HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Joint Meeting with Eugene Planning Commission
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Joint Meeting with Eugene Planning Commission
Meeting Date: July 17, 2006 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-8379
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session continues the Planning Commission/City Council discussion about the use of
Opportunity Siting as a tool for implementing Growth Management Policies related to Mixed Use
Centers, infill development, and maintaining neighborhood character and livability. The Planning
Commission looks for council guidance as it works with staff to develop the program.
BACKGROUND
During a council work session on July 20, 2005, regarding the Mixed Use Center program, the City
Council passed the following motions:
Direct the City Manager to incorporate opportunity siting as described in the July 19,
2005, email to the Mayor and City Council as a primary strategy for achieving density
targets in mixed-use centers.
Request that opportunity siting be combined with citywide estimates of future population
which will be approximately allocated to mixed use districts and other areas in the city.
On December 14, 2005, the City Council further directed staff to address inappropriate infill standards
within the Planning Division’s high priority work tasks. Subsequent to these motions, the Planning
Commission received further clarification of these motions from Councilor Bettman via email (see
Attachment A). With that additional information, the Planning Commission prepared a “menu of
approaches” that outlines possible work tasks to accomplish the council directive and later refined the
proposed work program as provided below. On June 12, 2006, the City Council approved funding that
will be used to implement the council directive. The commission is pleased to present its refined
proposed work program for further council direction. Specific questions for the council are noted below
in italic font.
Draft Work Outline,
prepared by the Planning Commission for council comment and direction:
Opportunity Siting
General Purpose: Find and prepare specific sites for higher density residential development
with intention of relieving infill pressure in established neighborhoods.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060717\S060717A.doc
A. Start with public outreach (especially with neighborhood organizations and development
community) to explain programs and identify possible opportunity sites.
B. Develop strategy to determine how to proceed (e.g., prepare work program, criteria) and
where to proceed (e.g., site selection, prioritization).
C. Begin test studies of 1-2 sites.
D. Concurrent studies:
1. Cost considerations of high density and mixed use development; recommendations
for best site traits for opportunity sites.
2. Feasibility analysis of test sites; provide recommendations for highest and best uses
at current time and near future.
3. Compatibility issues for neighborhoods.
E. During study of first test sites, refine site selection and implementation criteria
Questions for City Council:
1. Is this draft Opportunity Siting program acceptable?
2. Does the council want to participate in selection of test sites?
3. Does the council have suggestions for site selection criteria?
Infill Standards for Compatibility
General Purpose: Accommodate appropriate level of infill while maintaining the character and
livability of individual neighborhoods.
A. Develop a “toolkit” that lists possible actions to increase the compatibility of infill
development, review the applicability of these tools to different circumstances, and explore
legal hindrances to these measures.
B. Develop a detailed work program that will result in the application of the most appropriate
tools that adapt to neighborhood character.
Questions for City Council:
1. Is this approach acceptable?
2. Are there specific neighborhoods or tools that the council wants pursued as a top
priority? Are there any that cannot wait for the coordinated work program?
Population Allocations
General Purpose: Accommodate growth in a manner prescribed by the Growth Management
Policies. The commission believes that it would be most effective to lead with public outreach and
education and examples of case studies instead of with long-range population forecasts and
allocations to the neighborhoods, which might be controversial and divisive.
A. Determine our existing remaining residential buildable land supply through a status or
monitoring report (this would not constitute a new Buildable Lands Inventory as defined by
state rules).
B. Opportunity Siting and infill standards work will estimate each action’s effect on the
anticipated development potential of the site(s). After a couple of test sites are completed, a
report on this combined approach’s net effectiveness will be prepared.
C.Review project impacts (defined by Task B) with different trend and data analysis to project
probable effects; compare this against available land (defined by Task A), and prepare a
report for council review.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060717\S060717A.doc
Questions for City Council:
1. Is this approach acceptable to the council?
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The Planning Commission views the Mixed Use Center (nodal), Opportunity Siting, and infill standards
programs as implementation strategies of the following Metro Plan and Growth Management Policies
(1998):
Growth Management Study:
Policy 1 Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking actions to increase
density and use existing vacant land and under-used land within the boundary more
efficiently.
Policy 2 Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density development.
Policy 6 Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the character and
livability of individual neighborhoods.
Policy 10 Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and implementation
of nodal development concepts.
Metro Plan:
A.11. Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial
services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation-efficient
nodes.
A.13. Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more
opportunities for effectively designed in-fill, redevelopment, and mixed use while
considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future
neighborhoods.
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.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The Planning Commission seeks City Council direction regarding the proposed strategies for
Opportunity Siting, infill standards, and population allocations. There are many options for the council
to consider, including:
1.Accept the Planning Commission’s recommendations as outlined in this Agenda Item Summary.
2.Provide guidance where the council would like to amend the recommendations.
3.Delay action and ask for further refinement of on specified strategies above.
4.Delay action to revise the overall Opportunity Siting, infill standard, or population allocation
concepts.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060717\S060717A.doc
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends the City Council accept the Planning Commission’s recommendations
or provide guidance where City Council direction differs from the commission’s work outline.
Direction provided by the council during this discussion will be integrated with the Planning Division’s
work program, which will return for City Council approval in the fall.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve the Planning Commission’s strategy for Opportunity Siting, infill standards, and
population allocations, as outlined in the Agenda Item Summary.
ATTACHMENTS
A. E-mail chain from Councilor Bettman clarifying the Opportunity Siting program
B. Menu of Approaches for Opportunity Siting and Compatibility Standards for Infill Development,
May 16, 2006
C. Growth Management Policies (Ordinance 4554)
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter
Telephone: 682-8379
Staff E-Mail: kurt.m.yeiter@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060717\S060717A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
EXCERPTS FROM E-MAIL CHAIN
Clarifying intent of Opportunity Siting program
-----Original Message-----
From: BETTMAN Bonny S
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:55 PM
Subject: RE: opportunity siting display at planning dept.
I suggested that we identify ONE site as a demonstration project; and that it would be
preferable that the first site be on Public Property, either acquired or owned by the city. I
believe that a demonstration project will serve as both an opportunity to refine the
process as well as stand as a successful example to stimulate future projects. Maintaining
control of the first project will help streamline development of the strategy. It also means
we can focus on one site, in the immediate future, instead of postponing implementation
until the entire strategy is encoded, without the benefit of practical experience. The latter
could take years.
I hope this clarifies my intent for staff as well as interested neighborhood leaders.
Thank you,
Bonny Bettman
-----Original Message-----
From: BETTMAN Bonny S
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 6:31 PM
Subject: RE: opportunity siting display at planning dept.
The Op Siting strategy, as I describe it, will be implemented with Neighborhood
collaboration to identify sites and to define compatibility standards on a site by site basis.
Since the Planning Commission and Planning Department projected a long time line to
develop the policies and procedures, I, and others, thought it would be a good plan to
move forward a.s.a.p. with one demonstration project. In order to maximize the potential
for using the first project as a prototype to inform policy and implementation of
Opportunity Siting; I suggested that the demo project be on public land. I was thinking of
abandoned, or soon to be abandoned, school sites, other school district property, utilities,
etc.
I was not thinking, or even imagined anyone would be considering using a park site for
high density residential. It is certainly plausible to use a private development site as a
demonstration site, but that would take more detailed and time consuming negotiation
with a developer who may want the upzone but not the collaboration and design
standards. To make a successful demo project the city needs a modicum of control, once
we prove it will be successful, and accepted at the neighborhood level, then we can move
forward with specific Op Sites on private land. Thank you for alerting me to this
problem. Bonny Bettman
ATTACHMENT B
Menu of Approaches
for
Opportunity Siting
and
Compatibility Standards for Infill Development
Prepared by the Eugene Planning Commission
May 16, 2006
Introduction: This menu was prepared by the Planning Commission to facilitate discussion about future work related to opportunity
siting, new compatibility standards for infill development in established neighborhoods, and population projections related to infill
development. These discussions stem primarily from the following July 20, 2005, City Council action:
Ms. Bettman moved to direct the City Manager to incorporate opportunity-siting as described in the July 19,
2005 email to the Mayor and to City Council as a primary strategy for achieving density targets in mixed use
centers.
Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment: to request that opportunity-siting be combined with city-wide estimates
of future population which will be approximately allocated to mixed use districts and other areas in the city.
The motion passed unanimously.
From these and subsequent Council discussions, the creation of more effective standards to mitigate the effects of, or eliminate
altogether, incompatible infill development became part of this menu.
The FY 06-07 City Manager’s draft budget includes one additional employee in the Planning Division, who, if approved, could work
on items included in this menu.
Notes and Caveats: This is a draft menu intended only for general discussion purposes. There are many possible variations on each
task listed on the menu. After direction is given and preferences are provided by the Council, costs and schedules can be refined by
staff.
Most of the tasks will rely on in-house GIS services, at no additional costs.
Supporting studies are separate tasks, in addition to the resource needs listed above them.
All tasks contain some public outreach and involvement to neighborhood organizations, Neighborhood Leaders Council, property
owners, development community, and other interested parties, but the amount of outreach and involvement varies by task. Larger
projects would contain much more public involvement. The relative staff time and costs of public involvement is reflected in the
projected resource needs to some extent.
The Planning Commission recommends that infill standards be developed concurrently with opportunity siting, not ahead or in place
of opportunity siting.
2
Growth Management Policies
Opportunity Compatibility Population
Allocation
Standards
Siting
For
In-Fill
The tasks presented in his menu help implement the city’s adopted Growth Management policies
3
OPPORTUNITY SITING
Time Needed
Options: Required Resources
1: Study only City-owned and school district properties. 6 months .25 FTE
(examples: downtown sites, housing land bank, old school sites)
2: Study all publicly-owned properties and properties that could be 9 mo. .5 FTE
easily obtained by City.
(examples: #1, above, surplus government properties, large lots)
3: Private properties. (select a few as examples, plus #1 +2, above) 9 mo. - ongoing 1.0FTE+$30,000/yr
4: Develop criteria, then identify and study all sites within the 9 mo. – ongoing 2.0 FTE+$75,000/yr
UGB, studying approximately 3 sites at a time.
5. New Process (to be done independently of Options 1-4, above): 1 year .25 FTE to create; ongoing
Create new process where opportunity sites are identified by costs for neighborhood
private sector, reviewed and analyzed by neighborhood org., and consultant pool
approved by Planning Commission. (est: $10-50,000/yr)
Supporting Studies:
1.Explanation of high density and mixed use financial First 6 months $50,000
considerations; recommendations for best site traits for
opportunity sites.
2.Feasibility analysis of specific selected sites; provide On-going $10-20,000/site
recommendations for highest and best uses at current time and
near future.
4
COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS FOR INFILL
Time
Needed
OptionsRequired
:
Resources
1.Identify and prioritize most ‘at risk’ neighborhoods, identify 6 mo. – 1 year
.5 FTE
issues to be addressed, and develop broad strategy to address
issues.
1-3 years
2.Identify protection measures that are general, across-the-board .5 FTE
common denominators that can be applied broadly to all or most
neighborhoods, and adopt some of these measures.
3.Broad City-wide neighborhood by neighborhood approach 6 mo. -1 year
.5 FTE+ $75,000
(examples: Portland Community Design, CAFHN) per area
per neighborhood
Supporting Studies:
1. Create list if problems and list of tools available to address First 6 months $20,000
each problem. Assumes that different actions can be
applied to different neighborhoods.
5
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
Time Needed
OptionsRequired Resources
:
1: Do nothing at this time. n/a $0
2: Use Region 2050 growth model as sample population target for 6 mo. - 1 year .25 FTE
study purposes.
3: Work with neighborhood groups citywide to create draft 1-2 years .5 FTE
growth projections and geographic allocations.
4: Tie to new buildable lands study. 2-3 years .75 FTE + $100,000
6
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. 4554
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT
POLICIES; AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 3867.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.
In the fall of 1995, the City Council adopted a work program and scope of work
for a growth management study. The Planning Commission conducted an initial set of citizen
workshops and a survey in December 1995. Based on that community input, the Planning
Commission and two members of the council appointed as liaisons to the Planning Commission
for the study picked eight topic areas to study in depth.
B.
In June 1996, the City held a community open house at the Fairgrounds to provide
the community with background information on eight topic areas, existing policy direction and
programs supporting each policy area and issues and possible directions for future. Also during
the summer of 1996, the Planning Commission and council liaisons developed four scenarios to
describe alternative growth management directions the community could follow: (1) encourage
growth; (2) maintain current trends; (3) discourage growth; and (4) recycle Eugene.
C.
In November and December 1996, the four scenarios were discussed in
community workshops, tabloid responses, and surveys. The results showed community support
for policy direction in the "recycle Eugene" scenario.
D.
In the spring of 1997, the Planning Commission and council liaisons prepared a
set of recommendations on growth management policies based on the community input. In July
1997, the City Council held a public hearing on those recommendations. The Council then held
several work sessions in November and December 1997 to review and revise the policies. On
December 10, 1997, the Council tentatively approved 19 policies to be used to direct the work of
the City Manager and staff in developing proposed actions for Council consideration and
approval. Those actions include amendments to the Eugene Code, 1971, such as the land use
code update, and other work program and budget priorities.
E.
Based on that tentative approval, Resolution No. 3867, which adopted the 1984
Eugene Community Goals and Policies on September 10, 1984, should be repealed.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1.
Based on the above findings and the findings set forth in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein, the Council adopts the following Growth Management Policies:
Policy 1 Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking actions to
increase density and use existing vacant land and under-used land within
the boundary more efficiently.
Policy 2 Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density
development.
Policy 3 Encourage a mix of businesses and residential uses downtown using
incentives and zoning.
Policy 4 Improve the appearance of buildings and landscapes.
Policy 5 Work cooperatively with Metro area partners (Springfield and Lane
County) and other nearby cities to avoid urban sprawl and preserve the
rural character in areas outside the urban growth boundaries.
Policy 6 Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the
character and livability of individual neighborhoods.
Policy 7 Provide for a greater variety of housing types.
Policy 8 Promote construction of affordable housing.
Policy 9 Mitigate the impacts of new and/or higher density housing, in-fill, and
redevelopment on neighborhoods through design standards, open space
and housing maintenance programs, and continuing historic preservation
and neighborhood planning programs.
Policy 10 Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and
implementation of nodal development concepts.
Policy 11 Increase the use of alternative modes of transportation by improving the
capacity, design, safety, and convenience of the transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian transportation systems.
Policy 12 Encourage alternatives to the use of single-occupant vehicles through
demand management techniques.
Policy 13 Focus future street improvements on relieving pressure on the City’s most
congested roadways and intersections to maintain an acceptable level of
mobility for all modes of transportation.
Policy 14 Development shall be required to pay the full cost of extending
infrastructure and services, except that the City will examine ways to
subsidize the costs of providing infrastructure or offer other incentives that
support higher-density, in-fill, mixed-use, and redevelopment.
Resolution - 2
Policy 15 Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support development
for higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development.
Policy 16 Focus efforts to diversify the local economy and provide family-wage jobs
principally by supporting local, and environmentally-sensitive businesses.
Direct available financial and regulatory incentives to support these
efforts.
Policy 17 Protect and improve air and water quality and protect natural areas of good
habitat value through a variety of means such as better enforcement of
existing regulations, new or revised regulations, or other practices.
Policy 18 Increase the amount and variety of parks and open spaces.
Policy 19 Expand City efforts to achieve community-based policing.
Section 2.
The policies adopted by Section 1 shall be used by the City to guide the work
of the City Manager and staff in formulating for Council consideration proposed changes to the
Eugene Code, 1971, including potential changes to Chapters 2 through 9. The policies adopted
by Section 1 also shall be used by the City to guide other work programs, including such actions
as preparation of the budget and revisions to the capital improvement program.
Section 3.
The policies adopted by Section 1 shall not be used in determining whether
the City shall approve or deny individual land use applications. Instead, the policies will be
implemented through the Council’s actions in amending the Eugene Code, 1971, and in actions
other than code changes such as adopting the City budget and capital improvement program.
Section 4
. Resolution No. 3867, and the 1984 Eugene Community Goals and Policies
adopted therein, is repealed.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the 2nd day of February, 1998.
/s/ Warren Wong
City Recorder
C:\User\GMS\FINALPOL\GMSORD.wpd
Resolution - 3