Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Planning Commission Work Plan ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Planning Division Work Program Follow-Up Meeting Date: November 28, 2007 Agenda Item Number: A Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5208 ISSUE STATEMENT This work session is a follow-up to the joint meeting with the Planning Commission held on October 24, 2007, which was held for the City Council to receive the commission’s annual report and to approve the Planning Commission and Planning Division work program for the fiscal year 2008 (FY08). BACKGROUND At the October 24, 2007, joint work session, the Planning Commission presented its annual report, and outlined the Planning Division Work Program for FY08. To allow adequate time to consider work plan tasks, the council requested a follow-up work session, and subsequently identified issues and questions to be addressed at the work session. Staff has prepared responses to those questions and issues, included as Attachment A. Questions regarding the implementation of House Bill 3337 have been addressed separately in a memo provided by the City Attorney, included as Attachment B. RELATED CITY POLICIES Individual items within the work program implement council policy direction to prioritize the FY08 Planning Commission and Planning Division work program. COUNCIL OPTIONS 1.Approve the attached work program. 2.Amend the work program by moving, deleting or adding tasks. 3.Not approve the attached work program and give specific direction to the City Manager related to next steps. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends option 1, approving the FY08 Planning Commission and Planning Division work program contained within the annual report. If council approves the motion, as recommended, staff will proceed with the implementation of work program tasks. At this time, it is anticipated that the council will have additional opportunities to provide direction on the following work program tasks: F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071128\S071128A.doc Scoping of a comprehensive lands assessment process – prior to beginning the assessment process, ? staff will provide scoping options to the council for additional direction (Spring 2008) Walnut Station Mixed Use Center – council will be asked to approve the vision concept, including ? the recommended form based code (Summer 2008) Infill Compatibility and Opportunity Siting – the council will be receiving ongoing periodic updates ? on the progress of both work program tasks through council memos and newsletters. Following the completion of the task team work, proposed compatibility standards and opportunity siting strategies or proposals will be forwarded to council for direction and/or approval (Fall 2008/Winter 2009) Neighborhood based refinement plans – staff will provide council updates on scoping of plan ? updates through council memos. Following the scoping phase, it is anticipated that additional tasks will be proposed in the FY09 work program. Ongoing code amendments – following the completion of the Minor Code Amendment process ? initiated in FY07, staff will pursue the development of an implementation strategy for ongoing code amendments (Fall 2009) In addition to these specific tasks, the council will receive updates on other planning projects and programs as appropriate through council memos, council newsletters, or request for work sessions when additional specific direction is needed. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the FY08 Planning Commission and Planning Division work program contained in the attached annual report. ATTACHMENTS A.Staff Responses to Issues and Questions from the October 24, 2007, Joint Work Session with the Planning Commission B.House Bill 3337 Memo from City Attorney’s Office FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner Telephone: 682-5208 Staff E-Mail: lisa.a.gardner@ci.eugene.or.us F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071128\S071128A.doc ATTACHMENT A Staff Responses to Issues and Questions from the October 24, 2007 Joint Work Session with the Planning Commission Infill Compatibility Standards Planning Commission Sub-committee Draft Project Definition: Infill development is new residential construction in established areas of the city. Infill can be accomplished by developing a remnant vacant or redevelopable lot, by dividing an existing lot into smaller pieces such as flag lots or alley access lots, or by developing additional housing units on an existing developed lot. Infill compatibility standards are tools that can regulate the amount, form, and appearance of new residential development in established areas. Regulations will codify clear and objective infill standards based on public involvement, technical analysis, and policy direction. The Planning Commission is assembling an Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team that will work to identify the potential adverse impacts of residential infill in different areas of the city as well as the desirable attributes of infill development, and produce recommendations for regulatory standards or other tools to encourage positive outcomes and prevent the negative impacts. The th Infill Task Team will hold its first meeting on November 26. The Team will be asked to finalize a project goal statement and develop a work plan for the next ten months, leading to recommendations for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council in late 2008. Opportunity Siting Planning Commission Sub-committee Draft Project Definition: Opportunity Siting is a strategic planning tool aimed at facilitating the construction of dense housing that is compatible with existing development in the surrounding neighborhood. The process will identify specific sites and provide incentives, such as financial, regulatory, or procedural incentives, to encourage development according to design standards that result in compatibility with, and support from, the surrounding neighborhood. An Opportunity Siting Task Team is being assembled to identify barriers to the construction of high density housing and potential incentives to facilitate its construction, and produce recommendations on the location, attributes, and approval process of potential opportunity sites. th The Opportunity Siting Task Team will hold its first meeting on November 29. The Team will be asked to finalize a project goal statement and develop a work plan for the next ten months, leading to recommendations for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council in late 2008. Relationship of Growth Management Policies to City Code The Growth Management Policies were adopted to serve as a broad framework to guide work programs and the general focus of the city. As the adopting resolution indicates, these policies should be used (among other things) as a tool to formulate potential changes to the code, as opposed to being used directly as a means to evaluate individual land use decisions. These policies were therefore, not developed as a set of objective standards that could be utilized to review detailed development plans. However, the growth management policies can serve as a valuable means for guiding the purpose and structure of such tools as the land use code. The Planning Commission has identified the need to utilize the growth management policies more actively in its decision making, such as mixed use planning, infill and opportunity siting, as well as future code amendments. Through these efforts, there may be specific standards that can be created within the land use code that reflect the growth management policies. Form Based Code Planning staff routinely explore best practices and innovative tools for implementing plans and policies, including the growth management policies. One promising tool that has emerged for consideration is Form Based Codes (FBC), which focuses on the physical form of new development as the primary focus, rather than the designated land use. Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. Eugene has begun incorporating this tool in a limited capacity through several land use code amendments. Examples include the “Chambers Reconsidered” design standards; Royal mixed use center zoning; downtown/TD Transit Development and Broadway overlay zones; and multi-family dwelling design standards, as well as exploration of “alternate paths” to the current code. The Walnut Station mixed use center provides an initial opportunity to explore the FBC concept. FBC can also provide more flexibility for mixing or changing uses within a building, which furthers the opportunities to create a true mixed-use center. It is not anticipated that FBC will replace the city’s land use code. FBC is usually applied to smaller, specific areas within a town or county. As such, it could fit well in the Land Use Code’s existing section containing customized Special Area Zones. Many cities across the country are considering development of form based codes. Among cities that have adopted form-based codes are Petaluma and Ventura County, California; Sarasota, Florida; Arlington, Virginia; and Woodford County, Kentucky. Utility of Neighborhood Based Refinement Plans The FY07 work program included a task to prepare a scope of work for an “Issues Assessment” of refinement plans. The assessment process was described in the approved work plan as the “first step in developing a strategy for the next generation of neighborhood plans.” As proposed in the FY08 work plan, the scoping of neighborhood based refinement plans will investigate approaches for the development of the next generation of neighborhood plans that reflect the priorities and desired community character of each individual neighborhood. The planning process envisioned would include involvement strategies highlighted at the neighborhood summit and in the neighborhood association empowerment initiative to create neighborhood engagement as the foundation of plan development. The planning focus and complexity of plans could vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, depending on individual neighborhood priorities. An example of a neighborhood based planning effort that could be the foundation for a neighborhood plan/refinement plan update is the Rasor Park Mixed Use Center update. A Community Advisory Committee prepared and presented a report to the Planning Commission entitled, Empowering Innovation: Vital Neighborhoods as Sustainability Engine.” The report offered support for the general concept of directing increased population growth and commercial density to mixed-use centers as a growth management and anti-sprawl strategy. This neighborhood plan concept could ultimately be developed into a neighborhood plan that serves as an updated refinement plan. Community Involvement Committee Since the City Council eliminated funding for the Community Involvement Committee in 2004, oversight for public involvement programs has been divided among several bodies within the city structure. An interdepartmental peer review committee was created to review major City issues that culminate in a public hearing or work session by the City Council, the Executive Management Team provides oversight for Department Advisory Committees (DACs), and the Planning Commission reviews public involvement plans for projects affecting land use regulations. In the planning/land use arena, recent efforts to engage and empower residents in the planning process are evolving beyond the DAC model favored by the Community Involvement Committee. Planning projects utilize many techniques for involvement, depending on the complexity of issues, such as self-selected “context sensitive” community committees, neighborhood-led planning, charrettes, facilitated workshops, and focus groups, as well as the use of the internet for two-way project information and input communications. Community involvement efforts are increasing flexible to be responsive to community input as projects develop and evolve. Coordination of projects with other departments The Planning Division provides staffing support and inter-departmental coordination on many projects falling within other departmental or division work programs, or following specific council th direction. Examples of projects include participation in the airport masterplan process, West 11 transportation study, green infrastructure, I-5 Bridge replacement, and EWEB masterplanning. While planning staff do not have lead roles in project management, planning staff involvement on these projects can be significant, and the cumulative involvement of all planning staff on coordinating projects merits inclusion and consideration in the work program development. What other major projects are covered under "Economic Development"? This category represents major projects for which the Planning Division is not the lead staff, but may need to be involved. While some of these projects may be unforeseen, they can also be council-generated or part of another department work program. Examples could include the hospital (alternative siting options), the West 11th Corridor Study, the EWEB master plan, the railyard, or the arena project. Clarification of how resource allocation is reflected in the work program Resources allocation indicators in the work program reflect an assessment of resources to accomplish identified tasks in the FY08 work program. One column in the work program indicates whether projects have a duration that extends beyond a single work program timeframe. Examples of projects that have multi-year phasing are Mixed Use Centers, Natural Resources Conservation Planning, Infill Standards, and Opportunity Siting. These projects have identified/allocated funding sources and have been prioritized in a previous planning division work program. As reflected in the FY08 work program, all but one of these projects has identified required resource indicators reflecting that no additional resources will be identified, given previously allocated funding. Natural Resources is an exception, and has been coded with an indicator suggesting that additional resources may be required. While the South Ridgeline study is a multi-year project that is fully funded, other projects in this category, including the Water Quality protection ordinance and adjustments/enhancements to the water resources conservation overlay zone would require reprioritization of existing resources, or identification of additional resources to maintain a high priority implementation status. In the case of a project with a multi- year timeline that does not have identified resources allocated (for example neighborhood refinement plan update) the resource indicator reflects only the work that is anticipated to be completed within the FY08 timeframe. Subsequent phasing tasks and resource requirements would be reflected in the FY09 and future work programs. The level of detail in the FY 08 proposed work plan around resources exceeds the level of detail than in other previous approved work plans. House Bill 3337 The City Attorney has submitted a memo, included with the Agenda Item Summary as Attachment B, which provides an overview of the requirements of House Bill 3337. The memo provides background information on the bill, as well as addresses specific components required. The memo addresses specific questions related to the work program that were raised at the work session, and defers questions beyond the scope of the work program to a future memo that will be provided in advance of a council work session on House Bill 3337, tentatively scheduled for January 14, 2008. For ease of navigating the memo for responses to questions raised during or after the work session, questions have been indexed with the corresponding section of the memo. Establishment of UGB: Section II.B. provides general information on the requirements to establish a separate urban growth boundary. Questions Inventory Requirements, procedure, and timing: Section I.A. discusses demonstration of sufficient buildable lands for housing needs for 20 years. Section II.D. discusses additional requirements imposed on Eugene by the bill regarding the independent demonstration of sufficient buildable lands. Conflict Resolution Procedures: Conflict resolution issues are not discussed in the memo, and are beyond the scope of the tasks proposed in the FY08 work program. This issue can be addressed at the work session on HB 3337.