Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3: Ordinance on Downtown Code Amendments ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Public Hearing: - An Ordinance Amending Sections9.0500, Downtown Code Amendments 9.2161, and 9.4530, of the Eugene Code, 1971, Adding a New Map 9.2161(6) (Downtown Plan Map) to that Code; and Amending Map 9.4510 and Figure 9.4530(3) Meeting Date: June 16, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 3 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Nan Laurence www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-5340 ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend sections of the Eugene Land Use Code (Chapter 9). BACKGROUND The purpose of the Downtown Code Amendments is to implement the Downtown Plan by facilitating the desired development and redevelopment of properties in the downtown core and immediately adjacent areas. The amendment topics under consideration are the result of an extensive public outreach process over the past four years that included numerous workshops, forums and other public meetings. The amendments are summarized below; the draft ordinance enacting the amendments is provided as Attachment A. Summary of Proposed Code Amendments The code amendments listed below were the subject of a Planning Commission Public Hearing on April 15, 2008. The minutes from the public hearing are provided as Attachment B. 1. /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone Standards Amend the following five specific code areas: 1.Amend the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) required from 1.0 FAR to .65 FAR, the FAR requirement in the code prior to the Land Use Code Update in 2001, for the area outside of the downtown core. 2.Amend the area used for calculating FAR from “development site” to “lot” to allow a smaller area for calculating required density. 3.Allow basement areas, including underground parking, to be included for the purpose of calculating FAR. 4.Clarify the existing provision that structured parking within a building’s footprint may be used as part of the FAR calculation. 5.Amend the /TD zone to allow all parcels within this overlay zone to be eligible for the adjustment review process, to provide a discretionary review process while maintaining the intent of the code provisions. Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080616\S0806163.doc 2. C-2 Community Commercial Zone Currently, developments on property zoned C-2 are required to have at least 60% of the building’s street frontage in commercial use, and a minimum of 20% ground floor area in commercial use. These requirements are spelled out in 9.2161(6) Residential Use Limitation in C-1 and C-2, and Table 9.2161 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed-Use Residential Developments. The proposed code amendment would remove these requirements for properties within the Downtown Plan area, allowing residential use on the ground floor. 3. C-3 Major Commercial Zone Currently, surface parking is permitted in the C-3 Major Commercial Zone at the rate of one space for every 1,000 square feet of related development, up to a maximum of 20 spaces. The proposed amendment would remove the 20-space maximum limit, but maintain the requirement and ratio for related development. Planning Commission Recommendation On April 28, 2008, the Planning Commission considered an ordinance enacting the proposed code amendments for Phase I. On a vote of 6 to1, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the changes to the downtown code. In the same motion, the Planning Commission recommended that staff include adjustments to the findings of the ordinance. The intent of the adjustments was to reflect the input from the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) and other testimony received, and the understanding that commercially zoned land outside the /TD zone was being developed and land inside the zone was not. The draft minutes from the Planning Commission meeting on April 28 are attached. Council Action History City Council considered a Planning Commission recommendation to initiate a code amendment on September 25, 2005. The code sections identified for amendment were: 1.C-2 Community Commercial non-residential ground floor requirement 2.C-3 Major Commercial surface parking 3./TD Transit Oriented Development Zoning Overlay 4.Bike Parking requirements The council requested that staff solicit additional public involvement on these and other related code sections to encourage and facilitate downtown development. After considering subsequent public input received via a public workshop, a web-based survey and additional Planning Commission deliberation and recommendation, the City Council initiated the code amendment for downtown-related regulations on July 24, 2006. At that meeting, council directed staff to undertake a code amendment process starting with the initial four topics (with modifications for #2 and #3), and three additional topics based on public input received: 1.C-2 Community Commercial non-residential ground floor requirement 2.C-3 Major Commercial surface parking – consider ways to enhance shared parking provisions 3./TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay – consider functional floors rather than FAR 4.Bike Parking requirements 5.Boundaries for downtown development-related codes and regulations 6.Green building concepts 7.Design review Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080616\S0806163.doc Following council action, staff identified issues for code amendments in a series of meetings with the Planning Commission. In addition, staff held public workshops and meetings with the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee. As a result of its deliberations and input on the complexity of the issues under consideration for amendment, the Planning Commission recommended that the code amendment process should proceed in two phases. The intent was to develop a more flexible and responsive code in the very near term while allowing a comprehensive review and discussion of other, more complex development code issues. Phase I consists of a set of code amendment proposals that are limited in scope, and address code changes involved with items #1 – 3 above. Phase II will address items #4 – 7 above, entailing more significant amendments that are likely to require extensive discussion and analysis, potentially including a new zone for downtown and related metro plan amendments. Phase II is intended to begin immediately after adoption of the code amendments proposed in Phase I. The City Council held a work session on the Phase I Downtown Code Amendments on June 4, 2008, which provided an opportunity for an overview of the draft ordinance. To facilitate council action on the draft ordinance, staff will address questions raised either during the June 4 work session or following the close of the public hearing in the Agenda Item Summary for July 14, 2008. Other Background Information The process to draft the code amendments has employed significant public involvement opportunities. The need for a comprehensive review of existing downtown zones emerged as part of the initial Downtown Visioning effort in 1999. The Downtown Vision, approved by the council in 2000, included the following Key Next Step to support downtown development: Create a new zoning district for the downtown that promotes multi-story structures with mixed uses, and emphasizes street-level activity along the Great Streets. Consider Design Review. (Page 9) The concept of a new zoning district was included in the task of updating the Downtown Plan. In April, 2004, the updated Downtown Plan was adopted by the council. The plan contained the following implementation strategy: Create a single zone to unify the downtown core, including the new Federal Courthouse and riverfront areas. Consider amendments to an existing commercial zone, such as C-2 or C-3, and overlay zones such as /TD, /ND, and the Broadway Overlay Zone. (Page 14) In May 2004, staff introduced the topic of a review of Downtown Area Zoning at the Eugene Planning Commission. Since that time, Planning and Development staff met with the Eugene Planning Commission, Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee, and City Council on multiple occasions, in addition to hosting public workshops. Since the City Council initiated the downtown code amendment process in July, 2006, City staff has held four additional Planning Commission meetings, a follow-up meeting with ERAC, a well attended public workshop, and a Planning Commission public hearing. As a result of this public involvement, the Phase I code amendments recommended by the Planning Commission and reflected in the attached ordinance do not mirror the specific language in the initial council motion regarding C-3 Major Commercial surface parking and /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone. While taking into Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080616\S0806163.doc account council direction to “consider functional floors rather than FAR” and to “consider ways to enhance shared parking provisions” the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission proposes reducing the FAR required outside of the downtown core, and removal of the 20 space limitation. RELATED CITY POLICIES The Downtown Code Amendments are related to the City Council goal to revitalize downtown. Additionally, Eugene Code requires that the code amendments be consistent with the Metro Plan, the Eugene Downtown Plan and any other applicable refinement plans as well as the Statewide Planning Goals. COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council may consider the following options: 1. Approve the proposed ordinance 2. Approve the proposed ordinance with specific modifications as determined by the City Council 3. Deny the proposed ordinance CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION This item is scheduled for a public hearing only. Following the City’s receipt of all testimony, the City Manager will make a recommendation to be included in the council packet for action on July 14, 2008. SUGGESTED MOTION No motion is proposed as this item is scheduled for a public hearing. ATTACHMENTS A.Draft Ordinance and Findings B.Draft Planning Commission Minutes from April 15, 2008 C.Draft Planning Commission Minutes from April 28, 2008 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Nan Laurence Telephone: 682-5340 Staff E-Mail: nan.laurence@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080616\S0806163.doc ATTACHMENT A 06/04/08 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 9.0500, 9.2161, AND 9.4530, OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; ADDING A NEW MAP 9.2161(6) (DOWNTOWN PLAN MAP) TO THAT CODE; AND AMENDING MAP 9.4510 AND FIGURE 9.4530(3). THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The definition of “Floor Area” as set forth in Section 9.0500 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.0500 Definitions . As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise, the following words and phrases mean: Floor Area . The floor area of a building, except areas used exclusively for the service of the building, such as: mechanical equipment spaces and shafts; elevators; stairways, escalators and ramps; rest rooms; loading docks or ramps. The term “Floor Area,” when calculated for the purpose of determining the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) within the /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone, includes [all of] the entire floor area of the building [except for] including the basement. In all other zones, basement areas shall be excluded from the FAR calculation. Section 2. Subsections (5) and (6) of Section 9.2161 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide as follows: 9.2161 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2160. (5) Parking Areas in C-3. For surface parking spaces created after August 1, 2001, there shall be at least 1,000 square feet of floor area on the development site for each new parking space created. [The maximum number of surface parking spaces on a development site shall be 20. All parking spaces in excess of these limits shall be in structured parking.] (6) Residential Use Limitation in C-1 and C-2. Except for the Downtown Plan Area, [R]residential dwellings are allowed in the C-1 and C-2 zones if the ground floor of the structure is used for commercial or non-residential purposes according to Table 9.2161 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed-Use Residential Developments. Within the Downtown Plan Area as shown on Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map, residential dwellings are allowed in C-1 and C-2 zones and are not required to use the ground floor of the structure for commercial or non-residential purposes. Ordinance - 1 ATTACHMENT A 06/04/08 DRAFT Table 9.2161 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed-Use Residential Developments Not Within the Downtown Plan Area (See Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map) C-1C-2 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed-Use Residential Developments Minimum Percent of Building Street Frontage in 80% 60% Commercial Use. Building street frontage shall be measured along the length of the building at the ground level within the maximum front yard setback. As used herein, “commercial” includes any non-residential use occupying a space at least 15 feet deep from the street facade of the building, excluding parking areas and garages. Minimum Percent of Ground Floor Area in Commercial Use. 80% 20% Section 3. Subsections (3) and (7) of Section 9.4530 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide as follows; 9.4530 /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone Development Standards. (3) Minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR). (a) The total minimum floor area of buildings on a [development site] lot within the core /TD area as shown on Map 9.4510 Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone shall not be less than 2 square feet of floor area to 1 square foot of the [development site] lot (2.0 FAR). The total floor area of any building on a [development site] lot within the /TD area outside that core area shall not be less than [1.0] 0.65 square feet of floor (See area to 1 square foot of the [development site] lot ([1.0] 0.65 FAR). Figure 9.4530(3) Floor Area Ratio Calculation). (b) [Floor area calculations shall not include basement areas in the gross square footage of the building. ]Major transit facilities, existing development and expansions of existing development are exempt from FAR requirements. (c) At-or-below-grade parking within the building’s footprint and [A]areas used for enhanced pedestrian spaces and amenities accessible to the public may be credited to satisfy the minimum floor area requirement. Credit for pedestrian spaces and amenities shall be applied at the rate of 2 square feet of floor area for each 1 square foot of enhanced pedestrian space. Enhanced pedestrian spaces and amenities include plazas, arcades, sheltered or recessed entries, galleries, courtyards, outdoor cafes, and widened public sidewalks (more than 6 feet wide outside of the public right-of-way), with benches, shelters, street furniture, public art, kiosks, or space for outdoor vending. [(d) The building and permit services manager shall allow basement areas to be calculated as part of the gross square footage of the building, for purposes of calculating floor area ratio, if the basement is designed and constructed as permanent office or retail use.] (7) Adjustments. An adjustment to any of the standards in this section may be made [for /TD parcels with no alley access or with physical or legal constraints] pursuant to the criteria beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use Ordinance - 2 ATTACHMENT A 06/04/08 DRAFT code. Section 4. A new Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map as attached hereto is hereby adopted; Map 9.4510 is hereby amended and replaced with the attached Map 9.4510 Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone; and Figure 9.4530(3) Floor Area Ratio Calculation, is hereby amended and replaced with the attached Figure 9.4530(3) Floor Area Ratio Calculation; and they shall be incorporated with other similar maps and figures in the Eugene Code, 1971. Section 5. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the consent of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein, or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein. Section 6. The legislative findings attached as Exhibit A hereto are adopted in support of this Ordinance. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this ____ day of _______________, 2008 ____ day of ________________, 2008 ______________________________ _______________________________ City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 3 Ú´±±® ß®»¿ ο¬·± Ý¿´½«´¿¬·±² Ú·¹«®» çòìëíðøí÷ ðòêë ÚßΠ̱¬¿´ Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ú´±±® ß®»¿ ã ðòêë ß®»¿ ±º Ô±¬ Û²¬®¿²½» Û¨¿³°´»æ ï ­¬±®§ ±ª»® ðòêë ±º ¬¸» Ô±¬ ß®»¿ »¯«¿´­ ðòêë ÚßÎò îòð ÚßΠ̱¬¿´ Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ú´±±® ß®»¿ ã î Ì·³»­ ß®»¿ ±º Ô±¬ Û¨¿³°´» ïæ î ͬ±®·»­ ±ª»® ¬¸» Û¨¿³°´» îæ ì ͬ±®·»­ ±ª»® Ø¿´º º«´´ Ô±¬ ß®»¿ »¯«¿´­ îòð ÚßÎ ¬¸» Ô±¬ ß®»¿ »¯«¿´­ îòð ÚßÎ Exhibit A: Findings E.C. 9.8065 Code Amendment Approval Criteria. If the city council elects to act, it may, by ordinance, adopt an amendment to this land use code that: (1)Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. (2)Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. (3)In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone. Criteria (1) and (2) are discussed below. Criterion (3) is not applicable; no special area zone is being proposed. 1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such involvement. The action does not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for reviewing these amendments complies with Goal 1 since it complies with, and surpasses the requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions. The process to draft the code amendments has employed significant public involvement opportunities. The need for a comprehensive review of existing downtown zones emerged as part of the initial Downtown Visioning effort in 1999 and was included as an implementation strategy in the Downtown Plan, adopted in April, 2004. In May, 2004 staff introduced the topic of a review of Downtown Area Zoning at the Eugene Planning Commission. Since that time, Planning and Development staff met with the Eugene Planning Commission, the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee, and City Council on multiple occasions, in addition to hosting public workshops. In July, 2006 City Council initiated the downtown code amendment process. Since that time, city staff held four additional Planning Commission meetings, a follow- up meeting with ERAC, and a well attended public workshop. The Planning Commission public hearing was duly noticed to the City of Springfield, Lane County, all neighborhood organizations, as well as community groups and individuals who have requested notice. In addition, notice was also published in the Register Guard. The City Council then held a duly noticed public hearing to consider approval, modification, or denial of the code amendments. These processes afford ample opportunity for citizen Exhibit A - 1 involvement consistent with Goal 1. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an . adequate factual base for such decisions and actions The Eugene Land Use Code specifies the procedure and criteria that were used in considering these amendments to the code. The record shows that there is an adequate factual base to support these code amendments as required by Goal 2, including the public testimony from the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee and other testimony given by the public. This testimony stated that the commercially zoned land outside the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone was being developed but the land inside the zone was not. The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites such an exchange, between the City and any affected governmental unit and when the City uses the information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City engaged in an exchange about the subject of these amendments with all of the affected governmental units. Specifically, the City provided notice of the proposed action and opportunity to comment to Lane County, Springfield and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. This Goal is not applicable to the code amendments as the subject area and actions do not affect any agricultural plan designation or use. Therefore, this Goal is not relevant and these amendments do not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3. Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state’s forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. This Goal is not applicable to the code amendments as the subject area and actions do not affect any forest plan designation or use. There are no forest lands related to these amendments. Therefore, this Goal is not relevant and these amendments do not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources : To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. OAR 660-023-0250(3) provides: Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Exhibit A - 2 Goal 5 resource only if: (a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5; (b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or (c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UGB area. The amendments do not create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a plan or code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be conflicting with a particular significant Goal 5 resource, and do not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Therefore, it is clear that the amendments do not trigger the need to consider Goal 5 pursuant to OAR 660-023-0250(3)(a)(b) or (c). Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water and land from impacts from those discharges. The intent of the code amendments is to facilitate the dense, mixed-use development desired downtown as indicated in the Downtown Plan. The code amendments do not affect the environmental factors specified in Goal 6 except that a densely developed downtown may support reduced automobile dependence and ultimately lead to less automobile emissions and cleaner air. Therefore, the code amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 6. Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and property from natural hazards such as floods, land slides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis and wildfires. The Goal prohibits a development in natural hazard areas without appropriate safeguards. A portion of the EWEB riverfront property is considered within the flood zone, which will need to be addressed at the time that the EWEB property is master planned, as required by the land use code. The area affected by the code amendments is not otherwise characterized by Goal 7 hazards. Based on these facts, the amendments will not result in development in areas normally associated with natural disaster or the damage and loss of life normally associated therewith. Therefore, the code amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 7. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Exhibit A - 3 Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. The code amendments will not impact provision of recreation facilities. The Downtown Plan area is served by a variety of parks including Alton Baker and Skinner Butte Parks. Access to the recreation opportunities provided by these parks will not be affected as a result of the code amendments. Therefore, the code amendments are consistent with Goal 8. Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens. The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division 9) requires cities to evaluate the supply and demand of commercial land relative to community economic objectives. The Eugene Commercial Land Study (October 1992) was adopted by the City of Eugene as a refinement of the Metro Plan, and complies with the requirements of Goal 9 and its Administrative Rule. The Eugene Commercial Lands Study acknowledged that the inventory of commercial land is dynamic and that different commercial needs need to be accommodated through a variety of means. An emphasis of the Study is to encourage higher intensity in-fill and redevelopment of commercial lands by constraining the supply of new commercial land. The code amendments are specifically intended to facilitate downtown development and redevelopment in accordance with the Downtown Plan. The amendments do not affect the amount of land designated or zoned for commercial use and will have no direct impact on the existing supply of or any existing commercially designated land. Therefore, the code amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9. Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. The Residential Land and Housing Study, adopted in February 1999, is considered a refinement to the Metro Plan. The code amendments do not alter the calculation of residential land consumption and supply or the density that was presumed in the study. Therefore, the code amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10. Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The downtown core and adjacent areas within the /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone are located in the city limits and are served by public facilities in which the existing level of service is adequate to serve the needs of current and future development. The intent of the code amendments is to facilitate desired development where existing services are already in place. Therefore, the code amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11. Exhibit A - 4 Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR 660-12). TransPlan provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is enacted at the local level. The code amendments will not significantly affect any transportation facility. The level of development currently permitted through existing code and zoning regulations will remain the same. No change in the functional classification of streets will result from these amendments. In addition, no changes are proposed to the standards that implement the functional classification system. The /ND Nodal Development Metro Plan Diagram overlay designation has been applied to the entire Downtown Plan area. This designation identifies the Downtown Plan area as a nodal development, transit-oriented/pedestrian district, in further compliance with the State Transportation Planning Rule. Well designed mixed-use developments at higher densities which encourage transit use are particularly desired in this area. The amendments do not affect the /ND designation. The code amendment to lower the required Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) from 1.0 to .65 does not prevent higher density projects. This amendment would support and facilitate desired downtown area development by reducing the amount of FAR required outside of the downtown core area but within the /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with statewide planning Goal 12. Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy. The code amendments do not specifically impact energy conservation, except to encourage compact urban development within the downtown area. This amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13. Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. No property is being converted from rural to urban land use. For all the properties affected by these amendments, all necessary urban services are in place. Therefore, the code amendments are consistent with statewide planning Goal 14. Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. The Willamette Greenway area within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary is governed by existing local provisions which have been acknowledged as complying with Goal 15. Those provisions are unchanged by this ordinance. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Exhibit A - 5 Statewide Planning Goal 15. Goals 16 through 19 (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources) There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property or involved in the amendment. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19 do not apply. The above findings demonstrate that the code amendments are consistent with all relevant statewide planning goals. 2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. The Residential Land Use and Housing Element of the Metro Plan contains two relevant policies for the code amendments: A. 14: Review local zoning and development regulations periodically to remove barriers to higher density housing and to make provision for a full range of housing options. A. 19: Encourage residential developments in or near downtown core areas in both cities. Only one of the code amendments would directly impact housing by allowing exclusively residential uses on the ground floor of properties zoned C2 General Commercial that are located within the Downtown Plan area. The intent of this code amendment is to facilitate residential development downtown, and is directly supported by these policies. The Transportation Element of the Metro Plan contains the following policy which is relevant to the code amendments: F.3: Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and development, including higher intensity, transit-oriented development along major transit corridors and near transit stations; medium- and high-density residential development within ¼ mile of transit stations, major transit corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and development and redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served by existing or planned transit. The code amendments address this policy by facilitating development in the downtown core and adjacent areas within the /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone. The Commercial Lands Study is considered a refinement to the Metro Plan. The code amendments directly address Policy 6.0: Promote redevelopment of existing commercial areas and compact, dense growth by encouraging business to revitalize and reuse existing commercial sites. The amendments also indirectly address Policy 7.0: Exhibit A - 6 Recognize private sector costs of redevelopment, especially in the downtown area, and offer public incentives to assist redevelopment efforts. The code amendments assist private developers to invest in the downtown area by removing impediments in the land use code. TransPlan is considered a refinement to the Metro Plan. The above discussion of compliance with Goal 12 is herein incorporated by reference. The Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) is considered a refinement of TransPlan for the greater downtown area. CATS includes two policies relevant to the code amendments: 8. Support intensive development in the downtown area by balancing new parking supply with specific area demands and ensure an adequate supply of parking is available downtown to meet the needs of residents, workers and customers of downtown facilities. 9. Make parking downtown convenient, affordable, safe and easy to use. In the long term, surface parking lots are not a preferred land use downtown. However, convenient, safe, affordable and easy to use parking supports existing and potential new development downtown. The code amendment to permit more than 20 surface spaces when associated with a new development addresses these policies. Currently underground parking is not included in the calculation of the required FAR. However, underground parking supports intensive downtown development, is an investment in compact urban development, and should generally be encouraged. The code amendment to allow underground parking as part of the FAR calculation also addresses these policies. Structured parking within a building’s footprint currently counts towards the required density. The code amendment clarifies the existing code language but does not change existing code provisions. The Downtown Plan is the applicable refinement plan for the downtown area. The Downtown Plan contains numerous policies supporting mixed use and density in downtown. Specific relevant policies include the following: I.1. Downtown development shall support the urban qualities of density, vitality, livability and diversity to create a downtown, urban environment. II.2. Use downtown development tools and incentives to encourage development that provides character and density downtown. V.1. Stimulate multi-unit housing in the downtown core and on the edges of downtown for a variety of income levels and ownership opportunities. The intent of the code amendments is to implement the Downtown Plan by insuring that appropriate zoning and code regulations are in place to set the stage for desired dense, mixed-use downtown development. The code amendments address these policies. Currently the density requirement in the core of downtown is 2.0 FAR; no change is proposed to this requirement. Exhibit A - 7 The area proposed for reduction in the required density from 1.0 FAR to .65 FAR includes property downtown outside of the core area as well as neighborhood areas outside of the Downtown Plan area. The intended purpose of the reduction is to provide a wider range of allowable densities to facilitate desired development given the current economic climate and the public testimony indicating that development is occurring outside the /TD zone and not within it. Public testimony also indicated that inappropriately high FAR requirements actually result in less area density by discouraging development; appropriately set FAR requirements, even if at a lower level, can therefore result in more density. The code amendment to areas zoned C-3 Major Commercial impacts property within the West University Refinement Plan area. The code amendments to the /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone affect property within the West University Refinement Plan area as well as the Jefferson Far West Refinement Plan area. Policies in both of these refinement plans do not specifically address the code amendments. However, the following policy in the Neighborhood Economic Development Element of the Jefferson Far West Refinement Plan lends general support to the amendments, although it does not constitute a mandatory approval criterion: 3.0 Take actions to continue to attract investment by the private sector in the central city. Similarly, the following policy in the Land Use, Housing and Commerce Element of the West University Plan relates in general to the changes to the FAR required in the /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone outside of the downtown core area: 24. Commercially zoned property in the plan area shall be used more intensely in the future. This policy refers to all commercially-zoned property in the plan area, not specifically the area that is regulated by the /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone. The intent of the amendments to the /TD Overlay Zone, however, is encourage and facilitate development of the property within the West University neighborhood that is located within and is therefore supported by this policy. Exhibit A - 8 ATTACHMENT B S U M M A R Y M I N U T E S Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission th Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10 Avenue April 15, 2008 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Randy Hledik, President; Phillip Carroll, Vice President; Heidi Beierle, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Kristie Brown, Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Nan Laurence, Planning and Development Department. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. I. PUBLIC HEARING ON DOWNTOWN CODE AMENDMENTS—Code Amendment (CA 07-3) Amendment of the Land Use Code (Chapter 9) Staff: Nan Laurence, 682-5340 MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 1 M I N U T E S Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission th Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10 Avenue April 15, 2008 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Randy Hledik, President; Phillip Carroll, Vice President; Heidi Beierle, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Kristie Brown, Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Nan Laurence, Planning and Development Department. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Hledik convened the Eugene Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. He thanked community members for attending this evening’s meeting, and expressed the appreciation of the Planning Commission in the community’s interest in this matter. Mr. Hledik said the Planning Commission would conduct a public hearing to consider the Downtown Code Amendments. He explained the process for the public hearing. He said each speaker would be allowed to speak for five minutes and welcomed submittal of written material. Commissioner Duncan was absent from the meeting, but would listen to a recording of the meeting. Planning Commissioners and staff members introduced themselves. I. PUBLIC HEARING ON DOWNTOWN CODE AMENDMENTS—Code Amendment (CA 07-3) Amendment of the Land Use Code (Chapter 9) Mr. Hledik opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 1 Ms. Laurence iterated the purpose for the public hearing was to take public testimony regarding the proposed code amendments for downtown. The purpose for the proposed amendments was to facilitate the desired development downtown in keeping with the Downtown Plan. The key components of the code amendments were: ? Transit Oriented Development—Five specific code amendments were proposed to the /TD Transit Oriented Development overlay zone standards: Amend the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) required from 1.0 FAR to .65 FAR. o Amend the area used for calculating FAR from “development site” to o “development site or lot”. Allow basement areas to be included for the purpose of calculating FAR. o Clarify the existing provision that structured parking within a building’s footprint o may be used as part of the FAR calculation. Amend the /TD zone to allow all parcels within this overlay district to be eligible o for the adjustment review process. ? C-2 Community Commercial Zone—Currently, developments on property zoned C-2 were required to have at least 60 percent of the building’s street frontage in commercial use, and a minimum of 20 percent ground floor area in commercial use. These requirements were spelled out in 9.2161(6) Residential Use Limitation in C-1 and C-2, and Table 9.2161 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed-Use Residential Developments. The proposed code amendments would remove these requirements for properties within the Downtown Plan area. ? C-3 Major Commercial Zone—Currently, surface parking was permitted in the C-3 Major Commercial Zone at the rate of 1 space for every 1,000 square feet of related development, up to a maximum of 20 spaces. The proposed amendment would remove the twenty space maximum limit. The proposed code changes must address the criteria in Eugene Code (E.C.) 9.8065. This was a two-phased project. The proposed amendments were Phase One. Phase Two would consist of MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 2 potentially more extensive changes to the code and would begin as soon as Phase One was completed. The Planning Commission was expected to deliberate on the proposed code amendments on April 28, 2008. A recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council and the Council would hold a public hearing on June 16, 2008. Ms. Laurence entered into the public record written testimony she had received from: 1. Jim Welsh, Eugene Association of REALTORS. 2. Phil Farrington, PeaceHealth Oregon Region. Mr. Hledik noted there were no questions from Planning Commissioners. Mr. Hledik called for testimony from those in favor of the proposed amendments. Tom Slocum , 1950 Graham Drive, congratulated the Planning Commission on taking up this chore. He said the proposals were long overdue. He found overall this was a good step that would allow facilitation of development in the downtown core area and the transit overlay district. He was bothered by the terminology “or lot” language under the minimum FAR cumbersome to read. He opined a change in the definition of either development site or lot would clarify the language. He had testified against the 1.0 FAR when the current language was originally passed because everyone compared Eugene with Portland, which was not realistic. He thought this was a good overall step in making the proper changes and encouraged Commissioners to support the changes. Will Shaver, 3846 Peppertree Drive, said he was the chair of the Sustainability Commission but was representing himself and not the group this evening. He applauded the proposed changes to the downtown code. He was saddened that the downtown was not as developed as it could be and many of the code changes took a step in the right direction. Although the 1.0 FAR seemed like it is trying to promote density and increased land use, which were good goals, the opposite had actually occurred. The result was that builders were hesitant to build and density had stayed the same or gone down. From a sustainability and environmental standpoint, adding cars to downtown may seem like a bad thing. However, cars in the downtown meant they were not on the edge of town. Those cars that came downtown were more likely to stay downtown during the day to work and MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 3 conduct business. The travel time between downtown and other areas of the City was typically less for most residents than between somewhere in the City and the outskirts of the City. He preferred to have people conduct their business downtown than on the outskirts. When the downtown was big and bustling in the future, it would be appropriate to cut back on car spaces to build more buildings. Relaxing some of the requirements to encourage development downtown was a necessary step forward. Terry Connolly , 1401 Willamette Street, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. He thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity comment on the proposed code amendments. The Chamber appreciated how staff and the Commission had separated the code amendments into Phase One and Phase Two processes. The Chamber supported the proposed code amendments for Phase One. The Chamber believed individually and collectively each of the proposed amendments would remove some of the barriers that had stood in the way of attracting new investment, new projects and potential new development into downtown Eugene. Individually and collectively, the Chamber believed the proposed amendments would be a step in the right direction for the City of Eugene to take with respect to achieving an economically vibrant downtown, featuring a diverse mix of uses that were envisioned in the Downtown Plan. Current code requirements such as the 1.0 FAR or the 20 space maximum limit on parking while well intended when first enacted in 2001 had had unintended consequences as evident of seven years little private sector development activity in downtown compared to elsewhere in the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area, where similar code mandates did not exist. The Chamber believed the proposed code amendments were more in line with the basic economic and market conditions and/or limitations for a city the size of Eugene. Furthermore, allowing adjustment review for all parcels and properties was a good thing. With respect to the response the Planning Commission needed to make to Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), that agency should be supportive of these code amendments. The current code was obviously not lending itself to achieving the type of compact urban development DLCD desired cities in Oregon to aspire to. The Chamber believed this was an important opportunity for the City of Eugene and urged the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that these code amendments be adopted. They were one step in the right direction for downtown, one step of many incremental steps that would enhance what is already good about downtown while also fostering revitalization. He thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their efforts in outreach to the community in this process. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 4 Hugh Prichard , 2671 Emerald, had submitted written testimony in support of the proposed amendments. He reiterated that the current code discouraged construction in downtown and was sending development to suburbs which exactly the opposite of stated goals, intentions and policies. He recently spoke with Wally Graff, the developer of the medical office building under th construction at 18 Avenue and Pearl Street. Mr. Graff had developed several medical office buildings in Eugene/Springfield during the last decade, and understood the /TD would not allow construction within the downtown /TD zones. In the 1990’s, before the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) process led to the current problem, a building boom in downtown brought the U.S. Bank Building, Charnelton Place, Umpqua Bank, Pacific Continental Bank, and Broadway Place. All of the construction had a positive impact on parking. In the case of U.S. Bank, suburban parking ratios were improved upon by 60 percent. Broadway Place parked one person per unit, where one and one-half spaces were required in suburbia. Development was headed in the right way in the 1990s, but those advances were cut off with LUCU parking restrictions. While the intentions were good they were overdone. The proposed amendments were a good start. The definitions of lot or development site were murky. He encouraged the Planning Commission to go in the right direction and make the amendments. He had spoken to a number of groups during the last few months and had asked folks to come tonight to show support of the amendment process. He asked those in favor of the proposed amendments to raise their hands. Gary Wildish, 2424 Quince Street, thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity and staff for their efforts. This was an important thing for our city. In last five or six years new commercial development had not been built in downtown Eugene. We gave LUCU a shot. He encouraged the Planning Commission to support the proposed amendments and forward a recommendation for adoption to the City Council. Jean Tate, 1375 Olive Street, had issued a challenge at the annual Chamber dinner to ask people to be willing to put up money for development in downtown. Sixteen people were willing to write checks for $100,000 to help something happen downtown. She opined none of the development projects that she had looked at to date could work with the current code. She encouraged the Commission to support the proposed amendments. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 5 Bruce Mulligan, , 3056 Hendricks Hill Drivesupported the amendments and staff recommendations. As a former chair of the City Budget Citizen Committee and other boards and committees, he wanted to see downtown work. He understood downtown’s problems and had not seen them improve nor result in any significant changes that everyone wanted to see happen. The Planning Commission had the power to make this very important decision. The 1.0 FAR did not work. The adjustment review process needed to move forward. He encouraged the Planning Commission to adopt the amendments and forward a recommendation for approval to the City Council. Patrick Costello , 474 Brookside Drive, was a business lender with a local financial institution. He had observed a lack of downtown development for number of years. He encouraged the Planning Commission to seriously consider the amendments. The downtown area had seen mostly public development in recent years, and there was room for substantial commercial development. Builders were reluctant to build and lenders were reluctant to lend because of the perceived difficulties in making a commercial project viable in the downtown area. The amendments would go a long way in helping the commercial side see a more viable downtown development prospect and lenders would be much more willing to finance those projects. He strongly encouraged the Planning Commission to consider the amendments, noting they would be very positive for development in the downtown area. Ronald Janssen , 350 Pearl Street, encouraged the Planning Commission to promote better student housing and better transportation. The library provided a central point for people in downtown. His primary concern other than housing was security. Student housing was a must. More money coming downtown was a must. Ross McConnell, 350 Pearl Street, submitted written testimony for inclusion in the record. He offered suggestions for what could happen without spending money, including building student housing at the former Sears site. The City had an excellent library and good transportation to UO. The community had great intellectual facilities with the UO. He said students had money to spend and it would be good to have students downtown. Dan Montgomery, 66 Club Road, Suite 160, was a commercial real estate broker who supported the proposed code amendments. He thanked Commissioners for taking up the issue. Although he MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 6 had not participated in the LUCU process under which the current code was implemented, he knew of no private sector buildings built in downtown since the code was enacted. He had chosen not to try to sell property downtown, but would like to see downtown revitalized. He agreed with Mr. Prichard that development in the 1990s was good development, in that it did not create an undue amount of traffic. People had chosen not to develop downtown because it was so prohibitive. He encouraged the Commission to see what Corvallis and Salem had done, noting they had vibrant downtown areas. Mark Musgrove, 2582 Terrance View Drive, stated he was a member of the family that owned Musgrove Family Mortuary that had been at its current downtown location since 1911. The funeral home in downtown Eugene was the oldest continuous family business in Lane County. He had observed the many successes and failures in downtown. During the last few years, there had been no development downtown, and this was a major concern to his family. Empty buildings and a lack of excitement were also concerns. He believed in a vibrant Eugene and a vibrant downtown. His family supported the amendments that would allow for measured development in a way that would work for the next fifty years. The current situation was not workable. He asked that the Commission support moving the amendments forward to the City Council. His family and the community would help with those efforts. Mike Grudzien , 921 Waverly Street, supported common sense and was a proponent for the amendments. He was proud of Eugene and wanted to see a downtown as vibrant as Corvallis, Portland and Salem. Based on current codes, many landmark buildings could not be built today. Mary Leighton , 4046 Normandy Way, identified herself as director of Network Charter School, located at 45 West Broadway. As she was imaging how the school would find a home downtown, she had attended many meetings, heard great ideas about integrated development downtown and slowly shifted her plans to fit into a vibrant downtown. Mr. Hledik said no one had indicated an interest in speaking on a neutral position. Mr. Hledik called for testimony from those in opposition of the proposed amendments. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 7 Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, identified himself as President of Friends of Eugene. He said the Commission knew development downtown was a complicated issue. The Chamber of Commerce did not have a strong record of a fix for downtown. Corvallis and Salem did not tear down old buildings. Taking out and putting in streets had not been successful. Things were different today because we needed density far more in downtown than when LUCU was enacted. The State of Oregon and the State Legislature passed House Bill H.B. 3543 in 2007 that set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 75 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Those levels could not be met without embracing the reality of the geography of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Downtown residents and users had as a group one-third of the metropolitan average of the VMT usage. The claim was that if we did not require density downtown, we would get no development. But when a new building at low density was developed, it was hoped it was a 50 year building. Thus, any new building would be a social investment in a reduction of density below current plans. Current plans needed to get denser downtown. Friends of Eugene were totally in favor of identifying and surgically removing pointless restrictions to development downtown. Reducing density downtown in 2008 was unacceptable. Win-win solutions were needed, which meant building downtown at density. Building downtown at lower density looked good for a couple of years but it was the wrong direction for the community. He submitted written testimony for inclusion in the public record. Friends of Eugene did not have an economic stake in specific properties in downtown, but did have an economic stake in the health of the community and the common good. He appealed to the Commission to weigh that, and ask staff for an analysis of the impact on greenhouse gas emissions of the proposed code changes. Laurie Segel, 642 Charnelton Street, identified herself as a community planner with the Goal One Coalition. She worked in an old house from 1920’s or 1930’s, which included residential and small offices spaces used by small businesses and small non-profits. She saw density downtown happening, but did not see vibrant density at the Broadway corridor between Franklin Street and Lincoln Street. There were considerations other than the land use code that were factors in the lack of downtown development, including the economic upheaval of 9-1-1 nationwide. Many of the properties in the corridor did not have ownership diversity, so there was a lot of market share power and few independent opportunities. We were facing a tomorrow that was not like post World War II where development could switch from one type of market to another in relatively short periods of time, where developers could assure themselves of a profit margin with whatever was the trend. The future now was energy constrained. She submitted written comments that MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 8 offered several solutions for use of land downtown, including capping the maximum number of parking spaces allowed, removing minimum lot size standards, establishing language that would ensure development opportunities on underutilized sites. She addressed problems with the proposal related to problems with TransPlan policies and expectations for employment in nodes. She addressed the fact that the findings do not substantiate removing employment opportunities in the downtown core and not making up for that loss in some other policy direction. Mr. Hledik noted there were more people who to speak. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Laurence and Ms. Gardner said they had received no requests to keep the record open. There were no requests from Planning Commissioners to keep the record open. Mr. Hledik closed the record. Noting no requests to hold the public hearing over, Mr. Hledik closed the public hearing. He said deliberations would take place on April 28, 2008. In response to Mr. Hledik, Ms. Laurence confirmed that she would respond to any questions raised by Commissioners. Mr. McCown asked for a breakdown of the number of building permits issued in the affected region in the previous seven years, as well as the two seven year segments prior to enactment of LUCU. Mr. Lawless iterated his concern for the lack of clarity in some of the terminology, which was raised in testimony tonight. Ms. Kneeland asked staff to follow-up on testimony related to concerns about VMT, greenhouse gasses, and pushing development to the suburbs. She asked for follow up information to the DLCD letter and the testimony on concerns about the impact of the code amendments on employment, and what that impact would be in respect to the stated requirements for employment goals. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 9 Mr. Carroll said the letter from DLCD mentioned adding incentives or other stipulations such as requiring development to physically allow for greater intensity over time. He asked staff to provide background information about experience with those efforts downtown, and the practicality and feasibility of considering that approach. He asked for information on comparing and contrasting development requirements around parking and density for commercial development outside of the downtown core in similar zones. Mr. Hledik thanked everyone for their interest and participation in tonight’s public hearing. He iterated the Planning Commission would deliberate on April 28, 2008. Mr. Hledik adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2008 minutes\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc080408.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 10 ATTACHMENT C S U M M A R Y M I N U T E S Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission th Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10 Avenue April 28, 2008 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Randy Hledik, President; Phillip Carroll, Vice President; Heidi Beierle, Rick Duncan, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Allisa Hansen, Mike McKerrow, Kristie Brown, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Tom Adams, Bill Goetz, KVAL-TV News; Russ Brink, Downtown Eugene, Inc.; Terry Connolly, Eugene Chamber of Commerce, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting held on April 8, 2008. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: DOWNTOWN CODE AMENDMENTS SUMMARY MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 1 Mr. McCown moved to recommend approval of the changes to the downtown code with adjustments to the findings and with the stipulation that the policies be reviewed in seven years. Mr. Lawless provided the second. Mr. Duncan offered a friendly amendment removing the timeframe from the motion. The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Kneeland voting in opposition. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission SUMMARY MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 2 M I N U T E S Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission th Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10 Avenue April 28, 2008 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Randy Hledik, President; Phillip Carroll, Vice President; Heidi Beierle, Rick Duncan, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Allisa Hansen, Mike McKerrow, Kristie Brown, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Tom Adams, Bill Goetz, KVAL-TV News; Russ Brink, Downtown Eugene, Inc.; Terry Connolly, Eugene Chamber of Commerce, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Hledik convened the Eugene Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no one present who wished to speak at this time. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of the Planning Commission held on April 8, 2008, as MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 1 written. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: DOWNTOWN CODE AMENDMENTS Ms. Laurence recapped the public testimony and the comments received. She related that they had received testimony in support of the code amendments, testimony in support of the code amendments that had specific questions such as on the lot or development site, testimony in support of downtown density, and questions about the impact of the proposed code amendments on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions. Regarding specific issues on lot versus development site, she stated that the initial code language had proposed to base Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on lot or development site. She reported that questions and comments had come in that indicated that offering this choice added confusion to the code. She said based on advice from the City Attorney the language had been changed to only ‘lot.’ She explained that this had to do with the language used in the rest of the code and the legal definition of lot. She stressed that the focus lay on trying to address certain areas of the code in the present without adding to confusion or contradictions elsewhere in the code. Regarding the VMT, Ms. Laurence stated that the goal of the project was to encourage downtown density where there were already services in place and to address a park once concept. She felt that the only way to get to the desired VMT and the park once concept was to get to a greater level of density and mixed use. She said at the heart of this project was a question of whether reducing the density required would increase the VMT or greenhouse gases. She stated that this was a question for Planning Commissioners. She noted that research indicated that the density was too high to be workable so the City was not seeing the developments coming through that it wanted in the downtown. She conveyed staff’s hope that reducing density outside of the downtown core area from a 1.0 to a .65 FAR would make it easier for development to happen in the area and this would make for a more dense and walkable downtown. Ms. Laurence said, in responding to questions about Phase 2 of the code amendments, they hoped to start on the four items the council had asked the commission and staff to consider when initiating the project: bicycle parking requirements, boundaries for downtown-related codes and regulations, MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 2 green building concepts, and design review. She noted that this was in addition to the changes going forward in Phase 1, C-2, C-3, and changes to the Transit-Oriented District (/TD) and FAR. She said full public participation would have to be engaged in Phase 2. She projected that Phase 2 would be comprised of significantly more involved comprehensive changes to the code, MetroPlan changes, and potentially a new zone for downtown as well as a new approval path. Mr. Hledik noted that staff had asked the Planning Commission to take action and had recommended approval of the ordinance. Mr. McCown asked if removing the original development language would lose the intent for more flexibility. Ms. Laurence responded that staff’s sense was that when using only the lot to calculate FAR the requirement would be less. This would mean it would be easier to meet that requirement. Mr. Duncan asked Ms. Laurence to provide an idea of how the word ‘lot’ was currently used in the code. Mr. McKerrow responded that from a building permit aspect when an applicant came in they had a generic view of the term ‘lot.’ He said for this standard they would look at the lots shown in a subdivision plat map or the tax assessor’s lot map. He stated that the proposed change in the ordinance would provide more flexibility for an applicant to develop one lot at a time, rather than including all lots that an applicant may own. Mr. Nystrom clarified that ‘lot’ referred to a legally created parcel. Ms. Kneeland wanted to follow up on the issue concerning employment raised by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). She said the letter seemed to suggest that the City needed to look at assessing the impact a reduction in FAR would have on employment targets. Ms. Laurence responded that staff felt, based on regulations they were bound by, that the City could not make a direct link in the way the letter from DLCD suggested they should. She said the City was not reducing density, it was reducing the amount of density that was required outside of the core. She stressed that the City of Eugene was not seeing the development coming through that would generate the level of employment that was desired and that the City shared the goal set forth by the DLCD. Ms. Kneeland asked if Ms. Laurence thought this should be addressed in the commission’s MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 3 findings, given that the DLCD had raised it as an issue. Ms. Laurence replied that it had not been addressed directly; what had been talked about was the impact on commercial and residential lands. She noted that she had not received notice from the City Attorney that this was something that needed to be addressed. She said she would contact legal counsel to be certain. Mr. Hledik asked if anything in the changes would preclude someone from building at a 1.0 FAR or more or building and not providing parking. Ms. Laurence responded that no parking was required within the downtown core area. She did not see anything in the code that would preclude someone from building at a 1.0 FAR. She noted that there was always the provision that allowed an applicant to go through an adjustment review. Mr. Lawless was amenable to the change in language to ‘lot’ as long as it could be used singularly or plural or in conjunction, as in the case in which two lots were separated by the width of a street. He was glad the development site was being modified so it would not have to be attached to adjacent properties. He added that the ‘development site’ component should be removed from other portions of the text for the sake of consistency. Ms. Laurence stated that the change of ‘development site’ to ‘lot’ occurred only in the calculation of FAR only in the /TD standards. She acknowledged that it appeared to be inconsistent because it was only included in that one area. She said the strategy going forward into Phase 2 would be to review the code with a “fine toothed comb” in order to find those sorts of things but at present the effort was to make the smallest change to address one particular issue. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Nystrom said the term ‘development site’ was still valid for many reasons. He encouraged the commissioners to not take an either/or approach to the language. He did not want to use ‘lot’ throughout the code as there were reasons to keep ‘development site’ as it was in other areas of the code. Mr. Duncan asked, regarding lot definition, if a developer would be able to tell the Planning and Development Department what the lot was comprised of. He noted that many of the lots in the downtown area were established prior to the 1900s and were only minimal widths and many of the tax lots could contain several of these lots. He said if he was developing something he could potentially build a building on a 40-foot section of a 100-foot lot because there was a 40-foot lot MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 4 that had been platted prior to 1963. He stressed the importance of being clear. Ms. Laurence responded that ‘lot’ had its own areas of complication and confusion. She said they were not changing or adding to them at this point; they were simply allowing a smaller area within contiguous ownership to be used. She underscored that the property owner would have to come forward and indicate it was a lot. She stated that the department did not typically verify legal lots as part of the land use or building permit actions, rather staff relied on the knowledge of the lot. She noted that one could typically see on a tax map what had been previously platted. Mr. Nystrom was not as concerned about downtown parcels, given how long ago most of the lots had been platted. He commented that they were almost the easiest lots to verify. Mr. McKerrow added that this had not been an issue for the permitting department. Mr. Duncan observed that the area in which they were discussing a reduction in FAR from 1.0 to .65 currently featured a density of approximately .25 FAR. He said changing it to .65 would potentially double or triple the current density. Mr. Carroll asked what the underlying idea was behind the adjustment of boundaries that would be considered in Phase 2. Ms. Laurence responded that there were seven or eight boundaries affecting downtown regulations and they do not coincide. She averred that they needed to review which boundaries made sense and then simplify the map. Mr. Carroll remarked that calling the MiCap process Phase 1 and Phase 2 might not be accurate. He felt what the commission was doing was considering some intermediate steps in certain areas of downtown. He thought that what the commission might do in this first step could be “wiped out” or significantly altered when it was completed. Ms. Laurence agreed that the Phase 1 changes could be considered intermediary measures. Mr. Carroll noted he had requested a discussion on the DLCD potential requirement for development to physically prepare for greater intensity of use in the future. He asked for staff’s thoughts on whether it was practical or feasible. Ms. Laurence responded that it was feasible but she was not certain whether it was practical. She said they had not yet conducted all of the analysis. She stated that as they progressed in Phase 2 they would be considering green building concepts and one concept was the future life of a structure. She posited that the more financial MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 5 implications that regulations would have the more they could preclude the type of development they would like to see. She underscored that they were tracking the suggestions for making buildings be greener and more sustainable over time. Ms. Kneeland opined that some of the conclusions regarding VMT had been based on “fairly simplistic ideas.” She felt that the park once idea was appealing but she was not certain as to how it would be true. She asked what kind of research supported this idea that reducing density and bringing a car that would park once would reduce VMT. Ms. Laurence replied that when the Transit Oriented District was first put in place in the code in 1993 staff had conducted research on what buildable areas and the impact on property owners would be. She recalled that when the FAR had been changed from .65 to 1.0 it had been an effort to round the number up. She did not believe there was a discussion on what the impact to properties that were there would be. She said the research they were doing involved looking at the impacts of this approach in other cities. She related that the division was working with some University of Oregon economics students to conduct a survey of cities either in Oregon or nationwide in order to take a look at what the transit oriented regulations were. She underscored that many cities had transit oriented regulations but hardly any required an FAR. She said they wanted to see from the examples from other cities what impact density regulations have on the type of downtown that was desired. Ms. Kneeland surmised that it was somewhat of a leap of faith that achieving density would reduce VMT. Ms. Laurence responded that it was not “just a leap of faith.” She stated that movement patterns downtown were known. She said most of the downtown was a parking exempt zone and the City had tried to mitigate that with the construction of parking garages. She related that in looking at other cities it was possible to see the kinds of buildings where people were inclined to walk from one building to another. She added that it was known that a person would typically walk up to a quarter mile or for five minutes from their parked car. She also noted that studies had been conducted in downtown Eugene of circles widening out from the parking structures to see where people would go from a given parking structure as opposed to getting into their car and driving half a block away. Mr. McCown observed that the commission had spent much of the time he had served on the commission cleaning up the land use code. He said it seemed that there was a lot of passion around it and the updates were for worthwhile goals. He was not certain, however, whether the past MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 6 updates had been implemented with an eye to the future. He wondered if the commission would think it worthwhile to formalize a review process, such as putting a sunset date on the Phase 1 changes of three to five years in order to see if the goals they intended to achieve were being achieved. Mr. Lawless commented that he would be cautious given that the period of time a lack of development had been experienced with the current standards in place had been seven years. He would want to give the next iteration of the code a similar period of time. Mr. Lawless pointed out that building infrastructure was an inherent part of building square footage. He averred that floor area should be comprised of its gross outside footprint. Ms. Laurence clarified that for the purposes of calculating FAR the entire square footage was included. Mr. Nystrom added that it could have value to pull out FAR for its own unique definition. Mr. Lawless thought there needed to be refinement as to what the plane of measurement was. Mr. Lawless commented that this could also be applied to some of the other elements in the diagrams, such as recessed entryways. He wondered whether a recessed entry would be considered an outside space and whether it would be counted as an enhanced pedestrian amenity or was it a piece of building. He could see 100 different ways to calculate and address these elements as he was trying to design for a client. Mr. Nystrom agreed that a lot of the details could be difficult to sift through. He said they needed to consider whether Phase 1 code amendments were a step in the right direction. Mr. Lawless averred that he would hate to see the limited portions in Phase 1 not be clearly applicable. He felt some things could be cleaned up and “air tight.” Ms. Laurence clarified that the only change proposed to the definition of FAR was to include basement areas. Ms. Beierle asked if the adjustment review would be the process in which such questions would be answered. Ms. Laurence replied that it was hoped that individuals who used the code would not have to undergo the adjustment review. She noted that Mr. Lawless’ concern regarding the recessed entry related to code that would not be “touched” in the Phase 1 process. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 7 Mr. Hledik asked if the Phase 2 code amendments were on the Planning and Development Department (PDD) workplan for the next year. Ms. Laurence affirmed that it was on her workplan. Mr. Nystrom noted that the PDD did not have a formal workplan. Mr. Hledik asked how this would dovetail with the Planning Commission work. Mr. Nystrom responded that he saw it being identified in workplan discussions in regard to the commission. Mr. McCown asked if the review piece was formalized whether it would be more useful to codify it or to include it in the recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Nystrom responded that it should be part of the recommendation. In response to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Ms. Laurence explained that the PDD had tracked impacts through the land use code and permit tracking system but was not able to produce statistics in time for the present meeting. It seemed to her that a way to track the impact of these changes would be at some point in the future to look at what building permits had happened. She said while building permits were one way to track it, land values were another way because as regulations impacted build-ability land values were also impacted. She wanted to go forward with the review of those statistics and the study the economics students were producing and provide the results during the Phase 2 review. She added that tracking the impact of more comprehensive changes would better get at an answer on what affect the amendments would have. She underscored that there were other elements, such as the cost of materials and world economic implications, affecting development in the downtown area. Ms. Kneeland felt that looking at building permit statistics was akin to saying the codes were the problem. Ms. Laurence responded that it was not possible to get at all of the data and some of it was within local control and some was not. She said the portion that was within local control had to do with code regulations. She understood based on what they heard from the community and based on the evidence of projects coming forward or being built outside the core was that there were either actual or perceived difficulties with using the code regulations in the core. She underscored that this was what the project intended to address. She said the emphasis was on addressing it in minor ways in the hope that tweaking the code would produce results. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 8 Mr. Duncan asked if removing (d) under 9.4530 would redefine the total minimal floor area of the buildings. Ms. Laurence responded that it was also in the definitions, indicating that within the /TD zone the basement area “may” be included in the FAR calculation. Mr. Duncan ascertained from Mr. Nystrom that the applicant would make the decision on whether the basement would be included. Mr. Lawless noted that under 9.2161, Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2160, the bottom sentence indicated that residential dwellings were not required to use the ground floor of a structure for “commercial or non-residential purposes.” He wondered if it would make more sense to say “commercial or otherwise permitted purposes.” He felt that ‘non-residential’ left the range of uses wide open. Ms. Laurence responded that she would check with the City Attorney regarding that language, noting that they had tried to use the original code language to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Lawless noted that a similar application of the language happened in the Table 9.2161. Mr. Carroll said he was interested in the idea of requiring a demonstration by the applicant that efforts would be made in the design to support future expansion, and in particular vertical expansion. He acknowledged that if it were an outright requirement it would add to the cost of the building. He wondered to what extent the greater cost would be a deterrent. He was willing to consider something, given that an adjustment review was built into the process, on the order of requiring an applicant to demonstrate why their project would become unfeasible if a future allowance in the design was made. Mr. Lawless observed that in his experience the pre-planning and investment for vertical expansion was not a miniscule or marginal expense. He said one problem with it was that as codes and life safety laws continued to escalate what someone might do right now in 20 or 30 years could be worthless and ultimately could cause a project to be more expensive than before. Though he was a fan of master planning and the demonstration of phasing, he was uncertain how that would play into an approval or a design review. Mr. Nystrom said the fundamental question was that the change in FAR was being proposed as a permitted outright use. He thought determining whether the commission was comfortable with that change was the starting point and then if they were not they should consider leaving the standard in MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 9 place and leaving it so that an applicant could not get down to a lesser number without the adjustment review process. He said those issues could certainly be part of the “shopping list” for Phase 2. Ms. Kneeland noted that the DLCD had suggested other incentives or measures to promote denser development over time and asked if this was something that could be looked at in the second phase. She wanted find ways to encourage people to densify in the future. Ms. Laurence said she would include some of the points raised by the DLCD but it was important to note that incentives did not fall under the purview of the code. She wanted to outline some of the items that had come up and then bring it before the Planning Commission to allow the commissioners to add to the list. Mr. Carroll agreed with Mr. Lawless that utility areas should be included in the FAR. Ms. Laurence assured him that this was already in the code. Mr. Carroll related that he had some qualms about how the MetroPlan policies were interpreted. He referred to #2, which said it would be consistent with applicable provisions of the MetroPlan, and Policy A(19), which sought to encourage residential developments in or near downtown core areas in both cities. He felt they should be consistent on whether “tinkering” with land use codes constituted encouragement or incentives. He thought policies that addressed those did not apply to reducing minimums in land use codes. He averred that if the aim was to create incentives they would keep the 1.0 FAR and then say if it was met an applicant was exempt from certain requirements or the City would fund certain things. He did not believe loosening baseline requirements was an incentive nor did he think that Policy A(19) would be fulfilled by what they were doing. Continuing, Mr. Carroll referred to the bottom of page 6, in which it suggested that the intent of the code amendments was to implement the Downtown Plan. He noted that the last sentence said the intended purpose of the reduction was to provide a wider range of allowable densities to facilitate desired development given the current economic climate. He found this phrase to be too vague, given that the background and the findings begin with the discussion on how this process had arisen from the adoption of the Downtown Plan and had been going on for several years. He MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 10 pointed out that it could be referring to the economic climate of a few years earlier. He commented that it could be better to say that given testimony and experience with the cost of redeveloping land in downtown Eugene compared to market demand would be more specific to what the code amendments were responding to. Mr. Carroll asked Ms. Laurence to comment on the C-3 area in the west University area. Ms. Laurence explained that the only two areas of C-3, Commercial, zoning were in the downtown area th and in the West 13 Avenue and Kincaid Street area. She had looked for plan policies or discussion outside of the Downtown Plan that would address the changes they were looking at and had not found anything with enough specificity that they could be used to support or raise concerns with the code amendments. She noted that she had also found an issue with a portion of land that was outside of the downtown core and fell within the Jefferson/Far West Neighborhood on Willamette Street because of the changes in the /TD area. She said the only discussion in the Jefferson/Far West Plan referred to that area as the differentiation between the residential and commercial areas. It did not provide insight into the changes that were proposed. She related that the policies in the plan were so generally stated that even if they had addressed the kind of topic the Planning Commission was looking into they were not worded in such a way that they could constitute mandatory approval criteria. Mr. Carroll commented that the way the statewide goal findings for Goal 2 were written related to the amendments being fact-based seemed conclusory. He thought it would be better to mention the input from the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) and all of the testimony received including that of the developers and land-owners. He said it was important to stress how commercially zoned land outside the Transit Oriented District was being developed and land inside the district was not. Mr. McCown moved to recommend approval of the changes to the downtown code with adjustments to the findings and with the stipulation that the policies be reviewed in seven years. Mr. Lawless provided the second. Mr. McCown thought a seven year period was appropriate because that was the period of time that had elapsed since the Land Use Code Update (LUCU). He said while he strongly supported the values behind increased densities the City had found itself in a situation where it had not seen much MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 11 downtown development in years. He underscored that having no development meant there had been no increase in density. He hoped that by reducing the density minimums the City would realize an increase in development that would thereby increase densities. He felt adding the seven year caveat would provide an opportunity to conduct planning in a manner wherein the values were based in facts such as how the VMT had been affected by the changes. Mr. Carroll supported the concept but felt seven years was too arbitrary of a number. When he thought of what happened since the LUCU it seemed to him that what they should revisit would be the refinement plans. He indicated he would support sending a recommendation to the council that given the plans for Phase 2 and the aging Downtown Plan that the Planning Commission would keep it as a top priority for its work plan. Mr. Lawless saw this recommendation as a jumpstart for heading in a direction that would stimulate development. He agreed that some development would be densifying and having no development meant no densification. He preferred to exclude the seven year timeframe from the motion, but hoped the commission would agree to forward a sidebar recommendation to council to grapple with looking at the progress on a fact basis at an appropriate time down the road. Mr. Duncan concurred. He averred that it would be self-evident if the changes would work as development would occur where it was currently not occurring. He agreed that it seemed that changes were sometimes based on the faith that they would work and were not revisited, but he was not certain that including a specific timeframe would work. Ms. Kneeland opposed the recommended changes to the amendments. She agreed and hoped that they would find a way to encourage density in Eugene. She thought the amendments were based on an idea that no development equaled no increase in density and so the restrictiveness of the codes should be reduced to allow some development even though it would not be at the density measurements that were desired. She felt this was an “appealing premise.” She acknowledged the testimony from the development community, which supported this idea, but averred that the city government had a responsibility that was larger than private development interests. She felt the City had to look at climate change and the future of the city and the state in a larger social context. She was not satisfied that the code amendments were taking the City in the direction that it needed to go. She hoped that her vote would be communicated to the council along with a request that MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 12 they receive more of the information she felt was lacking with respect to VMT and the other conditions that were dictating what was going on in the City of Eugene. Ms. Beierle supported the amendments. She echoed Ms. Kneeland’s concerns but she understood the amendments to be small and intermediary steps toward wrestling with the larger issues. She added that in looking at the amendments as an intermediary step the seven year period for a review process might be ultimately irrelevant. She would not support imposing a timeframe. Mr. Hledik also supported the motion, but without the seven year review. He thought the review period would be taken care of in Phase 2 of the code amendment process. He felt the commission had heard a lot of good public testimony ranging from global carbon-based issues getting down to whether or not “nooks and crannies” should be counted as part of the floor area. He pointed out that no one disputed the goal of densifying the use of the downtown area. He underscored that the downtown was the area that cities expected to see the densest development. He supported the idea of having more employment downtown because that would make the downtown area more vibrant and it would help mass transit to work better. He agreed that there were issues that were beyond the control of the Planning Commission, but the code was something that could be controlled. He stressed that the commission had heard a great deal of testimony that indicated the code was not working in the downtown area. He averred that they needed to start somewhere and eventually Eugene would grow and achieve the density that it had established through the LUCU process. Mr. Duncan offered a friendly amendment removing the timeframe from the motion. The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed as amended, 6:1; Ms. Kneeland voting in opposition. Mr. Hledik urged staff and the commission to keep up its momentum and initiate work on Phase 2 of the code amendment process. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Commission and Staff MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 13 Mr. Hledik reminded everyone that the tour for the Opportunity Siting and Infill Compatibility Study was meeting at the Atrium at 5 p.m. Mr. Hledik stated that the joint hearing with the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions on the Interstate 5 Bridge was scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Bascom-Tykeson Room in the Library. He emphasized that the focus was fairly narrow as it was on an exception to Goal 15 in terms of amending the MetroPlan. He said the Eugene Planning Commission would also be looking at a text amendment to the Willakenzie Area Plan that would allow fill within 35 feet of the river. He underscored that no action was to be taken and it would benefit the process to bring up any questions that might arise at this point. He thought they would reconvene with the two planning commissions for deliberations in early June, noting that June 3 had been suggested. Mr. Nystrom explained that there was a time issue in the larger scheme of things. He said they were trying to get this done prior to the City Council summer break as well as trying to accommodate the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and its permitting process, which had federal standards to meet. Mr. Duncan asked if the planning commissions had much to say about the bridge. It seemed to him like the answer was already there and the federal government would construct the bridge even if everyone said no. Mr. Nystrom responded that the State was the applicant and it was going through a federal process. He agreed that it would be surprising if the jurisdictions decided to “cut off Interstate 5.” He underscored that the focus of the commissions’ deliberation was narrow. He said there was a provision in the MetroPlan that was triggered by the potential of the placement of fill in the river. In response to a question from Mr. Carroll, Mr. Nystrom confirmed that the materials provided to the Planning Commission on this issue would provide what they needed to understand it. He felt there would be more information available at the next evening’s public hearing. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Nystrom stated that the City of Eugene was the lead and that Heather O’Donnell was the lead planner on the item. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 14 Mr. Hledik adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 15