Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue June 9, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President; Jon Belcher, Adell McMillan, Mitzi Colbath, Commissioners; Susan Muir, ex officio member (for Tom Coyle). ABSENT: Rick Duncan (out due to illness), member; Tom Coyle, ex officio member. RECUSED: John Lawless, Vice President; Anne Marie Levis, Commissioner. I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION /ACTION: KNUTSON FAMILY LLC ZONE CHANGE APPEAL Ms. McMillan moved to uphold the Hearings Official decision with respect to the appellant’s first assignment of error, with the exception that the Planning Commission did not necessarily agree with the particular wording related to GO uses within Metro Plan residential designations. Mr. Belcher provided the second. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. Mr. Belcher moved to uphold the Hearings Official decision with respect to the appellant’s second assignment of error. Ms. McMillan provided the second. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. Ms. McMillan moved to uphold the Hearings Official decision brought into question by the appellant’s third assignment of error. Mr. Belcher provided the second. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. Ms. McMillan moved, with a second from Mr. Belcher, that the Hearings Official erred with respect to findings on criterion 9.8655(3) as the evidence provided by the applicant, including the traffic analysis, appeared to demonstrate that transportation facilities could be extended to the C-2 uses that would be permitted on the five tax lots in question. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 9, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue June 9, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President; Jon Belcher, Adell McMillan, Mitzi Colbath, Commissioners; Susan Muir, ex officio member (for Tom Coyle); Shawna Adams, Steve Nystrom, Plan- ning and Development staff. ABSENT: Rick Duncan (out due to illness), member; Tom Coyle, ex officio member. RECUSED: John Lawless, Vice President; Anne Marie Levis, Commissioner. Mr. Rusch called the meeting to order. I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: KNUTSON FAMILY LLC ZONE CHANGE APPEAL Ms. Adams provided a brief overview of the zone change request. She noted that, should the Planning Commission support the decision of the Hearings Official, the final order was available to sign. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Nystrom stated that the Planning Commission could decide to modify the final order to include a partial reversal of the Hearings Official’s ruling. He said, as noted in the memorandum to the commission, all findings would have to be overturned for any single lot in order to effect the outcome of the zone change. Mr. Rusch called it a difficult case as he had more difficulty with the criteria than with the case itself. He felt very sympathetic to the Knutson family position. In particular, he had trouble with evaluating a change of zoning based upon the consistency with the current zoning. In response to a question from Mr. Rusch, Mr. Nystrom explained that the Planning Commission did not see the vast majority of zone change requests as most of them flowed through the process without event. As the Planning Commission primarily saw appeals of land use decisions where policy direction is in question, it could lead to a perception that there were serious flaws in the Metro Plan and land use codes. Mr. Rusch also took issue with how much was required from the applicant when a project had yet to be developed. He felt the appellant’s argument in this respect was well-founded. Ms. McMillan pointed out that the applicant could request a plan amendment instead of a zone change. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 9, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Belcher suggested the four appeal issues be taken one at a time. The commissioners agreed to do so. Mr. Rusch read the first assignment of error: The Hearings Official erred when she concluded that the Metro Plan designation for the sub- ject properties was residential as opposed to commercial. Mr. Belcher commented that the applicant had applied under the Metro Plan diagram in effect at the time the request was made. He expressed concern at the seeming contradiction between the Willakenzie Refinement Plan and the Metro Plan. However, having reviewed the subject properties within the context of the Metro Plan, he felt the residential designation was the correct one. Mr. Rusch felt it was clear that the Hearings Official had not erred, though he found the appellant’s argument compelling. Ms. Colbath commented that the reason the refinement plan was not the definitive document was that it had potential to become outmoded quickly. Ms. McMillan agreed, stating that there was no question that on the date the application was filed, the Metro Plan, yet to be amended, designated the subject properties as residential. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom said it was difficult to tell specifically in the Metro Plan how the General Office (GO) zoning was treated. He did, however, question the relevance of consideration of the GO designation within the context of this appeal. He noted the GO zone currently allowed for residential use. Mr. Belcher said it raised a procedural issue for him. He asked if the applicant raised an issue and the commission found the Hearings Official erred, would it be possible to agree that the Hearings Official erred but that the error was not sufficient to support the appeal. Mr. Nystrom replied that the commission would then have to produce findings that supported the assignment of error. He suggested that the commission could express its concern without supporting in any way the assignment of error. Ms. Muir suggested the commission affirm the findings with the exception of those in regard to the GO zoning. Mr. Belcher reiterated that, in the role of determining whether the Hearings Official was correct or not, he was uncertain regarding whether GO should be considered an ancillary residential use or not. He added that it did not make a difference in the decision. Mr. Nystrom asked if Mr. Belcher wanted to flag it as part of the decision or whether it was a point to be followed up on. Mr. Belcher responded that he wished to flag it in the record. Ms. McMillan did not think this was the foundation of the Hearings Official decision. She stressed that the Planning Commission was affirming the Hearings Official decision, which did not entirely rely on the determination that GO zoning was consistent with a residential designation. Mr. Belcher moved to ask staff to craft language expressing the uncertainty of the Planning Commission on the Hearings Official decision that GO was an appropriate use for residential land designations in the Metro Plan, but that it was not a criterion to uphold the appeal of the Hearings Official decision. Motion died for lack of second. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 9, 2004 Page 3 Mr. Nystrom thought this language could be part of the motion to uphold the decision of the Hearings Official, rather than asking staff to craft language. Ms. McMillan moved to uphold the Hearings Official decision with respect to the appellant’s first assignment of error, with the exception that the Planning Commission did not necessarily agree with the particular wording related to GO uses within Metro Plan residential designations. Mr. Belcher provided the second. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. Mr. Rusch read the second assignment of error: The Hearings Official erred in her application of certain Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan policies and objectives. Mr. Rusch felt that the zoning was inconsistent with existing zoning because it was a zone change request. Mr. Belcher expressed his discomfort with the words ‘should’ and ‘shall.’ He noted the appellant had questioned the interpretation of ‘shall’ in this assignment of error. He read from page 55 of the Hearings Official decision. Mr. Nystrom said there was a synopsis in the staff report on this, which also included an opinion from the City Attorney. He read a portion of the Hearings Official decision, as follows: “The Hearings Official further acknowledged that while no one policy or objective was controlling, the applicant was correct that several policies could be construed to support or oppose increasing the intensity of commercial zoning on the subject property. Finding no language that made apparent the conflict with the diagram, the Hearings Official concluded the proposed zoning did not comply with the Metro Plan.” Mr. Nystrom remarked that one could dissect each individual policy by a ‘should’ or ‘shall’ quandary and advocate a certain direction, but this did not mean that the entire thing set of policies should be ignored. Mr. Belcher commented that he felt that he might not necessarily agree with the applicant that ‘shoulds’ should be excluded, but that it was difficult to deem the finding compelling. Ms. McMillan did not think that the determination of the intent of ‘should’ versus ‘shall’ should be taken on at this point. Ms. Adams added that the Hearings Official findings were two-fold, in that she concluded that not only was the proposed zone change inconsistent with the Metro Plan, which controls in the event of conflict with the refinement plan, and she also concluded that the proposed zone change was inconsistent with the Willakenzie Sub-area Refinement Plan. Mr. Belcher moved to uphold the Hearings Official decision with respect to the appellant’s second assignment of error. Ms. McMillan provided the second. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. Mr. Rusch read the third assignment of error: The Hearings Official erred by failing to make a decision consistent with the approval criteria and by not applying the approval criteria and by applying other standards that are not approval MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 9, 2004 Page 4 criteria. Mr. Belcher surmised that the applicant was arguing that the Hearings Official erred by discussing whether or not the current zoning was appropriate. Ms. McMillan added that it seemed repetitious. Mr. Nystrom concurred, stating there was a lot of overlap between the third issue and the first two. Mr. Nystrom stated, in response to a question from Ms. Colbath, that the statements made by the Hearings Official in her opinion were statements of the existing circumstances. He said what was being addressed was how much latitude there was in the zone change criteria and it was important to remember there was a hierarchy. He agreed there were times such zone change applications raised policy questions, but the concerns should be resolved through refinement plans or metro plan changes. Mr. Belcher said he did not believe that the Hearings Official had “stepped over the line.” Ms. Colbath asked if there had ever been a case wherein existing use had predicated a decision on a zone change. Mr. Nystrom replied that there had been legal non-conforming uses and resulting requests to bring it into compliance. He reiterated that this zone change request had not been submitted to accommo- date existing uses. Ms. McMillan moved to uphold the Hearings Official decision brought into question by the appellant’s third assignment of error. Mr. Belcher provided the second. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. Mr. Rusch read the fourth assignment of error, as follows: The Hearings Official erred in her interpretation of what is required to demonstrate compli- ance with the EC 9.8655(3) requirement that uses “Can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services.” Ms. McMillan commented that should it be determined that the Hearings Official erred on this, there would not be enough question raised on the ruling to support the appeal. Ms. Muir affirmed that the commission would have to affirm all four findings of error in order for the appeal to be successful. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom said transportation issues were not cut and dried, but depended on individual circumstances. He stated that in some requests it was abundantly clear what the impact would be. In this case, however, the Hearings Official had not seen sufficient evidence to determine the traffic impact of the proposed zone change. He stressed that the Planning Commission would have to articulate how the Hearings Official had erred in making this decision. He commented that where “the bar was set” was not the issue in this case. Ms. Colbath wondered at what point, when considering such an application, a major thoroughfare would be deemed to be an inadequate facility for the increase in traffic. She asked why, in deciding the zone change for the property, it was not considered an orderly extension of services. Mr. Nystrom responded that there needed to be enough to work from to determine feasibility. He said there were five different tax lots with, potentially, five different access points and the question of whether the lots could be safely accessed had arisen. Ms. Colbath noted that in the recent case of the Crescent Village planned unit development (PUD) a trip cap had been imposed. Mr. Nystrom replied that the Crescent Village case was very different and difficult to correlate. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 9, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Rusch agreed that the case was very different and, specific to transportation, agreed that the intersection in question was a regional intersection and was at capacity. In this case, however, he felt the applicant was correct and that the intersection had been proven to have the further capacity the develop- ment subsequent to the zone change would entail. Mr. Belcher opined that there was sufficient evidence that the orderly extension of traffic services could occur. He felt the Hearings Official had asked for more evidence than required, but acknowledged that this was not what the Planning Commission had to decide. He said the Planning Commission only needed to decide if sufficient evidence had been submitted and he thought the evidence to be more than adequate. Ms. Colbath asked at what point in the process was the information most relevant. She remarked that transportation could change very radically over the next 20 years. Mr. Belcher said it was hard to argue that there were not adequate facilities when the road was adjacent to the subject properties. Ms. McMillan moved, with a second from Mr. Belcher, that the Hearings Official erred with respect to findings on criterion 9.8655(3) as the evidence provided by the applicant, including the traffic analysis, appeared to demonstrate that transportation facilities could be extended to the C-2 uses that would be permitted on the five tax lots in question. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. Ms. Muir summarized the final decision which upheld three of the Hearings Official decisions and reversed the fourth. Ms. Muir stated, in response to an audience member, that the findings would be brought before the City Attorney for review. Mr. Rusch said he would like to further discuss how the present issue related to the Metro Plan update. Ms. Muir suggested this item be “parked” and, once the Metro Plan update was approved by all three jurisdictions, she would place a discussion of the changes in the update on a future agenda. Ms. McMillan noted that the Historic Review Board had met in the previous week and had designated a house built in 1902 on River Road a historic landmark. Mr. Rusch adjourned the meeting at 12:55 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040609.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 9, 2004 Page 6