Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/1989 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council/Eugene Planning Commission Dinner/Work Session B.J.'s Restaurant May 22, 1989 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Shawn Boles, Debra Ehrman, Bobby Green, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Rob Bennett. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Nancy Nathanson, Ken Tollenaar, Jim Ellison, Lloyd Billingsley, Dorothy Anderson, Gerry Gaydos, John VanLandingham. The adjourned meeting of May 17, 1989, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by Mayor Jeff Miller. Ms. Nathanson called the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission to order. e I. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION DINNER/WORK SESSION Abe Farkas, Director of the Planning and Development Department, gave a brief introduction. He said the Planning Commission met on June 20, 1989, to prioritize and finalize its work program. He said the Planning Commission has a very full schedule and there are a number of groups who would like to add items to the commission's work program. Ms. Nathanson said that in forming its work program, the commission tried to meet adopted City goals and policies, as well as take concerns of the City Council into consideration. She said the commission is trying, on one hand, to meet the needs of developers, and to deal with the current development activity. On the other hand, the commission is trying to balance this demand-driven planning with a long-range perspective. Ms. Nathanson said long-range planning is very important for the City and results in better land use decisions. Ms. Nathanson said a large number of the commission's high priority work items are Metro Plan-related. She said the Lane Transit District (LTD) Downtown Station Relocation Study is the only new high priority item on the work program. Ms. Nathanson said at the request of the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, the commission added "University Area Issues" to its list of medium-priority work items. She said the neighborhood association had hoped for more, but e MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission-- Dinner/Work Session May 22, 1989 Page 1 e e - the commission and staff's work load would not permit a broader item. Ms. Nathanson noted that there are a number of ongoing studies in the university area; the "University Area Issues" item will allow the commission to review these other studies at once and decide if there is a need for a larger, more comprehensive, university area study. Ms. Bascom did not feel that it is a good time to add this item to the Planning Commission's agenda, which is already too full. Ms. Nathanson said the commission changed the priority rating on several items from medium to low, to help trim staff's load. The following items were changed to low priority: Zone Change and CUP Criteria, BPA Transmission Line Study, Entrance Beautification Plan Implementation, Functional Street Classification Map, and Sidewalk Policy. In addition, the commission added PL Code Revisions to the low-priority category. Ms. Nathanson said that at the commission's work planning session, staff suggested ways to reduce staff's and the commission's work loads. One of these is to request that Lane County hire a consultant to work on the Lane County Fairgrounds Study. Staff also suggested a change in the Capital Improvement Program process, such as adopting a biennial review process with amendments in off years as needed. Mr. Holmer said the work program would be more helpful if it indicated what the studies would entail, what products are expected from the studies, and how much the studies will cost. In addition, Mr. Holmer expressed concern about the time frames established for ~ome of the work plan items (e.g., Awbrey-Meadowview Plan Amendment, West Eugene Wetlands Study). He asked if there is a way to address some of the items more expediently. Ms. Nathanson said the commissioners share the concern that issues are not resolved more qUickly. She added, however, that many of the issues the commission considers are very complex, and it takes a long time to consider all the implications of a study. Pat Decker, Planning and Development Department, said there are a number of issues associated with wetlands: determining the function and value of wetlands resources; examining ownership patterns; examining mitigation options; determining whether the State will allow development of some wetlands and the extent to which replacement of those lands will be required. Ms. Decker stressed that the wetlands process is very complicated. She said the work program reflects the length of time it will take staff to work through these issues. Mike Gleason, City Manager, said that in dealing with wetlands, long-range planning is very important. He said short cuts can be taken now, but these may result in more work over time because inadequate work will have to be done again. Mr. Gleason said the research associated with this issue takes time and energy. He said the process can be shortened by hiring consultants, but this takes money. Mr. Gleason pointed out that currently, Eugene is the only jurisdiction putting forth money to support the wetlands work. MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission-- Dinner/Work Session May 22, 1989 Page 2 e Mr. Holmer reiterated his position that if the City really wants to encourage development, then it should move with more expediency on the wetlands and other planning issues. Mr. Gleason said he would very much like to increase the pace of the industrial and commercial lands studies, but staff is already pressed just trying to deal with existing development requests. He added that the high level of development activity does not leave many resources for long-range planning. Mr. Gaydos agreed. Mr. Gaydos said the commission is very concerned about its inability to engage in long-range planning because of the more immediate demands. Mr. Gaydos said he feels the commission should be concentrating on long-range planning, rather than on implementing plans as Mr. Holmer suggested. He said another concern of the commission is that the planning staff is overburdened. Mr. Gaydos said that the inability to process issues more quickly stems in large measure from budgetary constraints. Mr. Rutan asked what the focus of the City's annexation program is. Ms. Decker said that is a policy decision which the council will need to make soon. Ms. Nathanson said at various times, the Planning Commission has discussed the possibility of adopting special regulations to make annexation more palatable. She said the commission is ready to discuss whatever the council suggests. Mr. Rutan said the City's annexation policy has been attacked at the Legislature from every possible angle. He felt this makes it imperative that the council reconsider its policy and decide if changes are needed. ' e Ms. Bascom said she was glad the commission had included the LTD study as one of its high priorities; she said this is an issue of significant concern to the council. Mr. Rutan asked why the LTD study is on the agenda of both the Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission. He felt that only one of the commissions should process this issue so that there is not a duplication of efforts. Mr. Farkas said the Downtown Commission will approach the study primarily from a site development perspective, while the Planning Commission will approach it from a transportation perspective. Mr. Rutan pointed out that the Downtown Commission deals with other transportation issues. He felt that time and resources could be saved by giving the Downtown Commission responsibility for the full study, and pointed out that this would also help to relieve some of the pressure the Planning Commission is experiencing. Mr. Holmer noted that many members of the planning staff are involved in a number of studies at anyone time. He questioned whether this is the best way to process issues. Mr. Holmer said that this method forces staff members to divide their attention and may slow down the planning process as a result. Mr. VanLandingham said that the commission tried to limit the number of issues it would address, so that the work level would be manageable for staff. He added that staff has estimated the hours associated with each project and believes that this commission1s work program is manageable. e MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission-- Dinner/Work Session May 22, 1989 Page 3 e Mr. Boles said it is important for the commission not only to plan its work, but also to work its plan. He was uncertain that the commission is getting beyond planning its work. Mr. Boles asked how the City can ensure that the output of its planning processes form something that citizens can see as a coherent framework for decision-making. Ms. Nathanson said the Metro Plan is a broad document, and is difficult to use in making specific land-use decisions. For this reason, the City needs refinement plans. Refinement plans help the City make good land use decisions and give good information to citizens who corne into the Permit and Information Center with development proposals. Ms. Nathanson stressed that the City is still filling in the gaps--some areas are not yet covered by refinement plans. Mr. Boles agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the importance of refinement plans. He said the problem is that the consequences of decisions made by the Planning Commission and the City Council change the nature of existing plans. He said the City does not seem to keep track of these changes over time as a guide for decision making. Mr. Gleason felt that part of this problem is solved by the regular updates of the City's major plans and ordinances. He said the City also does an internal review to ensure that the various planning documents are consistent. Mr. Gleason stressed that this process worked better in earlier years when the planning staff was not so burdened by permitting activities. He said that with the high level of development activity occurring now, the updating activity will have to be reduced. e Mr. Rutan stated that upon completion of the airport construction, the City will probably see an increased demand for light industrial and commercial development in that area. He said he would like to see an airport area refinement plan to address these issues. Ms. Decker said this issue has been incorporated into the commission's work plan in two ways: through the Airport Master Plan and the Industrial Lands Study. Mr. Holmer asked commissioners to consider what the council can do to encourage Springfield and Lane County to become more involved in metropolitan planning issues. Mr. Rutan said the council is often criticized for abdicating too many of its responsibilities to the voters, the Planning Commission, the Hearings Official, and so forth. He asked commissioners whether they feel comfortable making land-use decisions. Ms. Anderson felt that it works very well to invest the commission and the hearings official with decision-making responsibility. Mr. Tollenaar noted that the changes in the Metro Plan amendment process should help address Mr. Holmer's concerns about efficient processing of issues. Mr. VanLandingham added that the commission has been working with the Lane County Planning Commission to hold joint hearings on some issues. He felt this type of coordination would also help reduce the time spent processing issues. e MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission-- Dinner/Work Session May 22, 1989 Page 4 e e e Mr. Rutan said he appreciates the commission's work. He said they represent the community well. Ms. Anderson and Mr. Ellison felt the council and commission should meet more frequently. Mayor Miller agreed with this suggestion. Mayor Miller thanked the commission for its work; he said the council understands that the commission has a difficult job to do. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitt~ ~~' ~\ " I ,/:';~ ?7'?#~':_ .. Mlc. ~~G'lea,S>q(l_,;.~>-,.. City Manager (Recorded by Monty Hindman and Tanya Northman) MNCC 052289-530 MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission-- Dinner/Work Session May 22, 1989 Page 5