Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/1985 Meeting - e e I I APPROVED BY CITY COUNCfl' . ON M I NUT E S (CiTY MGR'S OFFICE) .... Eugene City Council/Planning Commission Luncheon Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 1, 1 985 11 : 30 a. m. PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Roger Rutan, Ruth Bascom, Freeman Holmer, Debra Ehrman, councilors; Dorothy Andersen, Randall Thwing, Jim Ellison, Gerry Gaydos, Eleanor Mulder, Hugh Prichard, commissioners; Mike Gleason, city manager; Susan Brody, planning director; Cathy Freedman, Barb Bellamy, city manager's office; Steve Gordon, L-COG; Teresa Bishow, planning department. Ms. Wooten opened the meeting, and introductions were made. Ms. Wooten opened the floor for any items of interest or general discussion. Ms. Anderson explained that the three local planning commissions had conducted a joint public hearing on unresolved issues pertaining to LCDC acknowledgment of the Metro Plan. She said a decision on the two heron rookeries was postponed and would be heard by the Planning Commission on Monday, May 6. She also said there had been some concern that the two rookeries, owned by sand and gravel operations, would be treated differently. Responding to Ms. Bascom's question, Ms. Anderson said the difference in treatment probably was because Wildish had not been willing to cooperate, while the other owner was cooperative and supportive of protecting the heron rookery. Mr. Gaydos said the commission had voted on two of the issues, one dealing with zoning near the Airport zone and the second addressing the protection of a rare plant in the Russell Creek basin. Ms. Brody said the Council would receive a briefing on all four issues after the Planning Commission had voted on the two heron rookeries. The briefing would be on May 13, with the issues coming before the Council on May 22. Mr. Rutan said the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on the Riverfront Park Study in the next couple of weeks, and he encouraged input from planning commissioners and the public, as the plan is not permanently fixed at this point. Ms. Wooten also said she would be available for questions at that hearing. Ms. Wooten said she had previously visited planning commission meetings and had been asked to leave because of a conflict of interest. Ms. Brody said that was not the current policy. She said in quasi-judicial matters, it has been viewed as inappropriate for Councilors to give non-neutral testimony. Ms. Brody added that in informational matters, there should be no problem with individual Councilors testifying on matters not related to Council business. MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission work session May 1, 1985 Page 1 e Ms. Ehrman asked Planning Commission members whether there had been any problems with the workload resulting from the change in the appeal process. Ms. Anderson said the workload was less in terms of specific land use decisions because the hearings official was doing more. She said more, however, was being done by the commission in the policy area. Mr. Rutan said in the next process session, he would raise a concern about how downtown planning issues come to the Council. He said he was not comfortable with getting parallel recommendations from the Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission. He said he would request a review to see whether a more definitive process could be developed. Ms. Anderson said that was an issue of confusion to the Planning Commission as well. Ms. Brody said the same was true of the Downtown Commission, and staff was beginning to discuss the issue, identify the Downtown Plan implementation items expected over the next year, and plan a strategy for the interaction between the two commissions and council. Mr. Gaydos suggested that a conference might help to alleviate the problem of parallel recommendations. Mr. Holmer said one issue expected to come before the commission was the need for additional lanes on the Ferry Street Bridge. Ms. Wooten said she appreciated the thought and effort Planning Commission members had put into the Costco decision. e Mr. Prichard said he had noticed some deterioration of the local infrastructure, particularly the bike paths. Ms. Wooten said the Council was aware of that and would be discussing funding for maintaining and adding infrastructure as part of the Eugene Agenda. She suggested providing the Planning Commission with a summary of intentions and priorities. Ms. Wooten asked whether the Culture/Leisure Plan had been finished. Ms. Anderson said she and Mr. Thwing would be looking at the final draft after the meeting. The Planning Commission had finished its final recommendation, and Mr. Thwing said it was an extremely difficult process. He said the plan had been generated without any charge or direction, which was a problem. Ms. Anderson said the Planning Commission had tried to make it into an easily implemented plan. I. METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN MID-PERIOD REVIEW Ms. Bishow presented an overview of the issues raised during the mid-period review. She reviewed background materials and said Councilors and Commissioners in March had received another document containing more detail about public comments. She said the three planning commissions and MAPAC had recommended to MPC the time frame for considering the proposals, and MPC would begin considering the recommendations at the May 9 meeting. She said MPC probably would take until e MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission work session May 1, 1985 Page 2 - early June to determine which items would be studied and considered during the review. Specific plan recommendations should be forwarded to the three planning commissions by the end of the summer, so that public hearings can be held and recommendations can be made. MPC would then work with any areas of disagreement before sending them to the council. Ms. Bishow said items that address progress made since the Metro Plan was adopted reflect a need to respond to changes in the community or are minor plan amendments generally recommended for consideration during review. Some items seem to warrant additional staff resources and special studies. These items are generally recommended for consideration after the mid-period review and prior to the next major plan update. A few items proposed major changes to the plan or addressed the plan's fundamental principles. They are recommended for consideration during the update process. No issues have been dropped out of consideration. Of 89 issues, consensus was reached by the three local planning commissions and MAPAC on 72. MPC will focus attention on the 17 items with differences. Fifty-six of the 89 items are recommended for consideration during the review. e Ms. Anderson introduced the first item of discussion, re-examining the tone of the plan, which is recommended by the Chamber of Commerce and outlined in no. 2, page IV-1. She said the Chamber had clarified that it was interested only in text changes to reflect a position that was not anti-growth. Ms. Anderson said the Eugene Planning Commission felt that text changes could be accomplished as part of the review. In response to Ms. Ehrman's question, Ms. Anderson said the Chamber had offered some specific examples of changes they wanted. Ms. Mulder suggested that the other commissions perhaps had not been informed that the proposed change was strictly to wording, and that might explain the different recommendations. Ms. Wooten said she did not feel the language of the plan was anti-growth. Ms. Bascom read from part of one proposal, and Ms. Brody said that was a first draft that later had been clarified to include only editorial changes. She said staff members were satisfied that the changes would not shift the focus of the plan, but were mainly intended to change wording that could be perceived as anti-growth by those outside the community. Ms. Ehrman asked whether a determination on each issue was to be made. Ms. Anderson said she understood that the Planning Commission wanted to inform the Council about its recommendations. Ms. Wooten said staff had suggested that part of the charge is to inform representatives on the Metropolitan Planning Committee of what Councilors' preferences are. Members agreed to hold discussion on each issue one-by-one. Mr. Gaydos returned to discussion of the proposed plan changes, saying that he thought changes might not be necessary, but that a determination whether changes were needed could be made as part of the review. Ms. Wooten said the e MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission work session May 1, 1985 Page 3 - e e Council historically has been committed to the existing policies of the Metro Plan and was interested in ensuring that those policies are not changed by the editorial style of the day. Ms. Ehrman said she did not see the changes as an overriding priority for the use of staff resources. Ms. Anderson said the Chamber would provide the specific recommended text changes. Ms. Brody said a determination on review or update status will be made by MPC, and the Council will receive an analysis on those items chosen for review. Mr. Gordon said MPC's bylaws specify a majority decision for consensus, and one of two elected officials from each jurisdiction must agree with the decision. Ms. Wooten asked for direction that Mr. Rutan could take to MPC. Ms. Ehrman said she felt the review process was intended to be used for land use issues that have arisen recently and that require immediate action. She therefore favored the update status. Ms. Wooten said she felt the Metro Plan was a pro-development document, and that editorial changes would not be a worthy use of time. Mr. Holmer said that view was not universal, and that editorial changes might be advantageous in reaching a consensus. Ms. Wooten suggested that Mr. Rutan provide Councilors with copies of any suggested changes that come to MPC. Ms. Anderson introduced the next item, proposed major changes to the Urban Growth Boundary outlined on pages IV-7, 8, and 9. She said the Planning Commission felt that the UGB should be dealt with in its entirety as part of a special study, but not within the next few months. The work program for the study would be done during the review. She added that the commission was more concerned with giving a higher priority to the next item, the Commercial Lands Study. Ms. Ehrman asked how the study was related to the document. Ms. Brody said both items were both targetted as study items, and that the Commercial Lands Study should be begun as soon as the mid-period review is complete. Mr. Thwing said he understood that the study is a working paper for the eventual update, and should be given priority over the UGB changes. Ms. Anderson introduced the next item, the Awbrey-Meadow View Road portion of the industrial triangle, outlined on page IV-10. She said the metro planning team, Springfield, and Lane County had suggested that it be dealt with before the update, but after the review. Eugene and MAPAC had recommended that it be dealt with as part of the review. She added that the Planning Commission had arrived the decision with a split vote. The plan amendment had come before the County Commissioners, who put it off to wait for the review and update of the plan. Ms. Anderson said the people requesting the addition had asked that it be included in the review stage, and they had presented a great deal of background information. She said a majority of Planning Commission members felt that staff could review that information to determine whether the review stage was appropriate. She added that commissioners who had voted against the review felt that it was a more complicated issue because it dealt with the allocation of industrial lands and was therefore more appropriately considered as part of the update. MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission work session May 1, 1985 Page 4 - Ms. Bascom asked about the priority of the industrial triangle in relation to the other studies. Ms. Bishow said the Eugene Planning Commission recommended that the industrial triangle be considered now during the review. The Planning Commission is recommending that the Commercial Lands Study be conducted next, followed by a study of proposed changes to the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Prichard said the majority on the Planning Commission felt that this request differed from the other UGB requests because no large-scale research is available to decide whether enough land has been provided for economic development, and the property owners had not wanted a lengthy wait on their request. Ms. Wooten reminded members that the City of Eugene had gone to court over this issue, and she asked what factors besides those mentioned by Mr. Prichard have changed to warrant an immediate review. Mr. Gordon said the legal challenge argued by Eugene was in response to the county amending its rural e comprehensive plan to designate the area industrial rather than agricultural outside the UGB. The next proposal for an amendment came from the owners and their representatives for an exception to the agricultural goal for industrial designation outside the UGB. Mr. Gordon said this proposal was different because it sought to expand the UGB and designate industrial inside the UGB. He added that more thorough background information probably also had been compiled. Ms. Brody also said the size of the site had changed. This proposal was for approximately 400 acres, while the previous proposal had been for about 1,800 acres. Ms. Wooten asked for direction. Mr. Gordon explained that the Springfield commission felt there was a greater need to deal with issues inside the UGB than to consider expansion. Ms. Wooten said she agreed with that position. Mr. Holmer and Mr. Rutan said they supported the Eugene Planning Commission recommendation. Ms. Brody said if the review is decided upon, the governing bodies will make a decision during the review whether to expand the UGB. Ms. Wooten said she felt the proposal should be looked at in the context of other industrial zoned lands prior to the five-year update. No consensus was reached. Ms. Anderson introduced the next items, nos. 11 and 13 on page IV-2. She said the amendment to the chapter on Historic Preservation was being proposed because of a report by some University students. She added she was concerned that because the study was fairly detailed and had some site-specific recommendations, it might not allow enough time for the analysis required under LCDC's goals. Mr. Gordon said he thought a resolution could be found at MPC. He suggested adding some policy to the plan to set up a process for dealing with those sites over a longer period of time, as allowed for in Goal 5. e MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission work session May 1, 1985 Page 5 e e e Ms. Anderson said the Planning Commission had recommended study for no. 13, the proposal to add text creating a metropolitan planning commission. She said the commission felt that if a metro planning commission were created, it could mean significant changes that should be done before the update. Mr. Gaydos said he thought the decision should be made before the update so it would not require a great deal of time during the update. Ms. Anderson introduced the final two issues, nos. 4 and 5 on page IV-5. She said the other planning commissions and MAPAC had suggested review status. The Eugene Planning Commission felt that more studies would be involved for other similar parcels, and that a change in the Land Use Diagram could be better evaluated after studies have been made. Ms. Brody added that the need was no longer as pressing because Goodwill will be located in the building and is permissible in an industrial area. Ms. Anderson said no. 5 was a proposal to expand commercial use in the area of Eugene Sand and Gravel and G.I. Joe's. She said the Planning Commission had denied the owners a rezoning request, and they had then presented a modified version of the request as part of the review. She said the Planning Commission felt that it would be helpful to have the Commercial Land Study completed before a decision is made. Mr. Rutan asked if the study would be moved up so that it could be completed sooner. Ms. Anderson said the study would not be complete by the review period. Ms. Wooten said consensus appeared to have been reached on all but two issues, and she opened the floor for other items of discussion. Ms. Wooten asked what was likely to happen on the LCC Basin and Seavey Loop proposals. Ms. Anderson said the proposals still were being recommended to be put off. Mr. Gaydos said the Metro Plan sets direction for studying the LCC Basin. He added that the availability of public services was one area in which the basin differed from the industrial triangle. Mr. Holmer asked when the update process would begin and whether there would be another chance to review the update work program. Ms. Brody said that was a good idea, and it could be helpful to get together during the study period to share some of the work and discuss the scope of the update. Ms. Wooten suggested making a note of that. Mr. Gordon referred to item 1 on page IV-l, looking at the plan amendment process. He said staff is working on the substance of that issue and has received direction from MPC on areas of agreement. He said many community concerns had been expressed about the plan amendment process. He explained that the next step is to go to MPC, where members will attempt to resolve the 17 issues with differences. Staff will then analyze the items to be considered during the review and forward recommendations to MPC. MPC is scheduled to forward recommendations to the three jurisdictions sometime in July. A package of amendments to the Metropolitan Plan will be the subject of planning commission hearings during September and October, and eventually MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission work session May 1, 1985 Page 6 . e e hearings will be held and decisions to amend the plan will be addressed by elected officials. The package is expected at LCDC by December 23. Ms. Anderson reminded members that the issues at this point were evaluated solely regarding ti'n and that no support was being shown for specific reque 2:50 p.m. (Recorded by Leslie Scales.) LS:kb/2582P MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission work session May 1, 1985 Page 7 ..' ". e e - M E M 0 RAN DUM April 24, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: SUBJ: Planning Department METRO PLAN MID-PERIOD REVIEW A special joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission is scheduled for May 1 from 11:30 a.m.- 1:30 p.m. concerning the Metro Plan Mid- Period Review. The meeting will allow both groups to discuss the proposals raised during the Mid-Period Review process and to provide direction to their representatives on the Metropolitan Policy Committee. Some of the issues 1) a~e appropriate to consider during the Mid-Period Review; 2) point to the need for future studies; or 3) identify concerns to be addressed during the next major update of the Plan. On April 8, the Planning Commission completed an initial review of the issues and forwarded recommendations to MPC regarding the time frame for considering the proposals. The document enclosed was used by the Planning Commission to aid in analyzing the various proposals. The matrix includes a summary of the proposals and groups the issues into four major categories: A. Proposed Metro Plan Text Changes; B. Proposed Metro Plan Diagram Changes; C. Proposed Metro Plan Auxiliary Map Changes; D. Proposed Implementation Activities/Special Studies. The matrix also indicates the time frame recommended for each item by the Metro Planning Team, the three local planning commissions and the Metropolitan Area Planning Advisory Committee. During the Eugene Planning Commission's review of the various items, some of the issues generated more discussion than others. Listed below are some of those issues: 1. Item 2, page IV-I. The Chamber of Commerce submitted a request to re-examine the tone of the Plan to emphasize development as a positive community force. While both the Planning Commission and Chamber realized that major revisions to the fundamental principles to the Plan are outside the scope of the Mid-Period Review, there was a strong desire to identify editorial changes to the Plan text that would highlight the value of development. 2. Item 15, page IV-7; Items 23 and 24, page IV-8; Items 30 and 33, page IV-g. These items are all proposals to make major changes to the existing Urban Growth Boundary. The Eugene Planning Commission recommended that the work program for a speci a 1 study of alternative areas for expansion of the UGB be developed during the Mid-Period Review, but that the 'study be conducted after the Mid- Period Review and prior to the next major update. 3. The Eugene Planning Commission recommended that a Commercial Lands Study also be conducted prior to the next major update of the Metro Plan. They also emphasized, given limited staff resources, this commercial study be given higher priority than the study of future UGB alternatives (Item #2 above.) 4. Item #35, page IV-IO. The Eugene Planning Commission recommended that the Awbrey- Meadow View Industrial Tract be considered during the Mid-Period Review because of the amount of information provided with the request, the stated urgency to consider the request, and a desire to resolve the issue within the Mid-Period Review rather than as a separate privat~ly initiated Plan amendment. · pltbmem7 '!' ',. e - .