Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chambers–City Hall–777 Pearl Street September 14, 2004 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, Charles Rusch, members; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Patricia Thomas, Alissa Hansen, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Work Department. PUBLIC HEARING ON REFINEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE REQUEST Laurel Hill Refinement Plan Amendment and Furtick/Larson Zone Change (RA 04-1, Z 04-4) RA 04-1 Amend the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan land use diagram to change the designation of the subject property from Low Density Residential to Commercial Z 04-4 Amend the Eugene Zoning Map by rezoning the subject property from R-1, Low- Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial The Subject Property The property affected by these proposed actions is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of moon Mountain Drive and Laurel Hill Drive and bounded by Interstate 5 right-of-way to the north. The property may be further identified by the Pacific Power and Light high voltage electric lines which traverse the site with a support standard near the intersection. Ms. McMillan moved, seconded by Ms. Levis, to leave the record open until the end of the business day on September 21, 2004, followed by a one-week period for public response that would close on September 28, 2004, a subsequent one-week period for applicant response that would close on October 5, 2004, and commission action on October 25, 2004. The motion carried unanimously. SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 14, 2004 Page 1 Public Hearing  MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chambers–City Hall–777 Pearl Street September 14, 2004 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, Charles Rusch, members; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Patricia Thomas, Alissa Hansen, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Work Department. PUBLIC HEARING ON REFINEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE REQUEST Laurel Hill Refinement Plan Amendment and Furtick/Larson Zone Change (RA 04-1, Z 04-4) RA 04-1 Amend the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan land use diagram to change the designation of the subject property from Low Density Residential to Commercial Z 04-4 Amend the Eugene Zoning Map by rezoning the subject property from R-1, Low- Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial The Subject Property The property affected by these proposed actions is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of moon Mountain Drive and Laurel Hill Drive and bounded by Interstate 5 right-of-way to the north. The property may be further identified by the Pacific Power and Light high voltage electric lines which traverse the site with a support standard near the intersection. Mr. Lawless opened the public hearing and welcomed students from the University of Oregon School of Law who were in attendance as part of a land use law course. He explained the purpose of the hearing and asked commissioners to declare any conflicts of interest, ex parte contacts, and biases or challenges to impartiality. None were declared. At Mr. Lawless’ request, commissioners and staff introduced themselves. Associate Planner Patricia Thomas provided a brief overview of the two concurrent applications that were the subject of the public hearing. She referred to the written staff report provided to the commission and stated that generally staff believed the applicant’s request was reasonable, based on the particular characteristics and location of the site; however, there were gaps in the evidence in support of the proposal that the applicant would need to fill before staff could recommend approval. She said that specifically there were deficiencies in response to the Refinement Plan Amendment criteria at EC MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 14, 2004 Page 1 Public Hearing 9.8424(1)(b) and (1)(c) and (2) and the Zone Change criterion at EC 9.8865(2). She read into the record the applicable criteria for approval: Refinement plan amendment: EC 9.8424 1. The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following: a. Statewide planning goals. b. Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. c. Remaining portions of the refinement plan. 2. The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: a. An error in the publication of the Refinement Plan. b. New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal. c. New or amended community policies. d. New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulations, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan. e. A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the Refinement Plan was adopted. Zone change request: EC 9.8865 1. The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. 2. The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. 3. The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. 4. The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in: (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements. Zone change criterion 5 does not apply to this particular request. Mr. Lawless asked if commissioners had visited the site. Mr. Duncan and Mr. Belcher indicated that they had visited the site. Mr. Lawless explained the role and function of the commission and the format for the public hearing, which was a quasi-judicial proceeding. He called for testimony from the applicant and proponents. Dan Terrell, Law Office of Bill Kloos, 576 Olive Street, Eugene, spoke on behalf of applicants Charles Larson and Don Furtick. He submitted a packet of material that included current photographs of the site. He said the unsuitability of the site for residential use was raised during last year’s consideration of the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendments and staff had suggested that the appropriate approach was a refinement plan amendment and zone change request. Referring to Eugene Code (EC) 9.8424(2), Mr. Terrell stated he had made a mistake on the application and the policy related to not locating residences beneath high voltage power lines was in effect in December 1999. He cited Laurel Hill Pan Policy #5; “No additional sector of East Laurel Hill shall be MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 14, 2004 Page 2 Public Hearing designated for commercial purposes until a public need can be demonstrated.” He said the neighborhood association wanted the commission to interject the phrase “for more commercially designated land” in the policy following the word “need” and it was the applicant’s position that the policy said if there was a public need for the designation of more commercial land, that new commercial land designation could occur in the Laurel Hill area. He said a fundamental public need related to the site was the need to have land that was developable under the land use designations associated with it. He illustrated on photo- graphs the site characteristics that made residential development unfeasible, but would not impose as significant constraints on commercial development and noted there had been inquiries about using the property for a hotel or office building. Mr. Terrell commented there were development constraints on other commercial properties in the area but he had focused his efforts on issues related directly to the subject property. He said the impact of Sun Blaze Village was also not addressed because it was in an appeal phase and the applicant did not want to rely on that issue, but could provide additional information. He said that two traffic studies had been done and the applicant realized that traffic was an issue in the area in terms of avoiding the use of residential streets for commercial traffic and the cooperative agreement among the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the cities of Eugene and Springfield relating to the Glenwood interchange. He referred to an email from ODOT in the materials he submitted, which indicated that none of the traffic problems were insurmountable. He said the applicant wanted to clearly understand the needs of the Planning Division, Public Works Department, ODOT, and the commission in order to respond. Mr. Belcher asked why the applicant was proceeding with the application when legislative action was pending that would designate the property as commercial. Mr. Terrell responded that when the applica- tion was submitted in January 2004 he was under the assumption that the Metro Plan diagram would designate the property as residential and only recently discovered the adopted, but not in effect diagram, designated the property as commercial. He said a refinement plan amendment if approved could allow the applicant to proceed six months earlier and Metro Plan designation was contingent on the refinement plan; therefore, an approved refinement plan amendment would change the Metro Plan designation for the property and meet the applicant’s needs. Mr. Belcher asked staff to respond to the difference between the two processes. Richard Larson, 975 Oak Street, Suite 1050, Eugene, spoke to the Laurel Hill Plan Policy #5 regarding the public need for commercial designation of the property. He stated that the owners had received two unsolicited offers for the parcel for purposes of commercial development. He said both offers contem- plated a two-story commercial facility with parking beneath the power lines and discussions with the developers revealed they were not interested in other commercial property in the area because of factors such as slope, surface water, lack of access roads and utilities, or owners not interested in developing their property. He said the perception that there was other developable commercial property in the area was not accurate and the demonstrated demand for commercial use justified the applications. He submitted a letter summarizing his testimony. Mr. Belcher asked if the size of the “floating node” in which the applicant owned other property could be kept the same by changing other commercial property designation to residential if the application was approved. Mr. Larson said that the location of the other parcels would not make residential designation feasible. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 14, 2004 Page 3 Public Hearing Mr. Duncan noted the presence of a large amount of fill across the road from the subject property. Mr. Larson replied that the fill was put in place a number of years ago by his predecessor and he was not certain of the purpose. He said discussions with ODOT included the possibility of reducing the steepness of the slope on a frontage road being built north of the parcel by filling in a portion of the property and changing the elevation of Brackenfern Road. Mr. Lawless called for testimony from opponents. Jan Wostmann, 2645 Riverview Street, Eugene, spoke on behalf of the Laurel Valley Citizens neighborhood organization. He said the organization’s position was that the plan amendment did not meet the criteria for plan amendments and those arguments were contained in a letter previously submitted to the commission. He said the letter had only responded to materials forwarded to the neighborhood for comment and asked for an opportunity to respond to the additional issues raised during the meeting and the new materials submitted by the applicant. He said the neighborhood was also surprised to learn of the commercial designation of the property under the new Metro Plan diagram and hoped there would be an opportunity to understand how that occurred. Mr. Wostmann said the applicant’s interpretation of Laurel Hill Plan Policy #5 was different from that of the neighborhood and the intent of the policy was specifically that there be a public need for additional commercial land and that was supported by the floating node, which set aside a percentage of land for commercial use. He remarked that the neighborhood was not arguing that the property was suitable for residential use, as clearly it was not, but rather that designation as commercial was not appropriate until other commercial properties had been developed and there was an additional public need for commercial use. He said the neighborhood was not certain of the status of the policy prohibiting siting of residential structures beneath power lines and hope there was also be an opportunity to respond to that issue when the status was clarified. Mr. Belcher noted that the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan made reference to the importance of future access to the floating node for tourists and residents of other areas. He suggested that the neighborhood might want the record to remain open for a period of time to allow a response to the issue of a proposed hotel on the property. Mr. Wostmann said that the neighborhood was asking for the record to remain open until it had an opportunity to review and respond to the additional materials and the applicant’s testimony, specifically the anticipated mix of intended uses in the commercial node to serve both tourists and neighborhood residents. Mr. Belcher asked if the neighborhood would want the node to remain the same size if the subject property became a part of it and therefore some other parcel removed. Mr. Wostmann replied that the neighborhood executive committee, during its discussion of the materials it had received, came to the conclusion that if the applicant had included a request to rezone some of their other property in the commercial zone to residential, thereby leaving the total acreage in the commercial node the same, there would probably have been no opposition to the application. Mr. Rusch expressed concern with how to demonstrate the public need and asked Mr. Wostmann to respond to Mr. Larson’s statements that interested buyers did demonstrate a need. Mr. Wostmann said offers from purchasers who were not interested in any of the other commercial properties was a relevant fact that was not known to the neighborhood before the hearing. He said he was reluctant to take a position on that without the opportunity to consult with the neighborhood’s executive committee. He MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 14, 2004 Page 4 Public Hearing asked that the record remain open in order for the new information to be considered. Mr. Rusch said it appeared that it was a planning process and all of the land should not have to be sold to demonstrate need; the Sun Blaze residential development demonstrated some commercial need emerging. Mr. Wostmann said the concept of a commercial node arose because of the limited amount of acreage in the East Laurel Hill Valley, which was being amended to the neighborhood plan, and there was a discussion around the issue of what was an appropriate mix between residential and commercial. He said those drafting the plan amendment decided on a certain acreage for the commercial node and identified the properties that should be designated for commercial use. He said that while the acreage for residential and commercial uses was an approximation at the time of the plan amendment, it seemed that until one of the categories was exhausted it was not appropriate to adjust the ratio, particularly as there had yet been no commercial development. Ms. Colbath asked if a swap of properties between commercial and residential uses would include the swap of the 90-foot buffer between the neighborhood and commercial uses. Mr. Wostmann replied that some type of buffer between commercial and residential uses was important, but the subject property was not an effective buffer because it was between the freeway and the commercial node and did not serve that purpose. He said the neighborhood was not unsympathetic to the fact that residential was not the best use of the land; the question was at what point was it appropriate to amend a neighborhood refinement plan given that there had been no commercial development in the node to date. He expressed concern that a precedent would be established and any parcel owner not in the node with an offer for commercial development could make the same argument. Thomas Gushurst, 3055 Floral Hill Drive, Eugene, spoke as a member of the Laurel Valley Citizens executive committee. He said the buffer existed to hold commercial development back from residential development and if the subject property was developed for commercial use all of the flat space would need to be developed as parking, including the 90-foot buffer area along Laurel Hill Drive. He said it did not appear possible to develop the parcel as commercial property with parking and prevent it from infringing on residential properties to the east. Mr. Lawless called for staff response to testimony. Ms. Thomas said that the 90-foot buffer referred to was located only in the floating commercial node and the subject property was north of the node. Mr. Belcher proposed that the record be left open to allow responses from the neighborhood. He asked for an aerial photograph of the area so the commission could observe the development that surrounded the site when it deliberated. Mr. Duncan requested a topographic map as well. Mr. Lawless called for rebuttal from the applicant. Mr. Terrell commented on the concerns about the cascading effect of an offer for commercial develop- ment. He said the applications were not dependent on an offer for commercial development; it was something that had occurred. He said the application was prompted by the fact that the site could not be MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 14, 2004 Page 5 Public Hearing developed under its current plan and zone designation. He said he was not aware of any other site in the area that was subject to the same types of constraints and could make a similar argument. He said there was a topographic map of the site included in one of the applications and the site sloped to the northeast toward Interstate 5; the properties to the west of Laurel Hill Drive sloped in the opposite direction. He noted that Eugene Code parking and landscape standards were quite rigorous with respect to buffering. Planning Division Manager Susan Muir thanked participants for their willingness to work together and resolve issues and said that staff would propose timelines. Mr. Duncan urged staff, the neighborhood, and the applicants to work together toward an agreeable solution. Other members of the commission agreed with Mr. Duncan’s comments. Principal Planner Steve Nystrom, following a discussion with those present, outlined the following timeline: • Leave the record open for new testimony until September 21, 2004 • Accept testimony from the neighborhood until September 28, 2004 • Accept rebuttal or response from the applicant to neighborhood testimony until October 5, 2004 • Staff evaluation and report to the commission • Planning Commission action on October 25, 2004 Mr. Belcher asked if the 120-day rule had been waived. Mr. Nystrom replied that there was a previous extension from the applicant. Mr. Terrell said that the applicant would be willing to issue another extension if necessary. Ms. McMillan moved, seconded by Ms. Levis, to leave the record open until the end of the business day on September 21, 2004, followed by a one-week period for public response that would close on September 28, 2004, a subsequent one-week period for applicant response that would close on October 5, 2004, and commission action on October 25, 2004. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Nystrom asked the commission to identify for staff any questions or issues that the parties should focus on. Mr. Lawless encouraged the applicant and neighborhood to cooperate and compromise by retaining the goodwill intent of the neighborhood refinement plan while recognizing the realities of the subject site and other major land use goals within the urban growth boundary. Mr. Rusch asked for more detailed responses to the traffic concerns expressed by ODOT. Ms. Levis said the key issue was how to define public need for the application and the need for more significant findings. Mr. Belcher encouraged staff to work with the neighborhood association to help them understand the process related to Metro Plan housekeeping measures. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 14, 2004 Page 6 Public Hearing Mr. Duncan asked for a discussion of the mix of commercial uses oriented to tourists and to residents and how various properties might be more oriented to the neighborhood or tourist uses. Mr. Belcher asked for information on the City’s position regarding the development of 25th Street. Ms. McMillan said it would be helpful to have more information on other commercial properties and any development constraints that might exist. Ms. Colbath asked about gravity flow and whether commercial build out such as a hotel would be accommodated through the orderly extension of services. Mr. Nystrom said the issue had been addressed in the staff report and the findings were that such development could be accommodated. Mr. Lawless closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040914ph.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission September 14, 2004 Page 7 Public Hearing