Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/21/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall June 21, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. JOINT WORK SESSION OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AND THE EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION The council was joined by Planning Commissioners Robert Conrad, Ann Marie Levis, Adell McMillan, Ellen Wojahn, Peter Barrel, and Jon Belcher. Mayor James D. Torrey called the council to order at 5:30 p.m. Planning Commission President Robert Conrad called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order. Those present introduced themselves. Mr. Torrey noted Ms. Levis had recently been named president of Funk and Associates. Mr. Conrad provided a brief overview of the Planning Commission's work activities and accomplishments in fiscal year 1999. He invited questions. Mr. Kelly asked what process the commission envisioned for the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) review, and if the council could get a check-in before receiving the commission's recommendations for a sense of the rationale behind the changes. He said that during the meetings he had attended the commission had spent time on detail, and asked if the commission had spent any time in "big picture, philosophical" discussions. Regarding Mr. Kelly's first question, Ms. Levis believed there was a disconnect between the commission's deliberations and its recommendations to the council. She said that it was difficult to review those sometimes extensive deliberations in a short period of time. Ms. Levis said that the commission talked both about the "big picture" issues and minutiae. She was also concerned about the Land Use Code Update. She recalled the council's participation in the commission's work on the Growth Management Study, which helped other councilors to understand the recommendations. Ms. Levis hoped to be able to bring the councilors into the LUCU review, but she did not how to do so efficiently without more meetings. Mr. Conrad said the commission was attempting to review the code as people who might use the code. He said that the commission considered the draft in light of the Growth Management Study policies. He noted that the department advisory committee worked on the draft for two years and the commission would also spend two years on it, and suggested that much effort was difficult to encapsulate in a single meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Mr. Kelly believed it was less important for the council to be familiar with the code than with the rationale behind the commission's recommendations. Mr. Meisner expressed regret that the council was largely unaware of the commission's progress in the LUCU review because it did not receive regular updates. He said that he could attend commission meetings but it was difficult to make sense of how the policies related to other plans because of minutiae. He questioned the cost of implementing the update. He also was concerned about the interaction between planning documents and regulations, citing the recommendations in the Residential Lands Study as an example, questioning how the recommendations related to minimum density standards for Iow-density worked with the update. Mr. Barrel suggested that the visual presentations staff provided to the commission would be provided to the council to illustrate the results of the update. Mr. Meisner liked that concept, but also reiterated his desire for regular updates. Ms. Wojahn said that it had been difficult for the commission to get a feeling of how it was meeting the Growth Management Study policies through the update. She believed the commission needed to complete its work to ensure it had time for that discussion. Ms. Wojahn said that staff was working on the cost of implementing the regulations to the City and the development community. She assured the council that the commission kept the "big picture" in mind and that it was informed by the many studies and plans it had reviewed in the past. Mr. Lee asked how the council could receive updates. Ms. Childs suggested that the council schedule a work session after the next draft is published so the council could see the entire document. Mr. Rayor commended the Planning Commission for its work on LUCU, acknowledging that it was a big effort. He pointed out that the City had a fine staff of people who were not really looking at LUCU, such as civil engineers, environmentalists, and architects. He expressed hope that the commission could "touch base" with those individuals. He believed that densification was an admirable goal, but in certain cases it may not be possible because of geography. Mr. Rayor believed most site designs did not take topography into account. In response to Mr. Rayor, Ms. Wojahn said that many, many different staff from different departments were working with the commission on LUCU. Ms. Taylor was concerned about environmental overview of whatever happened at whatever level. She was also concerned about seeing pads of the code instead of the whole code. She believed that the community and the council should see the work as it progressed. Ms. Taylor advocated for early adoption of such items as density regulations before the remainder of document because of ongoing new development pressures. Ms. Nathanson acknowledged other elements of the commission's work program and expressed particular interest in the potential impact of the North End Scoping Group recommendations on City codes and regulations. She noted the potential redevelopment of Agricpac site. Noting pressure on the City from residents who wished new neighborhood plans or updated plans, Ms. Nathanson asked the commission to discuss what neighborhood was the next likely candidate for a refinement plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. Ms. Nathanson was also interested in nodal development and the commission's recommendations regarding the tree ordinance. Ms. Nathanson asked the commission for input regarding competing values. She asked for examples of competing values as those that were the toughest to resolve. Mr. Conrad said that all the plans the commission examined gave it a broad overview of planning. He said that the commission considered each plan in the context of other plans as it knew that each plan had an impact on what it was doing. He said that the commission was working toward a transit-friendly, pedestrian-friendly town. He noted the difficulty of retrofitting streets to meet that goal. Responding to Ms. Nathanson's question about competing values, he cited maintaining the urban growth boundary in its current location while providing open space, and public transit versus the automobile, as examples. He said that the commission understood it was looking at a series of tradeoffs, and attempted to consider those tradeoffs in terms of what they provided for the City and its residents. Responding to Ms. Nathanson's remarks, Ms. Wojahn regretted that the commission could not do more neighborhood planning. There has been a judgment in the past that built-out neighborhoods were static and if there was not a plan, one was not needed, and if there was a plan, that had to suffice. She said it was an unfortunate circumstance because of the City's heavy reliance on infill development in the future to reach its density goals. Ms. Wojahn believed the City needed to find a way to do neighborhood planning in shorter, more targeted, and less expensive ways. Mr. Conrad concurred, adding that even neighborhoods with plans want changes, which cost money. Ms. McMillan agreed that many neighborhoods, such as the Friendly area, needed plans, while other plans should be updated. She added that the commission had not recently discussed specific neighborhoods due for neighborhood planning. Ms. McMillan expressed excitement about the nodal planning process and said she looked forward to getting into it more deeply. Mr. Kelly asked about the time estimate for publishing the next draft of the update. Ms. Childs anticipated it would be out in September. Mr. Kelly asked if primary changes would be summarized. Ms. Childs said yes. Mr. Kelly asked the commission to consider both the costs of housing at closing and the long-term costs involved, such as commuting, etc. Mr. Kelly noted the commission's investigation of the alternative path and asked the commission to share its thinking about the possibility. In response, Ms. Wojahn said that the commission heard a presentation from a consultant and discussed the elements of the proposal. Staff used those impressions to create a proposal for the commission to respond to. She believed the result would be something useful in certain circumstances. However, the commission was still working to develop a standards-based document that worked in a prescriptive way. Mr. Belcher agreed that most neighborhoods wanted new or updated plans. He said that was important, but what was more important was the reaction of neighborhoods to the City's proposal for increased density. He suggested that neighborhoods could be allowed to discuss how to implement density in their areas. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Mr. Farr expressed appreciation for Mr. Conrad's remarks about housing, and noted the high cost of housing in Eugene. He said that there was disagreement about the impact of the code on the cost of housing. He believed that it was essential to consider cost. Mr. Farr said that he wanted Eugene to be a city where his children could afford to buy a house, and he did not perceive that being likely. At what level, he asked, does affordability enter into the discussion. Was it a strong topic? Mr. Conrad said that there were at least two commissioners who had spent time dealing with that issue, and he believed it was discussed. He said that the draft code would allow a variety of housing types and while the alternative path might be more expensive, it would be an alternative. Mr. Farr thanked the commission for discussing affordability. Ms. Levis said that the commission was considering affordability to the degree of added costs per unit per month. She said that the commission wanted to ensure that it was not looking at things from such an abstract point of view that it lost sight of the issue. Ms. Levis said that it had been an exciting year. She noted the commission's hearing on the Marist appeal. The commission extensively addressed TransPlan in terms of the big picture and the funding available. The Glenwood transfer was a gratifying but difficult decision. Nodal development was fascinating and it was helpful to see how it would work in actual practice. Ms. Levis cited infill and density versus the urban growth boundary as competing values. Ms. McMillan suggested that the nodal development projects could be a way to accomplish the neighborhood refinement planning effort. Mr. Lee asked if the commission anticipated the salmon listing would be a major issue for the community. Mr. Conrad responded that the commission discussed it briefly but not in depth. He added that the commission was more focused on wetlands because not all are delineated, although the Residential Lands Study made an estimation of the amount of impacted land. As development occurred, the City will need to do a site-by-site review to address those issues. Mr. Conrad believed that the listing would have an impact on development. He noted the commission's discussions about the relationship between density and wetlands, wetlands as amenities, and development types that would impact wetlands more lightly. Mr. Lee thought the listing would have a "monumental" impact on the City because he believed a "take" could be defined in any way. He suggested that LUCU could be affected and said that the commission should move on with the knowledge that there would be an impact. Mr. Kelly said that the impact of design standards on housing prices was a point well taken, but reminded the commission of the council's directive regarding design standards. Regarding TransPlan, Mr. Kelly noted the new draft TransPlan had been published and the commission had the benefit of the hearings. He suggested that the commissioners discuss what changed from the last draft of TransPlan to the current draft. Mr. Torrey urged the commission to keep in mind that there were many people unfamiliar with the TransPlan document. He said that the urban growth boundary was not sacred and could be affected by issues such as wetlands. He pointed out that there would be a prison one mile from the City's city limits because of Junction City's decision to extend its urban growth boundary to encompass the prison. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Mr. Rayor asked if the City was meeting State planning goals in TransPlan. Mr. Torrey said no, and neither was any other city. He said it was not possible to achieve the standard, the City did a disservice to the public when it held the standard up as a goal. Ms. Childs said that the Transportation Planning Rule had been changed in recognition that the VMT (vehicle miles traveled) standard was too stringent and difficult to achieve. The amendments stipulated that if a City could not meet the revised standard it must notify the State about other measures it planned to achieve the overall goal of reduced reliance on the automobile. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to adopt the commission's FY2000 work program. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Farmer observed that joint meetings between councils and planning commissions were rare in his previous experience. He commended the tradition of joint meetings in Eugene. Mr. Meisner reminded the council that the first design tour of Portland was occurring on July 17 and expressed hope that the commissioners could accompany the council. Mr. Conrad said that the commission would discuss more frequent LUCU updates to the council. The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m.