Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/1992 Meeting e e e M I NUT E S Joint City Council/Planning Commission Work Session McNutt Room-City Hall, 777 Pearl Street May 26, 1992 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Jeff Miller, Shawn Boles, Bobby Green, Ruth Bascom, Kaye Robinette, Paul Nicholson, Randy MacDonald, Debra Ehrman (arrived 5:50), Eugene City Council; Jenny Sirnio, Ellen Wojahn, Ken Tollenaar, Greg Evans, John Vanlandingham, Adell McMillan, Eugene Planning Commission. ABSENT: Roger Rutan, Eugene City Council I. WORK SESSION: ANNUAL REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM A. FY92 Progress Referring to the memorandum included in the agenda packet, Ms. Sirnio reviewed the Planning Commission's progress on its FY92 program. She noted the following major accomplishments: 1) the Metropolitan Area Industrial Lands Study; 2) the Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study; 3) the Eugene Commercial Lands Study; 4) the Willakenzie Refinement Plan; 5) the West Eugene Wetlands Study; 6) several annexation requests; 7) a review of the Capital Improvement Program; 8) the Historic Preservation Ordinance; 9) the Wildlife Rehabilitation and other miscellaneous zoning code amendments; 10) a Whitaker Refinement Plan amendment; and 11) the Urban Forest Management Plan. She added that, in addition, the commission discussed ways to prOVide planning services differently, in light of the Eugene Decisions process. The commis- sion also discussed plans in progress, such as the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) Update, the Ferry Street Bridge Project, and the Stormwater Management Plan, as well as new State legislation, such as the Statewide Planning Goal 12 Transportation Planning Rule and the Department of Land Conservation and Development's Urban Growth Management Study. The commission also received reports from members regarding the various committees on which they serve as commission representatives. B. Priorities for FY92-93 Regarding priorities for FY92-93, Ms. Sirnio said that 8 of 32 projects received 4 or more votes from commissioners as priority projects. She emphasized that the commission did not rank projects that received the same number of votes. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Planning Commission-5:30 May 26, 1992 Page 1 e e e The commission unanimously chose correcting the plan/zone conflicts in the Eugene Commercial lands and Industrial lands studies as the first priority. This project is scheduled to begin after the adoption of the two studies. Three projects received six votes each for a second priority status: 1) update of the Whiteaker Refinement Plan, which has not been updated since 1978; 2) transportation-related zoning revisions regarding the City Council's transportation goals, the State Transportation Planning Rule, and implementa- tion priorities of the Commercial Lands Study and the Willakenzie Refinement Plan; and 3) the Residential Lands Study. All three projects are scheduled to begin in July 1992. Mr. MacDonald stated that he strongly supported encouraging alternative modes of transportation and agreed with the high priority status it was given by the commission. He said that City Council priorities and Statewide mandates provide an opportunity for cooperation and coordination of the Planning Commission and the City Council to work on land use and transportation issues. Ms. Sirnio continued that the Airport Vicinity/Highway 99 Refinement Plan and the Growth Management Review Implementation each received five votes for the third priority status. She mentioned that the Airport project provides an opportunity for the commission to engage in proactive planning in an area that is not fully developed. Ms. Ehrman arrived (5:50 p.m.). Regarding the Growth Management project, Ms. Sirnio said that last year the commission focused its discussions on the annexation policy as it applies to the River Road/Santa Clara area. She said that this year, the commission will broaden its discussion to include overall policies as well as different strategies for different areas or neighborhoods. Revision of commercial zones and establishing minimum densities for medium- and high-density residential development each received four votes for a fourth priority status. Revising commercial zones would involve reviewing the City's overall commercial zoning regulations and would address use and design recommendations from the Eugene Commercial Lands Study. Mr. Tollenaar added that this would provide the commission with an opportunity to clearly distin- guish the neighborhood commercial zone. Establishing minimum residential densities would also involve amending the Eugene code. Ms. Wojahn stated that each commissioner was limited to a certain number of votes, but that all projects have full support of the commission. Regarding the coordination of transportation and land use planning, Mr. Evans emphasized the importance of community education. Mr. Boles stated that a framework must be developed that allows City Council, the Planning Commission, other jurisdictions, and all other neighborhood organizations to be involved in land use and transportation planning. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Planning Commission-5:30 May 26, 1992 Page 2 e e e Regarding the TransPlan update, Mr. MacDonald stated that other jurisdictions may not be as interested in the goals of the City of Eugene. Mr. Tollenaar said that the commission intends to address transportation and land use issues in the Metro Plan update also. He said that the commission has clear goals but lacks technical necessities to carry them out. Mr. Evans mentioned that there are many transportation-related issues currently in progress, such as those in the Willakenzie Refinement Plan, the Ferry Street Bridge, and opening Olive Street. He maintained that at some point, the City will be forced to limit the use of single-occupancy vehicles. Mr. Boles said that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) has agreed to form policies that would oversee all jurisdictions. He added that the MPC requests that future plans include not only goals, but implementation policies. Mr. Nicholson disagreed with Mr. Tollenaar's conclusion that the problem with the coordination of land use and transportation is of a technical nature. He maintained that it is a political problem. He said that the full costs of single-occupancy vehicle travel must be assigned to the individuals and that government and the public must stop subsidizing it. He added that the public must know the realistic consequences of their choices. Mike Gleason, City Manager, said that problems arise when one choice (a mode of transportation) is juxtaposed upon another. He said that the City must agree on projects and proceed with them. Otherwise, decisions are made but are not implemented until years later, at which time they may be inappropriate. In response to a question from Mr. Boles regarding commercial design stan- dards, Ms. Childs said that these would be addressed as part of the revision of the commercial zones. Mr. Boles noted that, as part of Eugene Decisions, the City had requested information on the University of Oregon planning process. He said that this could overlap with commercial design issues. In response to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Tollenaar said that the residents in Willakenzie are opposed to commercial developments locating anywhere except where commercial development is specified on the Metro Plan diagram. He said that establishing design standards will help the situation, and will allow development of neighborhood commercial (C-l) uses in convenient locations. Mr. Nicholson said that design standards must be more clearly defined. Mr. Vanlandingham said that establishing minimum densities relates to alternative transportation goals. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Planning Commission-5:30 May 26, 1992 Page 3 e C. RelationshiD Between City Council Goals and Plannino Commission Priorities Regarding downtown development, Ms. Sirnio said that the Planning Commission has not discussed specific projects. However, it has discussed increasing office and housing opportunities downtown. She added that the commission has met with Sue Pritchard, Chair of the Downtown Commission, in order to coordi- nate efforts. e Mayor Miller wondered if the City Council wished to have the authority to approve the work plan of the Planning Commission. Mr. MacDonald mentioned that a retreat to discuss the Metro Plan and TransPlan updates may be helpful. Mr. Green agreed. Mr. Boles said that the council and commission members have not had the opportunity to discuss ideas regarding the proposed FY93 projects. He wondered whether there was adequate staff resources to do all the projects, and requested that the Planning Commission rank all eight projects. Ms. Bascom pointed out that planning processes may have to be condensed in light of budgetary constraints. Mr. Vanlandingham agreed, and pointed out that the commission was frustrated with the excessive time required for consideration of the Willakenzie Refinement Plan. Mr. Green supported the concept of the City Council approving the Planning Commission's work program. He added that the Planning Commission should view the City Council's work program also. He said that this would facilitate coordination between the two bodies and would encourage dialogue between them. Mr. Boles agreed, and stated that the City Council should be in full support of the Planning Commission's work program. He added that the City Council should state policies clearly and that the Planning Commission should ask for clarification early in the process if necessary. D. The Plannino Commission's Role in the Euoene Decisions Process Ms. Sirnio said that the Planning Commission's primary question involves its changing role if commissions or boards are eliminated. Mr. Evans emphasized that throughout the Eugene Decisions process, the public has been encouraging the participation of volunteers. Mr. Robinette underscored the fact that the City Council itself is not clear on the direction of Eugene Decisions and will not be until August. Mayor Miller said that absent any additional revenue, option 3 will be implemented. Mr. Green said that even if community input processes change as a result of Eugene Decisions, the high quality of citizen input must be maintained. He wondered how the Planning Commission envisioned its role in the Eugene Decisions process. Mayor Miller said that the City Council is in control of the budget. He said that if the Eugene Decisions process results in a decrease in staff who assist in such matters, the council will need to provide clear direction. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Planning Commission-5:30 May 26, 1992 Page 4 e e e E. Cost Factors in Preoarina Plannina Commission Recommendations Ms. Sirnio said that the Planning Commission views itself as primarily concerned with land use recommendations, as compared to the City Council, which is more concerned with budgetary concerns. She stated that the Planning Commission requests more direction from the City Council regarding the amount of financial information desired in land use recommendations. Ms. Ehrman said that she would prefer the Planning Commission include a financial analysis in its recommendations. Ms. MacDonald said that costs to the community and those to the City should be considered. Mr. Tollenaar wondered whether the commission should recommend the best scenario for the City or the scenario which would generate the most community support. Ms. McMillan added that other committees question whether it is their role to consider what is best for the City. Ms. Wojahn said that financial consider- ations are eventually necessary in making any decision. However, she cau- tioned that it is very easy to make decisions based solely or prematurely on financial considerations. Mr. Evans preferred that the Planning Commission not address financial considerations in its recommendations because of time constraints. Mr. Nicholson said that there are many considerations in addition to the optimal land use consideration, such as political, societal, and legal considerations. Mr. Boles said that it is difficult to create a general policy on this issue. He said that the City Council should direct the commission regarding how much financial details it should consider in its recommendations. F. Plannina Commission Review of Annexation Ms. Sirnio said that currently, noncontiguous annexations are permitted in a piecemeal fashion. She requested direction from the council on whether the commission should consider a large scale annexation policy or continue with the current piecemeal policy. Mr. Vanlandingham said that four-minute response times are a concern in annexation of the Willakenzie and Glenwood areas. Mr. MacDonald suggested that the Planning Commission submit a written summary of the points of concern and the council will discuss them before giving more feedback. G. Procedures for Commission Presentation at Public Hearinas Ms. Sirnio stated that the commission needs direction on whether a representa- tive should be limited to a three-minute presentation at public hearings, and whether the council prefers to hear from that representative before any other testimony. Mayor Miller suggested that the Planning Commission recommenda- tions and concerns be discussed at the council's next process session. This was agreeable to the council and the commission. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Planning Commission-5:30 May 26, 1992 Page 5 e e e Jan Childs, Planning and Development Department, noted that the commission wanted to begin work on its top priority projects and asked for council direction. The council concurred that the commission should proceed with its top priority projects. II. LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT CLTDl--MCDONALD THEATER SITE Ms. Ehrman requested that the council discuss LTD's recent interest in use of the McDonald Theater site for its proposed transit station. Phyllis Loobey, Lane Transit District (LTD), displayed a conceptual plan of the LTD transit station at the McDonald Theatre site. She said that the LTD advisory commit- tee has many questions regarding this and other possible transit sites, and a Joint meeting between it and the LTD Board is scheduled for June 10. She said that meetings are being held with property owners of three sites currently under consideration: the McDonald site; the International House of Pancakes site; and the Pasta Plus site. She said that there are many objections to the latter two sites. Although the McDonald site has not raised many objections, it has a major site configuration flaw because it is L-shaped. She added that the configuration could be changed, if additional adjacent sites were pur- chased. She said that the station requires at least 3/4 of a block. Refer- ring to the conceptual design, she said that the station includes a customer service center. The two corners opposite the McDonald site are owned by the City, as urban renewal property. Mayor Miller expressed concern about the parking that would be eliminated if the station was constructed at the McDonald site. Lew Bowers, Planning and Development Department, stated that LTD searched for a site that does not have code-related parking. He said that the McDonald site is in a parking exempt zone. He added that the existing surface parking lots could be replaced with structured parking. Mr. Boles expressed frustration regarding the late timing of LTD's presenta- tion to the council. He preferred that LTD inform the council on an ongoing basis. He noted that the CATS study is examining parking replacement imple- mentation procedures, which is an issue relevant to the LTD transit station location. He requested more information on the process the LTD Board is using in selecting a location. Ms. Loobey said that the criteria for the site has not changed in the process of choosing one. She said that LTD has sought comments from bus riders and tenants of property near sites being considered. Ms. Loobey added that a calendar of events was given to the council representative. She said that public hearings are scheduled for the site determination as well as the environmental assessment. She added that the board intends to involve the Downtown Commission, the Planning Commission, and the City Council in those public hearings. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Planning Commission-5:30 May 26, 1992 Page 6 e e e Mr. Gleason said that if the City wishes to establish a dense urban core, parking structures must be provided, as opposed to surface level parking. He said that this will result in higher costs for parking in the downtown area, which will then promote parking on the perimeter. He said that there are legal questions which must be addressed regarding parking damages if LTD were to purchase the McDonald site from the City. Due to insufficient time to continue discussion, Ms. Loobey agreed to meet with the council again the following day. The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. (Recorded by Kathy Varner) cc526.052 ~ : . . t , , . , MINUTES--Eugene City Council Planning Commission-5:30 May 26, 1992 Page 7