potential Nodal Development Areas in Eugene Explanation This project will update the descriptions and boundaries of each potential nodal development area. Using that updated information, staff will meet with residents and property owners of each node to explain the nodal development/smart growth program and the meaning of the nodal designation. The project will stimulate early neighborhood involvement in establishing the direction for each node, establishing or confirming boundaries, and identifying issues that need to be addressed in order to achieve the goals for a specific node. Major Tasks · Develop specific work program for this task · Produce current inventory of dwelling units, employment, acreage, MP designations, zoning, existing land uses, density, commercial FAR' s. · Produce narrative description of each node with staff assumptions about improvements needed to achieve node goals. · Schedule resident/property owner meetings within nodes. · Compile report to Planning Commission. · Schedule Planning Commission work session. Timeline: July, 2004 through July, 2005 5. Chambers Residential and Commercial Infill Development Standards Project Explanation This project will build on earlier efforts to implement nodal development in an existing built-out neighborhood. Using the Chambers Node Development Plan as a foundation, the City will (1) identify regulatory barriers and gaps that impede the creation of high quality infill and redevelopment projects, and (2) develop a set of commercial and a set of residential design standards to guide infill and redevelopment in this mature neighborhood. Thirty three of Eugene's 38 potential node sites are redevelopment (as opposed to "greenfield") sites. This project will address one of the main obstacles to implementation of the nodal development concept in Eugene. That obstacle is the inadequacy of the existing development codes to address the impacts of infill and redevelopment on surrounding development, and on the neighborhood as a whole. Major Tasks: · Develop specific work program for this task · Intergovernmental Relations Committee review · Prepare presentation on examples of neighborhood-scale infill and redevelopment projects · Identify community and City concerns with infill and redevelopment projects within the City of Eugene · Identify barriers and gaps that impeded infill and redevelopment · Prepare and conduct design preferences survey · Prepare draft commercial and residential development standards for infill and redevelopment · Test application of standards on hypothetical developments · Propose separate process for reviewing and approving infill and redevelopment projects within a node, if desired. · Prepare materials for PC work session and hearing Timeline: August, 2004 through December, 2005 6. Mixed Use Zoning Districts Explanation: Prepare and adopt appropriate mixed use zones to promote and encourage smart development. Eugene has draft commercial and residential mixed use codes prepared for Royal and Chase Gardens nodal development projects that would serve as a baseline for drafting new comprehensive codes. Work should also include drafting a mixed use code for employment areas like the Campus Industrial zone. Major Tasks · Develop specific work program for this task · Research mixed use codes from other communities · Meet with interested parties to identify community and City concerns with mixed-use code development. · Create citizen-based task force to assist with development of codes · Prepare draft mixed-use development zoning codes for residential mixed use, commercial mixed use, and industrial mixed use development. · Prepare report to Planning Commission and City Council · Schedule Planning Commission work session and hearings · Schedule City Council work session and hearings. 4 Timefine: July 2005 - June 2006 7. New Tools Explanation: Develop a set of new tools to complement exiting approaches to nodal development implementation. This project will focus on filling gaps in the existing program and increasing the City's flexibility to respond to a variety of circumstances and site conditions found in the City. It may be necessary to create new development review and approval tools depending on the answers to questions outlined below: a. To what extent should smart growth/nodal development principles be applied in future UGB expansion areas? b. Should a conceptual master plan be required for the whole UGB expansion site? c. Should the conceptual plan be based on nodal development or smart growth principles? d. How should new, previously unidentified nodes or smart growth centers will be identified, planned for and added to the map? e. Should the process be open to private developers and neighborhood groups? f. What criteria should be used to identify new node/smart growth center? g. Should compatibility standards or guidelines for infill and redevelopment be developed and applied to all nodal development/smart growth centers in the city?. h. Should the existing development review process be reviewed and new procedures explored to encourage flexibility and adaptability in node/smart growth area developments. i. Should the City explore a dual track design review process that allows developer to choose from two options: - Adherence to objective standards, or - Access to a more flexible design review process based on performance guidelines Major Tasks · Develop specific work program for this task · Audit City Smart Growth (Node) program and its components · Initiate community meetings or focus groups for input · Identify critical needs and missing program elements. · Research comprehensive smart growth programs in other cities · Produce preliminary report on identified needs for Planning Commission review · Develop draft tools · Prepare report to Planning Commission · Schedule PC and Council work sessions and public hearings as needed. Timeline: April 2005 - June, 2006