Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue March 28, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Neil Bjorklund, Kurt Yeiter, Mike McKerrow, Ann Siegen- thaler, Planning and Development Department; Kevin Matthews, Terry Connolly, Charles Biggs, guests. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. LAND USE CODE MINOR FIXES Ms. Colbath, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to forward the proposed minor code amendments with clarifications pursuant to the Planning Commission’s discussion. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. WORK SESSION: INTRODUCTION TO GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 1  Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue March 28, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Neil Bjorklund, Kurt Yeiter, Mike McKerrow, Ann Siegen- thaler, Planning and Development Department; Kevin Matthews, Terry Connolly, Charles Biggs, guests. Mr. Lawless convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Lawless explained the process for public comment and asked speakers to limit their statements to three minutes each. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, expressed concern regarding the Eugene’s Goal 5 process in light of the potential sale of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site for private use. He said that conflicted with the Willamette Greenway initiative and Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) regarding permanent alteration of riparian areas. He urged that all of the exemptions be reviewed to assure that the purpose and intent of the natural resources was not “gutted.” Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, Eugene, speaking on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce acknowledged an earlier conversation regarding downtown zoning and felt it was very productive. He commended the commission for recognizing that there might be some unintended consequences within the code in terms of attracting certain types of development to downtown and encouraged opportunities to make corrections where possible so that desirable development was not prevented or discouraged. Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, Eugene, speaking as president of Friends of Eugene, said that the minor land use code fix related to code section 9.6420(3)(f)(1) did not appear to be entirely congruent with the problem, which was that interior landscaping could result in a landscape strip wedged between two buildings. He said he could not determine from the phrasing of the proposed solution whether the adjusted standard would eliminate landscaping that was not wedged between buildings along interior yards. He said the issue was complex and discussed at length during the code amendment process. He hoped the commission would not pass the item by too quickly. He thanked the commission for its previous discussion of points he had raised about the minor code amendments but was still concerned about what seemed to be the process for responding, which did not provide for an intermediate option that would allow the commission to craft an alternative solution. Mr. Matthews said he was pleased to see the Goal 5 process before the commission again along with the detailed chronology provided by staff that demonstrated the extensive community effort that was involved. He called attention to determination of significance of upland safe harbor areas. He said the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 1 majority of the Goal 5 public participation process was pursuant to site significance under the standard methodology and determination of site significance under the safe harbor methodology had not been subjected to a public process. He asked that the public have an opportunity to understand the safe harbor determination. I. LAND USE CODE MINOR FIXES Principal planner Steve Nystrom introduced the Land Use Code Minor Fixes agenda item, and noted that the process would be concluded with the fixes now before the commission. He said that staff was available to answer questions. Ms. Levis asked for a fuller explanation of the interior landscaping issue raised by Mr. Matthews and the proposed fix to code section 9.8410(2) related to property line adjustments. Mr. Nystrom replied that the interior landscaping code fix addressed primarily parking structures and those were located mostly in the downtown area. He said in those situations development was typically close to or on property lines and the landscaping requirement under discussion applied only to interior yards; in those situations there was often a “canyon” effect and there was little benefit to a landscaping requirement in terms of screening the structure. Mr. Nystrom explained that the minor fix related to property line adjustments was intended to address the problem that occasionally arose when staff attempted to obtain a title report as part of a property line adjustment application and the owner disputed the need for a current report; the proposed language would specifically clarify that a “current” title report is required. Mr. Lawless observed that because of requirements elsewhere in the code for setbacks and landscaping he would be more comfortable with the fix related to interior landscaping requirements for parking structures if the language more narrowly described the situations for which the fix was intended. Referring to Eugene Code 9.6420(3)(f)(1) related to perimeter landscaping for parking structures, Mr. Belcher suggested that the language could specify a maximum dimension at which the requirement would be waived. He also asked for a more detailed explanation of the statement “…requirements at State and Federal level that exceed local site review provisions” regarding code sections 9.4730(3) and 9.4830(2,b) at the time the commission again reviewed the proposed amendments. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Ms. Levis, moved to forward the proposed minor code amendments with clarifications pursuant to the Planning Commission’s discussion. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Planning Division manager Susan Muir reminded the commission that a work session to discuss the amendments was scheduled for May 16 and a public hearing would be held on May 17, 2005. II. WORK SESSION: INTRODUCTION TO GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES Ms. Muir referred to the timeline in the Goal 5 agenda item summary and noted that it was much shorter than in the past; the State’s deadline for completion of the work was July 1, 2005. She said that staff would do their best to be responsive to requests for additional information and expedite the process. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 2 Senior planner Neil Bjorklund said the Goal 5 process chronology was included to provide an understand- ing of the complexity and duration. He presented an overview of the Goal 5 process requirements, the elements that would come before the commission, the timeline, and a pictorial tour of some of the Goal 5 inventory sites. Ms. Colbath asked that the overview address how the inventory under the standard process compared to an inventory under the safe harbor process, particularly would the sites be similar or very different. Mr. Bjorklund said that the previous process had resulted in adoption of a riparian inventory and a wildlife habitat inventory. He recalled that the City Council had adopted something different for the upland wildlife habitat inventory than what had been recommended by the Planning Commission by applying the safe harbor process rather than the standard process to the portions of the upland wildlife habitat inventory that were not stream corridors. He said there were some key requirements for significance under safe harbor rules, including rare or threatened species or plant communities already identified as being so by State or Federal programs, and those sites that did not meet the safe harbor criteria were dropped from the inventory. Continuing, Mr. Bjorklund said the City was notified in 2002 that the wetlands inventory needed to be done differently, the inventory was conducted in 2003 and 2004, and approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) in January 2005. He said the Local Wetland Inventory consisted of all the wetlands that met criteria set forth in State rules and that was different from the Goal 5 inventory of wetlands because the Local Wetland Inventory had not gone through a screening of significance criteria. He stated that the City would adopt both the Local Wetland Inventory and the somewhat smaller set of significant wetlands in the next step of the process. Ms. Colbath asked how many sites were dropped from the upland wildlife habitat inventory as a result of the safe harbor method. Mr. Bjorklund replied that there were three large sites of which a majority of the acreage was dropped because they did not meet the safe harbor criteria. Mr. Bjorklund explained that once the wetlands inventory was adopted, it and the riparian and upland wildlife habitat inventory would be subjected to the economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) analysis, which included several steps. He said that once all sites had been analyzed, one of three determinations was made for each site or portion of site: fully allow conflicting uses, limit conflicting uses, or prohibit conflicting uses. Limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses also required adoption and application of protection measures. He presented the following timeline for completing the process: • May 2 and 9, 2005, work sessions • May 10, 2005, joint public hearing with Lane County Planning Commission • Several deliberation sessions following public hearing Ms. Levis asked that agenda packets for those meetings be provided to commissioners as soon as possible to allow for a comprehensive review. Ms. Muir said the agenda packet for the public hearing would be provided a week in advance. Mr. Bjorklund said an overview summary of the recommendations would be available on April 20, 2005 and all materials would be made available on the City’s website. Mr. Belcher asked if it was possible to revisit the decision to use the safe harbor method. Ms. Muir replied that the “roundtable” group had asked the City Council for reconsideration of some of the issues. She said the matter was not currently on the Planning Division’s work program but could be added as another discussion item for consideration by the commission once the Goal 5 work was completed. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Belcher requested an explanation of the difference between wetlands that fell within the Local Wetland Inventory and the previous Goal 5 inventory. Mr. Bjorklund responded that there was a Goal 5 rule change in 1996 and the old rule was not linked to the State’s definition of wetlands and how they were mapped; the new rule was linked to that definition. He said that Periodic Review was a metro-wide work program and all three jurisdictions under that work program were required to treat wetlands the same way; when the City of Springfield used the new Goal 5 rule for wetlands, Eugene agreed to use the new Goal 5 rule and complete a Local Wetland Inventory as well. Mr. Belcher asked if the Bunker, LLC decision would have any implications for the process. Mr. Bjorklund said the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) had directed the County to remove that portion of site E76 that was on the Bunker property, constituting approximately two-thirds of a pond, from the inventory; the remaining portion of the pond was within the City. Mr. Belcher asked what impact Ballot Measure 37 would have on the Goal 5 process. Ms. Muir said that staff and the city attorney were involved in discussions with the State and were awaiting answers on how the State wished to proceed; information would be provided in the May 2, 2005, agenda packet. Mr. Duncan asked what methods would be used to assure that notification would be provided to all affected parties as part of the public outreach process. Mr. Bjorklund said that a geographic information system (GIS) allowed staff to easily and quickly identify every property that was affected by Goal 5 site impact area or proposed rezoning and generate a mailing list for notification; the interested parties list developed over the years would also be used for notification purposes. He indicated a public information meeting would be held on May 3, 2005, at the Hilyard Community Center. Ms. Muir noted that the City was legally required to provide notice to the property owner, not a generic “occupant” notice. Mr. Duncan asked if the process would include measurement of the buildable lands affected by the Goal 5 process. Mr. Bjorklund said that findings supporting all of the actions the City Council would take would include an analysis of the impact on the buildable land supply. Ms. Muir said the Homebuilders’ Association was on record as intending to appeal action on the buildable lands finding. Mr. Lawless asked if findings would also include an analysis or recommendation of what was reasonable densification for uses to achieve some portion of the buildable lands inventory and whether additional buildable lands were required. Mr. Bjorklund said the Goal 5 rule explicitly required that if a finding could not be made that there were sufficient buildable lands to meet the demand in the adopted buildable lands inventory documents the jurisdiction was required to propose a way to address that shortage. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Bjorklund said there were two different categories of wetlands: the larger universe of wetlands that constituted the Eugene Local Wetland Inventory and the subset of those wetlands that met the significance criteria for the Goal 5 inventory. He said that all wetlands were subject to DSL rules. Responding to a question from Mr. Hudspeth, Mr. Bjorklund said there were approximately 110 wetland sites and 35 upland wildlife habitat sites. He indicated that detailed maps were available at the City’s natural resource website, www.eugenenr.org. Mr. Bjorklund presented a series of slides illustrating riparian sites and channel conditions. Referring to new stormwater runoff methodologies, Ms. Colbath asked if the riparian areas would be MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 4 utilized in ways different from the current methods and those areas adequate to handle that type of runoff. Mr. Bjorklund said the study was not intended to address the gamut of the City’s stormwater quality needs related to those waterways. He said the study considered the sites from the perspective of resource protection needs and only addressed stormwater to the extent it was required for protection of specific sites in regulations. He said the application of regulations to address stormwater quality as a whole was a separate process that was the subject of work by the Public Works stormwater team. In response to an inquiry from Ms. Levis, Ms. Muir said that the photographs from the staff presentation could be provided on the City’s website and in the commission’s notebooks. Mr. Bjorklund presented a series of slides illustrating wetland sites and invited questions from the commission. Ms. Levis asked if staff anticipated a significant amount of concern from the public. Mr. Bjorklund said that a large attendance at the public hearing was expected but thought people would have a lower level of anxiety about the inventory this time because they would know what was proposed for protection and what the protection measures would be, providing more clarity and leading to more informed public testimony. Mr. Duncan asked if more detailed information about proposed protection measures would be available before the public hearing so the commission could receive testimony on them. Mr. Bjorklund replied that the complete draft ordinance would be available and it would include: • Adopt corrections to the existing inventory based on earlier mistakes in mapping • Adopt the Local Wetland Inventory • Adopt Goal 5 significant wetlands • Adopt code amendments to be applied to protected sites • Adopt a refinement plan that would include the inventories, policy recommendations regarding sites to be protected and the level of protection • Apply the new regulations to specific properties designated for protection Mr. Duncan asked if the commission would be able to make recommendations for changes at its May 2, 2005, work session. Mr. Bjorklund said it would not be possible to make changes prior to the public hearing on May 10, 2005. Mr. Lawless suggested that simple and user-friendly directions for affected property owners should be developed to describe what steps they could take if their property was designated, in essence a response sheet to frequently asked questions from citizens. He emphasized the need for that information to be available separately and not just built into the larger document. Mr. Bjorklund said that staff was developing information on the implications of a property being in a particular category and explaining the public testimony process. Ms. Muir added that staff hoped to address some of the anticipated concerns on the website. She said that implementation measures once the ordinance went into effect would also need to be discussed as a part of the overall process. Ms. Levis and Mr. Duncan echoed Mr. Lawless’ concern that information about the implications of the ordinance should be simple and easily accessible to the public. Mr. Bjorklund described existing materials that provided an overview of the Goal 5 process and impact and said it could be expanded with a FAQ (frequently asked questions) document that addressed many of the common questions that were anticipated. He cautioned against making information so simple that it was ultimately misleading as the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 5 Goal 5 process was not simple. Ms. Colbath suggested a “decision tree” that would indicate how a property got on the inventory list and identify next steps in the process. Mr. Belcher asked how the inventory might affect the potential for a West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Bjorklund replied that the parkway was inside the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area and would not impact any resources on the Goal 5 inventory being considered by Planning Commission. Ms. Levis asked to have space for the site number included on the Request to Speak forms for the public hearing. Mr. Bjorklund pointed out that large detailed maps would be available at the hearing to help people identify sites. He mentioned that the regulation would have a mechanism built in that provided a process to make corrections when the map was wrong. Mr. Duncan asked that efforts be made to expedite minutes from the public hearing. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Ms. Muir announced that Planning and Development executive director Tom Coyle had resigned to take another position and she would be the interim direction. Mr. Duncan commented that there was some discussion prior to creation of the River Road/Santa Clara task force on transition that a member of the Planning Commission would be asked to sit on that body as a liaison. Principal planner Kurt Yeiter replied that the task force was not a City entity; it was formed by the City’s transition manager David Reed and was an advisory body to him. He said he would convey the commission’s interest to Mr. Reed. Mr. Duncan reported that the Historic Review Board was undertaking the River Road History Project and at its last meeting discussed a citizen involvement process that included a number of innovative approaches to soliciting input from River Road residents. He said at the same meeting senior planner Allen Lowe discussed mixed use development in Eugene. He said that Mr. Lowe was asked to bring information back about the impact of the node overlay zone in that area on redevelopment of historic properties, particularly commercial properties. He said the project was targeted for completion in September 2005. Mr. Duncan remarked that often he did not receive notices of neighborhood organization meetings in a timely manner. Ms. Muir said she would follow-up and noted that information on neighborhood meetings was available on the neighborhoods page of the City’s website. Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:28 p.m. (Recorded by Kim Young/Lynn Taylor) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050328.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 6