HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Annual Joint Meeting with Eugene Planning Commission
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Annual Joint Meeting with Eugene Planning Commission
Meeting Date: September 27, 2006 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-8385
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session is a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to receive the commission’s annual
report and to approve the Planning Commission and Planning Division work program for the fiscal year
2007. The attached report describes the Planning Commission’s activities from July 2005 through June
2006, and includes the recommended work program. The approval of the Planning Commission work
program also includes approval of the Historic Review Board work program, a subcommittee of the
Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
Since 1992, the Planning Commission and City Council have held joint annual meetings to review the
work program and annual report. Over the last few years, the joint meeting has proved a successful tool
for establishing and prioritizing the work tasks for the Planning Division and Planning Commission.
The proposed work program included in the attached Annual Report is based on last year’s City
Council-approved work program and includes edits to reflect the current status of these individual items.
Those items with “strikethroughs” represent completed tasks while “underlined” items represent
proposed additions.
As the draft work program illustrates, items listed as “High Priority” represent the primary program
areas of the Planning Commission and Planning Division. In addition to specific “Ongoing” duties,
such as processing land use applications, these tasks make up the vast majority of the Planning
Division’s and Planning Commission’s work program.
Unlike previous years, the Planning Commission sought public input on this year’s proposed work
program, including an open house hosted by the commission. Comments from the open house, as well
as other input received, are attached. Generally, the comments reflect familiar themes, including better
infill standards, environmental/natural resource protection, need for buildable lands analysis and greater
flexibility in the Land Use Code for “desirable” development, especially in downtown.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Individual items within the work program implement council policy direction to prioritize the Planning
and Development Department’s work program.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060927\S060927A.doc
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council can approve the work program, amend the work program, or decline to approve the
work program.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends approving the Planning Commission and Planning Division Work
Program contained within the Annual Report.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve the FY07 Planning Commission Work Program contained in the attached Annual
Report, including the Historic Review Board FY07 Work Program.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Planning Commission Annual Report to City Council
B. Historic Review Board Work Program
C. Tentative Planning Commission Schedule
D. Public comments
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom
Telephone: 682-8385
Staff E-Mail: steven.a.nystrom@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060927\S060927A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF EUGENE
PLANNING COMMISSION
ANNUAL REPORT
JULY 2005-JUNE 2006
& FY07 WORK PROGRAM
Page
Planning Commission Roster and Operating Philosophy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Ov ervi ew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FY 06 Accomplishments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FY 06 Project S ummari es. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
City Council Priorities & Proposed FY07 Planning Division Work Program.... 8
Looking Ahead ............................................................................. 13
2
Eugene Planning Commission Members
Commissioner Term
President Marlene (Mitzi) Colbath 11/01/02-10/31/06
Vice-President Richard Duncan 11/01/02-10/31/06
J on Belcher 11/01/03-10/31/07
John Lawless 11/01/05-10/31/09
Vacant position 11/01/04-10/31/08
Randall Hledik 11/01/04-10/31/08
Phillip Carroll 11/01/05-10/31/09
Ex-Officio Mike Sullivan, Community Development Division Manager
Ex-Officio Public Works - Vacant
Staff:
Susan Muir - Executive Director, Planning and Development
Steve Nystrom - Interim Planning Division Manager & Planning Director
Eugene Planning Commission
Operating Philosophy
The purpose of the Planning Commission is to help the City Council plan for the orderly growth and
development of the community. The Commission makes recommendations to the Council on the
adoption, revision, and update of the Metropolitan Area General Plan, Eugene community plans, land
use regulations, and other measures to implement these plans.
In order to effectively achieve its purpose, the Commission shall:
o identify work program items for the Planning Division that allow the City to anticipate issues
and get ahead of trends;
o assist the City Council to maintain consistency of policies related to community growth and
development;
o shorten timeframes from start to finish of projects to ensure that issues are addressed in a timely
manner; and
o continue to represent Commission recommendations to the City Council.
Approved by the Commission, 1993
3
The Eugene Planning Commission was established in 1925. It is appointed by the Eugene City
Council in conformance with ORS Chapter 227, which sets state requirements for establishing city
planning commissions, and Chapter 2 of the Eugene C'ode. "Organization.and Bylaws of the Eugene
Planning Commission" includes these state and Eugene Code requirements as well as additional
direction for Commission structure and operations adopted by the Commission.
The Planning Commission bylaws establish three regular meeting dates per month. The Planning
Commission number of average meetings has been sporadic over the last decade but generally well
above those outlined in the bylaws. A conscious effort to return to the adopted and approved
expectations was made in FY04, which has been further realized in last two years. However, the
Planning Commission continues to express their willingness to meet as necessary, in order to
accomplish its priorities.
Planning Commission Meetings
en 80
g> 70
~ 60
~ 50
15 40
Co 30
..c
E 20
~ 10
o
FY94 FY96 FY98 FYOO FY02 FY04 FY06
Actual
number of
meetings
Number of
meetings per
bylaws
Year
In addition to their commitment to ongoing meetings, Planning Commission members serve as
representatives on other committees or boards such as the Historic Review Board and the Eugene
Redevelopment Advisory Committee. More recently, a subcommittee of the Planning Commission
was formed and met sev'eral times to discuss the framework for the Opportunity Siting/Infill Standards
Program.
The Planning Commission faced many challenges this year, including recommendations and actions
regarding neighborhood planning, natural resources, mixed use centers as well as complex appeals.
Through its role as the Citizen Involvement Committee, the Planning Commission also explored new
means to more effectively engage and respond to neighborhood needs. The Planning Commission
continues to express a strong interest in better defining its role by enhancing its relationship with the
City Council. Such efforts are seen as a critical element in the Planning Commission's ability to more
strategically face the challenges in the coming year.
The Planning Commission has one subcommittee, the Historic Review Board. Each commissioner
typically has one or more assignments, serving as commission representative at Council hearings or
representing the Commission as a member of the Historic Review Board or other advisory committee.
4
Planning Commission Accomplishments
1. Deliberated and recommended action on the Goal 5 protection measures
2. Deliberated and recommended action on the Chambers Revisited Project
3. Approved the citizen involvement plan for Walnut Station Mixed Use Development
Project
4. Conducted walking tour with the Historic Review Board of the Rasor Park (lower
River Road) neighborhood
5. Deliberated and recommended action on Phase 1 of the Minor Code Amendments
6. Approved citizen involvem,ent plan for the Downtown Zoning District Project
7. Discussed LTD's progressive corridor enhancement program
8. Held public hearing, deliberated and recommended action on the Parks and
Recreation Open Space (PROS) Plan
9. Held public hearing, deliberated and recommended action on an alley vacation for
the former Sears site
10. Adopted findings for two separate remands issued by LUBA
11. Held joint public hearings, deliberated with Lane County Planning Commission and
recommended action on a Metro Plan Amendment for Delta Sand and Gravel
12. Held a joint work session with City Council to discuss Opportunity Siting and
Mixed Use Program
13. Held public hearing, deliberated and recommended action on Stormwater Standards
14. Held public hearing, deliberated and recommended action on a street name change
for the 3rd/4th Connector
15. Approved the citizen involvement plan for the South Ridgeline Habitat Study
16. Formed a subcommittee focused on Opportunity Siting/Infill Standards Program.
Met several times including joint meetings with the Neighborhood Leaders Council
17. Held numerous work sessions to discuss strategy for the Opportunity Siting/Infill
Standards Program
18. Discussed phase 1 of the Walnut Station Mixed Use Development Project
19. Met with L TD to discuss the corridor selection process for future BR T service
20. Reviewed the RFP for the former Sears site
21. Discussed scope of work for South Ridgeline Habitat Study
5
Since the approval of the FY06 work plan, the Planning Commission and staffhave focused their
efforts on the high priorities established by Council. As can be seen on the following pages, many of
the high priority items have either been completed or are in process. The summary below represents a
status report on the high priority work tasks established in FY06.
Pro · ect
Opportunity Siting!
Infill Compatibility
Standards
Mixed Use Centers
Minor Amendments
to the Land Use Code
Downtown &
Courthouse associated
projects
Goal 5 (Natural
Resources) associated
proj ects
StatuslNotes
These programs were initiated by the City Council in 2005 and funded in June
2006 to address concerns that new development in established neighborhoods
is often incompatible with, and may eventually degrade, the desirable
characteristics of established neighborhoods. These programs will
simultaneously explore methods of concentrating higher density housing on
specific parcels ("opportunity sites"), which will eventually reduce
development pressure from established residential areas, and create a "toolkit"
of strategies to make infill development more compatible with its
surroundings. The work program will be refined over time as lessons are
learned from a couple of demonstration sites and as public involvement
Increases.
The Mixed Use Center program (formerly called "nodal development")
implements Metro Plan, TransPlan, and Growth Management policies with an
emphasis on site specific planning and extensive neighborhood collaboration
and outreach. Recent and new projects include Chambers Reconsidered (infill
standards and transportation improvements), Walnut Station, and Lower River
Road (Rasor Park) specific area plans.
Last year, the city adopted approximately 80 minor code amendments intended
to address inconsistencies and gaps in the Land Use Code. Phase 2 of this
process is underway. A consultant team is working with the community,
planning commission and city council to prioritize the next round of potential
amendments. It is hoped that this process can provide the foundation for more
regularly programmed code updates.
The Community Development Division continues to be lead on tasks related to
the Courthouse and surrounding area, the Downtown Zoning District code
amendments as well as other downtown redevelopment opportunities.
Plannin Staff have provided technical assistance on an as-needed basis.
Last year saw the adoption of the Goal 5 protection measures, culminating over
a decade of work toward this objective. Recent years have seen approval of the
Goal 5 inventory, local wetland inventory, West Eugene Wetlands Zoning
Implementation ofNR zone and Wetland Buffer/Waterside Protection overlay
zones, and adoption of the /WP Waterside Protection Zone. Work remains to
implement and fine-tune these regulations, especially in the realm of public
education, providing incentives to encourage voluntary implementation, staff
training, and enforcement. The city is lead for proposing adoption of the same
waterside protection measures for unincorporated properties located inside the
Urban Growth Boundary.
In 2005, the City Council initiated and funded the South Ridgeline Habitat
Study, which is currently collecting data on additional non-Goal 5 habitat
throughout large ortions of the south hills.
6
Emerging Issues
Cell Tower Ordinance
Update
Investigate alternative
path process
River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project: The transition Project has
ended, but issues will continue to be addressed through the neighborhood
organizations.
Buildable Lands Supply: Draft CommerciallIndustriallands study has been
presented to the elected officials, but is not fully completed. Lane County is
lead on the project. Advent of a GIS mapping coordinator in PDD will result
in improved data collection for all land supply issues. .
Economic Development, Hospital & other major projects: Planning's role
with the hospital is now focused on processing of the plan amendments related
to the Delta Ridge site. Other activity in this category is nominal, but can pick
up at any time.
Civic Center: City Manager's office and Facilities staff are working with
Council on future city hall concepts. Planning staffs involvement has been
minimal.
This task is concluded. Following adoption of specific amendments to the cell
tower ordinance, the City Attorney provided a scope of work for a
comprehensive update of the cell tower ordinance as directed by Council.
Planning Commission continues to look at options initially through the work
on Opportunity Siting and Intill Standards. It is hoped that these efforts may
have more broad application as well.
7
FY '07 Proposed Planning Division Work Program
The following table reflects the proposed work plan for the Planning Division. This plan is intended
to identify "high priority." items for the Planning Division, as determined by the City Council. In
addition, the proposed plan lists ongoing tasks which, for the most part, represent mandatory or
fundamental services provided by the Planning Division. This work program also lists emerging
issues and other projects which are considered lower priority tasks. These items generally represent
projects which the City Council has included as potential high priority items in the future, or are
projects which other agencies or city departments are working on that likely will impact the Planning
Division or Planning Commission. Over this past year, the high priority items have been used to
determine the majority of the Planning Division's work as well as Planning Commission's agendas.
Similarly, these high priority items, along with other mandated responsibilities, help define the focus
of the Planning'Diyision for the coming year.
1 Opportunity Siting/Intill Compatibility Standards ../
Opportunity Siting is a strategy for achieving density targets in manner that better
preserves character of established neighborhoods. Infill compatibility standards are
tools that will ensure better compatibility between new construction and the character
of surrounding neighborhoods. These strategies are separate but complementary,
and, inasmuch as possible, both. projects will proceed concurrently. Both projects
will include citizen involvement strategies and substantial public outreach. Both
projects are funded.
Tasks listed under sections A & B, below, represent the initial stages of the projects,
which are targeted to conclude within 12-18 months. The third set oftasks~ Growth
Metrics, will analyze the results and make recommendations for further actions. The
Planning Commission is interested in exploring, through these projects, new methods
of cooperative planning between residents, neighborhood organizations, and
developers.
A. Opportunity Siting
. Identify demonstration proiect sites and complete studies that determine
appropriate opportunities for higher density residential development of these
sites.
· Study: Market analysis of high density residential development (e.g." general
analysis of market and financial constraints and opportunities" preferred
locations" and compatibility issues).
. Study: Feasibility analysis of test sites (e.g." site specific analysis of market
yield" maximum capacity" costs" and hindrances to implementation).
. Develop criteria for identifying additional opportunity sites.
8
B. Infill Compatibility Standards
. Study: Compatibility Toolkit
. Report: Neighborhood compatibility issues.
. Develop strategy that applies appropriate compatibility tools to citywide and
localized issues.
C. Growth Metrics
. Analyze proposed increased yield in housing from Opportunity Siting.
. Analyze estimated change in housing yield if new infill standards are applied.
. Measure proiected net success of combined application of opportunity siting
and infill standards and recommend steps for further implementation"
including opportunities for cooperative neighborhood-developer opportunity
site selection and planning.
2 Investigate an alternate path review process parallel to the prescriptive code . ~
(Concepts to be initially explored through Opportunity Siting/Infill Standards
program)
3 Mixed Use Centers ~
. Specific area planning for Rasor Park Mixed Use Center.
. Specific area planning for Walnut Station Mixed Use Center.
. Advise staff, public, and prospective developers regarding previously master
planned Mixed Used Centers (e.g., Royal, Chase, Chambers).
. Chambers Reconsidered (pro~lides localized infill standards). (Completed)
. Assess existing code provisions (Special Area zones" /ND overlay" etc)
. regarding impacts on Mixed Use Center implementation.
. Revisit previously approved Mixed Use Center plans to better adapt future
efforts
. Process zone changes to implement plans.
. Incentives and 'New Tools' for implementation.
. New zone that provides/requires master plan prior to significant development
in potential mixed use centers.
4 Minor amendments to Land Use Code ~
Since adoption of LUCU (Land Use Code Update), many major and minor
amendments have been identified by numerous stakeholders. Task includes
gathering all comments, prioritizing, and processing amendments. Include review
of medical facilities provisions. (Phase 1 completed; Phase 2 underway)
5 Downtown & Courthouse associated projects
. Follow-up/implementation from the Courthouse District Concept Plan. Work
includes coordination with GSA and courthouse architect, meetings with
developers interested in area development, and technical expertise to other
staff (e.g", street improvements,).
. Downtown Zone - Phase 1 involves research and outreach to determine if new
or modified zone is appropriate for downtown area. Phase 2 will include code
adoption and rezoning of properties. (Phase 1 completed; Phase 2 initiated)
. Great Streets: Implement Downtown plan provisions by adopting special
design standards or guidelines.
6 GoalS (Natural Resources) associated projects ~
. Eugene Goal 5 Process (Completed)
0 ESEE analysis
9
7
8
9
10
11
o protection program
o Formal adoption and State Aclmo\~/ledgement
o Follow-up/adiustments to /WR zone" implementation tools (Unfunded)
· ESNSalmon Strategy Implementation Includes development of strategies and
adoption of implementation measures, oversight of several staff teams and
multiple products. (Unfunded)
. West Eugene Wetlands Plan policy issues (WEWP is complete, but requires
periodic updates and review; Unfunded)
. South Ridgeline Habitat Study: Update inventory/protection measures to
address sensitive habitat in the South Hills.
Emer in Issues: (Moved tose arate section below)
Cell To,ver OrdiBaBee Update: (Completed)
Buildable Lands: Prepare a scope of work for a comprehensive buildable lands
analysis (commercial" industrial and residential)
Refinement Plans: Prepare a scope of work for an "Issues Assessment" of
refinement plans. Assessment would serve as a first step "in developing a strategy for
the next generation of neighborhood plans.
Jefferson Westside Nei2:hborhood: City-initiated Metro Plan Amendment to re-
designate a portion of the neighborhood from Medium to Low Density Residential
j'
./
12
Emerging Issues (Funding/resources not yet determined)
a) River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project (PDD staff advisor for report to
explore financial feasibility, service provision, and possible transition of River
Road/Santa Clara area and potentially update existing Refinement Plan)
(Report Completed; next steps undetermined)
b) Buildable Lands Supply issue (Commercial/Industrial Lands Inventory study
essentially completed. Other issues moved as High Priority)
c) Economic Development, Hospital & other major projects
d) Civic Center (could also be included under 'downtown associated projects').
e) Bus Rapid Transit: Greater coordination with LTD/ PW and MU program.
Includes selection process for next EmX line.
f) State Rule Making (OAR Amendments related to Statewide Planning Goals)
. Goal 9: Industrial land supply
. Goal 12: Regional Transportation plans
. Goal 14: Urbanization
g) Citizen Involvement: Role of the Planning Commission
h) Neighborhood Association Initiative
i) Assess the extent to which the City of Eugene has a clear and widely supported
vision for where and how it wants to grow and a comprehensive strategy for
achieving that vision: and make recommendations for how the City could
Some,
not all
13
Implement Land Use Code
Process applications
Provide public information
Public Information Center staffing from 9:00-5:00 daily (Expanded hours
beginning October 2006).
14
./
./
10
15
16
(Completed)
17
Implement Zuclcer Report (General f~dmin.)
. Training for staff
. De~Yelop email file to distribute code interpretations
· Perform detailed analysis of planner case loads
. Impro"<<{e PIC sef\Tice time to 15 minutes
(Recommendations folded into ongoing administrative efforts)
TransPlan implementation report
Pro"<<,ide report to state on TransPlan implementation.
Regional and local transportation, planning
. Revisions to TransPlan: Adoption of Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
. West Eugene transportation planning (w/o WEP)
.' Corridor studies W. 11 th Ave Willamette St.
GIS program
. Enhancing customer service and staff tools through improved technology
(website use" data collection/queries" mapping" technical support)
. Participation in regional and city GIS efforts (Spacial Adiustment process"
portal improvements" RLID" GeoDart)
. Coordination with other divisions, Public Works and LCOG
Historic Program
. Administer Eugene's Certified Local Government Program.
. Implement Historic Review Board's work program.
. Process applications for all new historic properties and alterations.
. Complete Ri"<<~Ter Road Historic Context Statement and 1fultiple Property
Submission to the National Register (Completed)
. Complete 100 surveys for historic structures in Ri"<</er Road (Completed)
Annexations
All annexations must be approved by City before Boundary Commission will accept.
University and community outreach
Includes subcommittee of Planning Commission, meets quarterly
Census
Respond to state and federal data needs, census, and population estimates.
Neighborhood Meetings
Attend neighborhood meetings upon request and available time to facilitate
discussionabout lanning issues.
2007 Legislative Session
Some,
not all
../
18
../
19
../
20
21
../
22
23
24
26
27
../
28
29
30
../
11
31 EWEB Coordination:
a. Master Plan. Community Development is exploring funding opportunities to
create master plan for EWEB properties to implement Downtown plan policies.
b. Advisory Group. Staff group coordinated bv the City Manager's Office.
c. EWEB Service Extensions. Advise EWEB re future growth areas" facilities
needs" land use coordination.
d. EWEB Water Rights. Changing state law reauires reQional coordination.
32 EVlEB SeD/ice Extensions (Moved to #31 above)
f~d'yise E\llEB re future gro~.\th areas, facilities needs, land use coordination.
33 2050 Plan
1fember of technical ad'visory team that supports Polic)T Team. Exploration of
regional gro~.'lth strategy. Draft scenarios recently released for public revie\T/.
(Project ended)
34 Parle and Open Space 1faster Plan
Member of technical staff group charged \\Tith drafting comprehensive ParIes,
Recreation, Open Space Plan. Project updates the 1989 plan. One year into proj ect,
draft plan still 8 3 months +/ a\T{ay (Project complete)
35 '}lillamette G~eenT.vay Updates
Staff adT/isor to LCOG (Completed).
36 Wellhead protection
Advisor when Springfield created regulations for wellhead protection. EWEB
now testing Willakenzie area for similar use of groundwater for back-up supply.
Could have large land use implications if groundwater pursued.
37 Conduct comprehensive review of the city's zoning map in conjunction with asset ~
mapping.
38 Deal with LUCU LUBA remand concerning Goal 9, Goal 10, and the Chapter 6 tree ~
provIsIons
39 Refinement Plan Revie'.v & update check for inconsistencies and obT/ious problems ~
in existing refinement plans. (Amended and moved to High Priority)
40 Sustainable Business Initiative
41 SB 82: The Big Look: Comprehensive Review of State Land Use System
9-27 -06
12
Generally it is important to look ahead strategically and think long term about where we would like our
planning program to be and understand what types of opportunities and constraints could impact our
system. While this is not intended to be a comprehensive, complete list nor is it intended to be a
Strategic Plan, the following items have come to light for either the Planning Commission or the
Planning Division staff and are a good starting point for further discussion if additional time and other
resources become available.
~ There are outside forces to legislate changes to our land use systems at a statewide level. The City
of Eugene will need to continue to be strategic and be prepared to respond and develop policy for
dealing with these types of influences that may impact the way we implement our plans.
~ There have been some recent successes surrounding collaborative approaches to neighborhood
planning and conflict resolution which can be built upon. Moving away from a 'one size fits all'
approach has resulted in positive results and further discussion could help us build trust and
consensus in our community for planning projects. This relationship is especially important with
the city's individual neighborhoods, given the future challenges that lie ahead regarding infill and
mixed use centers. If a consensus based approach to land use is desired, the relationship between
the amount of regulation and ability to be flexible and to defer to the desires of all stakeholders
may need to be considered.
~ The city is experiencing a trend of increased requests to re-evaluate or change long standing policy
direction through Metro Plan and Refinement Plan Amendments. The age of many refinement
plans, changing markets and a decrease in easily developable properties all likely contribute to this
trend. .
~ Upcoming legislation at the State level may significantly affect the future of the city's role in
annexations.
~ Our partners in the Metro Plan, Springfield and Lane County, have been discussing publicly the
pros and cons of reevaluating their participation in the Metro Plan. This could have serious
consequences to our regional planning efforts.
~ With additional emphasis being placed on sustainability, there will likely be opportunities to define
specific roles in which the Planning Commission can assist.
~ The Planning Commission has an interest in incorporating better means to measure how policy
decisions the city makes match up with the Growth Management (GMS) Policies. Such efforts
may include revisiting the GMS policies with the public to confirm the community's support for
these principles.
~ The Planning Commission will look at and review their bylaws and operating philosophy and see if
updates are needed.
13
ATTACHMENT B
Eugene Historic Review Board Work Program
July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007
The work program for Eugene's Historic Review Board outlines the main components of the
historic preservation program, including special projects when outside funding is available. No
special projects are proposed for fiscal year 2006 - 2007. The work program serves as a guide to
the allocation of staff resources, and the anticipated yearly activities of the board. The major
work program goals of the Eugene His~oric Review Board for fiscal year 2006 - 2007 are:
1. Support the Rasor Park Mixed Use ,Center planning initiative as deemed relevant to
historic preservation issues, particularly the cultural resource survey of the Rasor Park
MUC study area and public education.
2. Support other Planning Division projects like Infill Development Standards and
Opportunity Siting as deemed relevant to historic preservation issues.
3. Administer the basic Certified Local Government (CLG) activities including Section 106
compliance and environmental review for historic properties.
4. Help preserve historic properties through administration of the Eugene Code pertaining to
the designation, alteration, demolition, and moving of historic properties.
5. Monitor local properties enrolled in the Oregon Special Assessment Program including
implementation of adopted rehabilitation plans and local Special Assessment open
houses.
6. Participate in regional, state, or national training opportunities as financial resources
allow.
7. Review nominations for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and as City of
Eugene Historic Landmarks.
8. Participate in local historic preservation projects that increase community awareness of
. Eugene's history with community volunteers.
9. Process and monitor historic loan applications as they occur.
10. Participate in a joint meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission to discuss major
work program items that may be of mutual interest. Foster a positive working
relationship between the Planning Commission and the Historic Review Board.
Planning Commission Tentative Schedule
September, 2006 . Joint meeting with City Council
. Citizen Involvement Plan for Rasor Park Mixed Use Center
. Public Hearing: Metro Plan Amendment for State Motor Pool site (privately
initiated)
. Opportunity Siting/Intill Standards public forum
. Zone Change Appeal (Shin)
October, 2006 . Deliberation/ Action: State Motor Pool Metro Plan Amendment
. Joint Public Hearing w/ Lane County: Metro Plan Amendment; Chad/Old
Coburg Rd (privately initiated)
. Citizen Involvement Plan for Phase 2 of Walnut Station Mixed Use Center
. Opportunity Siting/Intill Standards: Program Development
. Code Amendments (phase 2): Public outreach
. Joint meeting with Historic Review Board
November, 2006 . Public Hearing: Water Quality Protected Waterways Ordinance
. Public Hearing: Hospital Metro Plan Amendment
. Public Hearing: Jefferson'Westside Metro Plan Amendment
. Code Amendments, (phase 2): Prioritize suggested c.ode amendments
. Deliberation/ Action: Metro Plan Amendment; Chad/Old Coburg Rd
. South Ridgeline Habitat Study: Inventorypresented
December, 2006 . Public Hearing/ Action: Capital Improvement Program
. Public Hearing: Downtown Code Amendments
. Deliberation: Water Quality Protected Waterways
. Deliberation/Action: Jefferson Metro Plan Amendment
. Walnut Station: Franklin Blvd. design and modeling
January, 2007 . Deliberation: Downtown Code Amendments
. Deliberation/Action: Water Quality Protected Waterways
. Public Hearing: Amendment of EWEB Facilities plan
. Opportunity Siting/lntill Standards: Program Development; Demonstration
Site Selection
. ErnX corridor selection
February, 2007 . Code Amendments (phase 2): public forum on draft amendments
. Deliberation/ Action: Downtown Code Amendments
. Opportunity Siting/IntiIIStandards: Summary of neighborhood input/criteria
for additional site selection
. Deliberation/Action: Amendment of EWEB Facilities plan
. Mixed Use Centers: General Discussion
March, 2007 . Public Hearing: Code Amendments (phase 2)
. Opportunity Siting/Intill Standards: Study of costs to build HDR
. ErnX corridor selection
April, 2007 . Deliberation! Action: Code Amendments (phase 2)
. Opportunity Siting/Intill Standards: Report on compatibility standards toolkit
May, 2007 . Rasor Park Mixed Use Center: Update on preferred alternatives
. Scoping report: "Issues Assessment" of refinement plans
. South Ridgeline Habitat Study: Alternatives presented
June, 2007 . Opportunity Siting/Intill Standards: Report on compatibility issues
. Scoping report: Buildable Lands Analysis
ATTACHMENT C
This is a tentative schedule that may change due to new assignments, appeals or other unforeseen issues. For
information regarding the current Planning Commission agenda please visit: www.eugeneplanning.org
ATTACHMENT D
Planning Commission Open House - August 10, 2006
Community Suggested tasks
· Study effects of housIng patterns on children's achievement in schools
· Buildable lands supply (higher priority) with demand
· Keep code updates as ongoing, continuous improvement
,. Look at flexible parking requirements
· Develop more'incentives and carrots focusing on downtown
· Zone public land accurately (ie account 'for wetland/open space inWest Eugene)
· L~ok at more flexibility for SRO's - housing types
· Encourage early and meaningful engagement in the work plan
· Make issues/communication re: city planning easier to understand / less
complicated
. Redefine' R-1
· Single dwelling/multi dwelling tracks - explore Portland style categories
(expanded list of zoning districts)'
· Look at ""blobs" correspondence with residential zoning district (alignment of
options doesn't work)
· Reduce height restrictions to allow higher buildings/more height
· Re: Downtown priority - make,sure economic investment opportunities are
considered with design stds.
· Re: transportation planning -look at links between land use and transportation
solutions in West Eugene - and/or entire City
· Callout infill/compatibility standards on work plan
· Character of area/compatibility issue
· Stormwater system, particularly in RR/SC
· Recognize unique character of each area/neighborho'od as part of planning
projects (stormwater, infill, street stds.) ·
· Monitor SB 82 - State's '''''big look" p'roject
· Reevaluate/ground check our FAR regs - they don't work, too costly
fi
17
ENGINEERS
PRO J E C T M A' NAG E R S
PLANNERS
August 11, 2006
Eugene Planning Commission
c/o Eugene Planning Division
99 West Tenth Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I had planned to coming to your Thursday afternoon open house ,at Petersen's Barn
Community Center. Unfortunately~ my clients' needs prevented me from attending,
so I have written down some of my thoughts for you to consider. The City needs to
get back oil track by planning in a more comprehensive manner.
1. As a Land Use Planner who has worked in Illinois, Oregon, and California as a
City Planning Director and Community Development Director and, in
addition, also worked as a private consultant Land Use Planner in Washington,
Nevada, Idaho, and Hawaii, I am continually surprised by the piecemeal
approach Eugene is continuing to take in planning. A couple of recent
examples are the Goal 5 Natural Resource Inventory and Parks, Recreation,
and Open Space Plan (PROS). Both ofthes'e planning efforts were done out of
context of the MetroPlan. The community has no idea what effect adopting
Goal 5 will have on the various other aspects or elements of the MetroPlan.
Then PROS was done without first deciding where and how the community is
going to grow, nor tied to a mechanism that tracks land supply reductions. The
work ECONorthwest has done on the commercial and industrial land study is
an excellent start; however, what is the status; where is the residential land
supply component? These efforts .are just the beginning. The information,.
inquiry research programs, etc. need a home and a budget to keep the land
supply information up to date. (1 thinkit should be LCOG.)
2. In addition to the above, the Planning Commission's highest priority must be
-- to tackle fue_question-oithe__Gommunity.'BJancLsuppl.y--E_v.en_i_flheinformatiou------- ___________ _
with which the Planning Commission must make its decisions is not perfect. I
support higher densities; however, higher densities do not eliminate the need to
expand the Urban Growth Boundary. The following cites just some of the
reasons why this is true.
VOICE 541.687.1081
18
FAX 541.345.6599
\VEB'J RH'vVEB.COlv\
OREGON 97401
4 76 5 V I L LA G E P LA Z A L 0 0 P
SU1TE 201
EUGENE
Letter. from Larry E. Reed
August 11, 2006
Page 2
· A shortage of residential land has helped (major factor) in driving up land
costs, housing costs (i.e., cannot justify building a $200,000 range starter
home on $100,000 to $130,000 priced lot. This has caused young families,
lower/medium income people to look elsewhere for housing. This, in
turn, has increased the price of rental ;housing. Others must look outside
the metro area to meet their housing budget.
· The community's failure to expand the Urban Growth Boundary has
caused premature regional growth in Veneta, Junction City, Harrisburg,
Creswell, Pleasant Hill, Cottage Grove, etc., communities without
corresponding jobs.
· The people that live in these outlying communities work in the metro area
and are creating a need to widen existing highways and build.new
roadways. Such roadway: improvements will be costly, since they will be
for longer distances and go through more environmentally sensitive areas.
· Eugene is becoming an elitist, two-class community, without any working
middle class. Residents will just be the upper, middle, and higher income
households, including wealthy retirees, and the working poor. This will
create the need for public housing (homeless issues). As a planner, I want
to be optimistic and believe we can do better than simply b,e an elitist
community.
· The utility companies cannot do proper nor adequate utility planning
unless they know where growth will occur. Such improvements are
expensive and must be phased in over years. My guess is that utility
companies are 15 years behind in planning for major system expansion
needed to handle the coming growth. You could ask them!
3.
In Oregon, transportation and land use are tied together. All land use
planning, and even minor changes in plan designation and/or rezoning
must be supported by the transportation system. Eugene was 15 to 20
_______y~ar~J?ehinq in meeting_ its tran~ort~!ion need~~____Ih~_g~_9~ioIlJQ.J1ot____.__u_______________________
construct the West Eugene Parkway or some other improvements mean
Eugene is even further behind.. All land use planning over the last 35 years
relied on either having a new roadway called the Amazon Parkway,
Roosevelt Parkway, or the West Eugene Parkway. This mitigation was
needed for the planned land use and projected growth in traffic. In
addition, the traffic congestion in west Eugene continues and is diverting
(out of direction travel) to the Beltline Highway. This diverted traffic and
the community's failure to provide additional connections across the river
19
Letter from Larry E. Reed
August 11, 2006
Page 3
is now affecting other parts of the community ~d might be the major
factor in the community not being able to approve the McKenzie-
Willamette Hospital under Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule.
However, that decision is yet to be made. The Planning Commission needs
to become more involved in transportation issues to better ensure that land
use planning and transportation mutually support each other.
Do not construe the above comments to be criticism of City staff. Staff is limited by
Council policy direction, and budget/ staffing levels.
The community planning system has broken down, and the community needs the
Planning Commission's leadership to help fix it.
Yours truly,
~
cc: Mayor Piercy
20
NYSTROM Steven A
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
HANDY Rob (SMTP)
Friday, August 25, 2006 8:09 AM
COLBATH Mitzi (SMTP); DUNCAN Rick (SMTP); LAWLESS John (SMTP); HUDSPETH Phil
(SMTP); CARROLL Phillip (UO); HLEDIK Randy (SMTP); BELCHER Jon (SMTP)
*Eugene Mayor and City Council; TAYLOR Dennis M; MUIR Susan L; YEITER Kurt M;
NYSTROM Steven A; SULLIVAN Mike C; BRIDGES Beth B; nlc@eugeneneighbors.org
NLC recommendations: PDD '07 Workplan
Subject:
To: Eugene Planning Commission and Staff
CC: Mayor Piercy and City Council
Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC)
Re: NLC recommendations for Planning Division's FY '07 Workplan
At the Tuesday, August 22, 2006 NLC meeting, the following motions were
passed:
Motion A (Passed 10-1)
The NLC recommends the following tasks and projects be the top two
priorities in the Planning Division's FY 07 work plan:
Priority 1
Priority 2
Implement infill compatibility standards
Create the "next generation" of enforceable neighborhood plans
Explanation of Priority 2 to accompany this motion: Eugene needs policies
and processes that give neighborhood associations a formal,
neighborhood-specific voice in implementing the vision and needs of the
neighborhoods in the planning process and in land use decisions. In the
past, one such method to formalize neighborhood voice and vision was
refinement plans. Eugene should either create new refinement plans for all
neighborhoods or create a "next generation", adaptive process that
identifies neighborhoods needs, vision and goals and formally codifies them
in the planning processes and land use decisions.
Motion B (Passed 11-0)
The NLC recommends the Planning Division's FY 07 work plan reflect
preservation of the natural environment in neighborhoods as a high priority,
encompassing a broad spectrum of tasks and projects, including: GoalS
projects, watershed and wetlands protection, storm water management, tree
preservation, parks and open space, Willamette Greenway, and others.
Thank you,
Rob Handy
David Hinkley
NLC Co-Chairs
1
Page 1 of 1
NYSTROM Steven A
From: Alby Thoumsin [belgianwolf@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 26,2006 9:57 AM
To: NYSTROM Steven A
Subject:.ETF message
Steve,
Eugene Tree Foundation had a Board meeting last Thursday and one of the items on the agenda was about the
planning commission open house. Although none of the Board members was able to attend the open house due
to schedule conflicts with work, we summarized our concerns and this is what we hope to see as a change:
Address LUCU #39 Tree Prevision Work item and call it out as part of LUCA #3.
Thank you for conveying our concerns,
Alby Thoumsin
President Eugene Tree Foundation
8/28/2006
FY '07 Proposed Planning Division Work Program
Page 1 of2
NYSTROM Steven A
Sent:
To:
From: ZAKO Rob (SMTP)
Monday, September 11,2006 2:43 PM
BELCHER Jon (SMTP); Phillip Carroll; COLBATH Mitzi (SMTP); DUNCAN Rick (SMTP); HLEDIK
Randy (SMTP);.LAWLESS John (SMTP)
Cc: NYSTROM Steven A; MUIR Susan L
Subject: FY '07 Proposed Planning Division Work Program
Dear members of the Eugene Planning Commission (and Steve and Susan),
Thank you very much for considering our suggestion to add an item to the "Emerging Issues" section of the FY '07 Proposed
Planning Division Work Program:
Assess the extent to which the City of Eugene has a clear and widely supported vision for where and how it
wants to grow and a comprehensive strategy for achieving that vision; and make recommendations for how the
City could better achieve its vision.
Our main desire was to put the "big picture" on your radar screen and to ensure that you have an opportunity to discuss it as
you work on more detailed issues.
. We appreciated your discussion at your meeting today, and trust that whatever language you adopt will be fine.
But as there was some question about our intent, we offer the following additional comments:
* Our intent was add a short, focused, doable work task -- an assessment -- to the work plan as a way to begin what will
inevitably be a larger discussion.
* Our intent was very much to look at a VISION for Eugene, perhaps not quite as detailed a "roadmap" as Commissioner
Colbath talked about but certainly heading in that direction. Think something visual that people can imagine and see rather
than vague words that are open to multiple interpretations.
* The Growth Management Policies, while good and important, do not constitute a VISION; they constitute part of a
STRATEGY for achieving some vision. In any case, as is often the case with words, the Growth Management Policies aren't
concrete enough to give everyone the same or similar picture about where they lead. For example, does a policy to increase
density and do infill apply to my neighborhood, or only to other people's neighborhoods? If my neighborhood, what might that
look like?
* As should be clear from our remarks, we believe the City of Eugene does NOT have a clear and widely supported vision
for where and how it wants to grow. As such, many well intentioned efforts to achieve that vague and weakly supported vision
are will inevitably keep running into obstacles. But it would be useful for a credibly and careful -- but brief -- assessment to
come to this conclusion and to report same to the City Council.
* Of course, a conclusion that the City of Eugene does not have a clear and widely supported vision for where and how it
wants to grow would beg the question about what to do about it.
* If you are looking for a shorter version of the suggestion, we suggest the following abbreviated version:
Assess the extent to which the City of Eugene has a clear and widely supported vision for where and how it
wants to grow that effectively guides how the City plans for and supports growth and development.
* In a recent talk in Eugene (about the "Big Look" at Oregon's land use planning program), planning consultant John
Fregonese said, "A vision keeps you on the path when the plan fails." Indeed, Fregonese might be a good person to ask for
advice about how to develop a vision and strategy for achieving that vision. His firm is currently helping the City of New
Orleans answer questions about where and how it wants to grow in the wake of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina.
Thank you again for your consideration. Please let us know if there are other ways that we might help.
For 1000 Friends of Oregon,
9/18/2006
FY '07 Proposed Planning Division Work Program
Page 2 of2
Rob
Rob Zako
Envision Oregon Coordinator
1000 Friends of Oregon
1280-8 East 28th Ave., Eugene, OR 97403-1616 (home office)
(541) 343-5201 (home office)
(541) 683-6333 (fax)
rob@friends.org
http://www.friends.org
Share your vision for Oregon: http://www.EnvisionOregon.org
Support 1000 Friends of Oregon: http://www.friends.org/support
9/18/2006