Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue April 12, 2005 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, members; Susan Muir, Kent Kullby, Gabe Flock, Planning and Development Department; Kevin Matthews, Charles Biggs, Tim Smith, Alice Simpson, Derril Simpson, Jed Truett, Creed Eckert, Matt Fitzer, Robert Stevens, John H. Berglund, Melanie Davis, Barry Davis, Lisa Warnes, Alice Pueschner, Kate Perle, Eric Kelly, Charles Boady, Bill Kloos, guests. ABSENT: John Lawless, Tom Coyle. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF APRIL 12, 2005. SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue April 12, 2005 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, members; Susan Muir, Kent Kullby, Gabe Flock, Planning and Development Department; Anne Corcoran Briggs, Hearings Official; Kevin Matthews, Charles Biggs, Tim Smith, Alice Simpson, Derril Simpson, Jed Truett, Creed Eckert, Matt Fitzer, Robert Stevens, John H. Berglund, Melanie Davis, Barry Davis, Lisa War- nes, Alice Pueschner, Kate Perle, Eric Kelly, Charles Boady, Bill Kloos, guests. ABSENT: John Lawless, Tom Coyle. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF APRIL 12, 2005. Ms. Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission. Ms. Colbath explained the purpose of the meeting was for the Planning Commission to review the subject of the public hearing that would immediately follow the study session. Mr. Kullby provided the staff presentation. The purpose of the public hearing was to hear an appeal of the Hearings Official’s decision that denied a tentative plan for a planned unit development application for Spring Knoll PUD Phase 4 (PDT 04-4), and to take action to affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Hearings Official. He said the Hearings Official, Anne Corcoran Briggs, would be present for the public hearing. Mr. Kullby said the Hearings Official conducted a public hearing on the Spring Knoll PUD Phase 4 tentative planning unit development request on February 9, 2005. The Hearings Official issued a decision denying the PUD application on March 9, 2005. On March 22, 2005, an appeal of the decision was filed by the applicant’s representative Jed Truett AICP, Metro Planning. In setting forth the basis for the appeal, the applicant listed four PUD criteria plus four policies of the South Hills Study in which the appellant claimed the Hearings Official erred in her findings. Addition- ally, the applicant claimed the Hearings Official erred in not finding that the applicant had met all other standards of the Eugene Code in the decision. The appeal included a statement that staff was in support of the application with conditions of approval as noted in the Staff Report. However, the staff report and recommendations were based on the information submitted prior to the February 9, 2005 hearing, and did not include consideration of all of the testimony submitted into the record. Staff responses to the appeal issues were provided in the draft Final Order included in the Planning Commission agenda packet. Each of the appeal statements also included a reference to the corresponding page numbers of the Hearings Official’s decision for the Planning Commission’s benefit. Mr. Kullby stated that the time line for decision making was constrained by the State of Oregon laws for MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting local land use decisions and that a final decision must be rendered by April 22, 2005 to be within the 120 day timeline for decision making including any extensions granted by the applicant. He said that the applicant had previously granted a 10 day timeline waiver. Mr. Kullby said the Planning Commission was required to conduct the appeal hearing under the quasi- judicial procedures specified in the Eugene Code and consistent with State law. He said Ms. Colbath, Planning Commission Vice President, would explain the procedures prior to the public hearing. Mr. Kullby said the Planning Commission had three options, to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Hearings Official. He added that Eugene Code allowed the Planning Commission to remand the decision to the Hearings Official, which would require the applicant to waive the 120 day timeline limit for decision making and would require payment of additional fees. He added that if the Planning Commission needed additional time to deliberate and reach a decision, it could meet on Monday, April 18, 2005. Mr. Kullby said the appeal hearing would be based on the public record and limited to evidence submitted and the issues raised in the record. The appellant must demonstrate how the Hearings Official erred in her decision to properly evaluate the application or failed to make a decision consistent with the applicable PUD criteria of approval. The appeal was further limited to the issues that were set out in the appeals statement filed by the applicant. The basis of the appeal must be limited to issues raised during the review of the original application. Therefore, no new evidence could be accepted or considered by the Planning Commission during the hearing. The appeal requirements were specified in Eugene Code (EC) 9.7655. He stated that the Planning Commission could ask questions of the presenters, the Hearings Official, and city staff. Following the hearing and after the applicant’s final rebuttal, the Planning Commission would close the public record and deliberate the decision. Mr. Kullby said the Planning Commission should organize its deliberations around the appeal issues. Mr. Kullby offered background on the PUD application, saying that the Spring Knoll PUD Phase 4 application proposed development of 23 single family residential lots with tree protection areas, conservation zones, and private drives off of an existing public street, Wendell Lane, located north of East 43rd Avenue in the south hills area of Eugene. He added that Spring Knoll PUD Phase 2 that preceeded the PUD application resulted in the construction of Wendell Lane through the site, with no plans for development of residential building lots until a new PUD application was submitted, i.e., the subject Phase 4 application. Mr. Kullby said Spring Knoll PUD Phase 3 application was granted tentative to PUD approval for the development of five lots at the end of Wendell Lane on property owned by Barry and Melanie Davis. He noted that the PUD applications for both Phase 2 and Phase 3 (submitted concurrently) were denied the first time they were submitted, but were approved upon resubmission of revised plans. Mr. Kullby said the original Phase 4 application, submitted on September 24, 2004, was found to be incomplete upon review by staff. Staff provided a number of items missing on the application, after which the applicant revised the application. The applicant resubmitted plans on December 13, 2004 and the applicant requested that the application be deemed complete as submitted. Mr. Kullby said many city staff reviewed the application and a report was issued on January 31, 2005, recommending approval of the PUD application with 40 conditions of approval, including numerous site plan changes. He said the public hearing was held on February 9, 2005, at which extensive public testimony was submitted that had not been previously considered in the staff report. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2005 Page 2 Regular Meeting Mr. Kullby said the Hearings Official issued a decision on March 9, 2005 denying the PUD application for failing to meet four of the fifteen PUD criteria of approval. He added that two of those four criteria included an analysis that found the application did not meet the South Hills Study policies nor the Metro Plan policies. He said the Hearings Official found that the application did not adequately protect natural features. Additionally, the Hearings Official determined that the application proposed lots that exceeded the maximum lot size of 13,500 square feet in the R-1 zoning, without adequate justification for either an exception to the maximum lot size provided for in R-1 zoning, or for granting a PUD modification to the maximum lot size standard. Mr. Kullby briefly reviewed the four appeal issues which were described in detail in the agenda item summary. Mr. Kullby said if the Planning Commission overruled the Hearings Official decision, the Planning Commission must provide staff with very specific findings as to where the errors occurred and why, as well as then make findings that justified approving the PUD application with conditions of approval specified. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Kullby replied that he had not heard from the applicant regarding if the applicant was interested in extending the 120 day timeline. Mr. Kullby clarified that if someone spoke in support of the Hearings Official’s decision, they would be speaking against the appeal. Ms. Levis said she would not be available to meet with the Planning Commission on Monday morning, April 18, 2005, and asked if that would preclude her from participating in tonight’s meeting. Mr. Flock explained that it would be appropriate for Ms. Levis to participate in tonight’s meeting In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Kullby confirmed that the appeal issues could be discussed in any order, and further explained how related policies and documents would impact the issue review. Mr. Flock added that if the Planning Commission agreed with the draft order, no debate was necessary. Mr. Duncan asked if changes proposed by Kevin Matthews were included in the document. Mr. Kullby replied that those changes had been summarized, and copies of Mr. Matthews slides were included in the agenda packet. Several Planning Commissioners explained that they had viewed the subject property. Mr. Flock noted that formal declarations of conflict of interest and ex parte contacts would be addressed at the public hearing. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Flock explained the completeness review process. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission study session at 6:20 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050412.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2005 Page 3 Regular Meeting