Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Eugene City Hall, Council Chamber – 777 Pearl Street May 17, 2005 6 p.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Jon Belcher, members; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Mike McKerrow, Planning and De- velopment Department staff. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, Anne Marie Levis, members PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT Land Use Code Amendments (CA 04-4) Consideration of various minor amendments to the Eugene Land Use Code Lead Staff: Steve Nystrom, Principal Planner (541) 682-8385 SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2005 Page 1 Public Hearing  MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Eugene City Hall, Council Chamber – 777 Pearl Street May 17, 2005 6 p.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Jon Belcher, members; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Mike McKerrow, Planning and De- velopment Department staff. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, Anne Marie Levis, members PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT Land Use Code Amendments (CA 04-4) Consideration of various minor amendments to the Eugene Land Use Code Lead Staff: Steve Nystrom, Principal Planner (541) 682-8385 Mr. Lawless convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission. He announced that the time allowed for each person giving testimony would be extended from three to five minutes. Principal Planner Steve Nystrom stated that the purpose of the hearing was to consider Land Use Code amendments that were characterized as “Minor Fixes.” He said there were 81 separate amendments under consideration representing the first of two phases based on direction from the City Council to improve the code. He explained that minor amendments were intended to address conflicts identified in implementing the code and gaps or ambiguous language, but did not raise any serious policy concerns. He noted that the commission had reviewed the amendments in a series of work sessions prior to the hearing. He drew the commission’s attention to the matrix of proposed minor code fixes that described each of the 81 amendments in terms that identified the problem and the potential solution and to the draft ordinance that provided specific code language for all of the amendments. He reminded the commission that the hearing was the first formal step for considering the amendments and it would receive public testimony and then begin deliberations. He said that once the commission had concluded its deliberations it would make a formal recommendation to the council on the proposed amendments. He said the agenda item summary contained answers to many of the questions raised by the commission during its work sessions. Mr. Lawless opened the public hearing. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, Eugene, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, expressed appreciation for the time and effort of the commission and staff to improve the code. He said the Chamber’s review of amendments applicable to commercial zones raised no objections or concerns about unintended consequences. He was pleased to see an amendment that clarified that the C-1 MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2005 Page 1 Public Hearing limitation on 5,000 square feet on businesses applied to new buildings rather than an existing site, as well as the amendment that exempted loading docks on commercial buildings from the window requirements. He said that the exemption of outdoor restaurant seating from off-street parking requirements was another example of the practical and sensible nature of the amendments. He said when improvements to the City’s Land Use Code were considered, the commission should keep in mind that the code should enable good things to happen in the community. Jim Welsh, 2139 Centennial Plaza, Eugene, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors, stated he was pleased to note that their association had no conflict with the proposed amendments. He observed that the amendments were common sense, clarified code intent, reduced conflicts, eliminated redundancy, and improved consistency in the code. He thanked staff for initiating the process to consider Land Use Code amendments and thanked the commission for reviewing each of the proposed amendments and determining whether they were minor or involved a larger policy discussion. He said that Phase 1 amendments represented significant work by the commission and staff, the work was good, and the results would undoubtedly provide a more efficient and effective planning process that would save the private and public sectors time and money. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County, supported the minor amendments proposed by staff. She said there were no objections to the amendments and many of them were welcome changes. She commented that while none of the amendments reflected policy changes, sometimes simple things could make a difference. She said that the proposed amendment to EC9.2761(5)(d) to provide for an additional exception to lot size to allow for natural resources should be clear that more than just Goal 5 resources was intended, such as upland trees. Charles Biggs¸ 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, requested that the record remain open for an additional seven days for submission of written testimony because of the substantial number of items that were being considered. He indicated that the Neighborhood Leaders Council might wish to comment on the amendments. He expressed some concerns about on-site pedestrian circulation being included for adjustment review, as well as the connectivity issue, which was a controversial subject in some neighbor- hoods. He said there were several other issues he needed more time to research, including a new definition for curve lots that was confusing with respect to measuring the width of wedge or pie-shaped lots. He said holding the record open for an additional seven days would serve the public’s interest. Mr. Lawless asked staff what impact there would be to holding the record open an additional seven days. Mr. Nystrom replied that it was a City-initiated legislative matter and there was no deadline to be concerned about nor was there an obligation to extend the record. He mentioned that public outreach throughout the amendment process had drawn limited response from the public, neighborhood groups, the development community and other groups. Mr. Lawless pointed out that the commission would be making a recommendation to the City Council, which would also hold hearings on the matter. Mr. Belcher asked if the commission’s deliberations could begin while the record was open. Planning Director Susan Muir replied that the commission could discuss the amendments but no action could be taken. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to leave the record open until May 24, 2005, at 5 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2005 Page 2 Public Hearing Mr. Lawless closed the public hearing and called for discussion by the commission. He suggested that the commission review each page of the matrix and identify items they wished to discuss further. EC 9.0500, Lot width and vision clearance area definitions Mr. Lawless asked about the lot width measurement concerns raised by Mr. Biggs. Mr. Nystrom replied that the definition provided was a fairly universal definition used by many communities and was geared toward using side yards that were generally opposing as the starting point and could be applied to oddly- shaped lots. He cautioned that the definition should not be complicated with additional qualifying language as the purpose of the amendments was to simplify the code. Mr. Lawless asked if the interpretation or methodology for applying the definition would be available to an applicant. Mr. Nystrom said that the proposed definition had not yet been used in Eugene so there was no track record and it was likely that scenarios would arise that did not match exactly with the definition and interpretations would be necessary. Mr. Belcher commented that the issue was whether the proposed definition was better than the existing one, not did it cover every possible exigency. EC 9.0500, Development site definition Ms. Colbath remarked that the amendment might not be a change in policy, but there were many ownership scenarios and since she did not know how extensively the definition was used in the code she was not certain how comprehensive the change would be. She agreed that it was a good idea to be able to evaluate more potential properties but had questions about whether the consequences of the amendment. Mr. Nystrom replied that the multiple ownership issue already existed in code language. He said there were two spectrums being addressed by the amendment and the development site questions was raised frequently in many different situations such as permits and land use applications. He said the old code definition would prevent consideration as one development site unless the parcels were bisected by a street that was not done through a subdivision. He used the Faith Center conditional use permit (CUP) as an example of a project with multiple tax lots under common ownership that was bisected by two streets that fortunately qualified under the old definition, but that was a rare situation and staff wanted to avoid having a project with one master plan and multiple CUPs. He said the purpose was to be able to look at a project holistically. Mr. Nystrom said another reason for the amendment was to address day-to-day situations that arose. He said the current definition allowed areas under common ownership to be considered one development site for building permit purposes with related uses and supporting parking, but staff did not want to have one building permit create the need to look at all contiguous property, such as might occur in the downtown area. He indicated the amendment was intended to capture both ends of the spectrum. Ms. Colbath asked if the proposed amendment would affect the ability to consider the traffic impacts of proposed development sites bisected by streets. Mr. Nystrom said the amendment would provide more ability to consider the project’s traffic impact comprehensively. Mr. Belcher asked if several contiguous lots across several contiguous streets were under common ownership would it be possible for the owner to develop a property on own end of that spectrum of contiguous streets and provide the parking several blocks away. Mr. Nystrom said the code already contained provisions for off-site parking, but the amendment would allow consideration of a redevelop- MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2005 Page 3 Public Hearing ment plan more comprehensively instead of by individual tax lot. He used the development at 29th Avenue and Willamette Street as a site where several parcels were under common ownership and other were under separate ownership to illustrate that the City could not mandate that the different property owners work together under one umbrella. Mr. Lawless concurred with the ability to combine resources into larger master planned developments and look at larger sites more holistically. Mr. Nystrom said that the material change related primarily to the issue of parcels bisected by a street; the issues of contiguous property and common ownership already existed in the code. Mr. Belcher asked if there was any advantage to establishing a limit on the size of the development site. Mr. Nystrom responded that there was little benefit to establishing an arbitrary limitation and the size of the site was very different from one geographic area to another. EC 9.2161(1), C-2 limitation of 5,000 square feet of floor area Mr. Belcher asked if the amendment would allow for expansion of a use that was larger than 5,000 square feet or just make it an existing allowable use. Mr. Nystrom replied that the amendment would allow occupancy of the existing space but not permit expansion. He said the intent was always to apply the 5,000 square foot limitation on new development, not impose it on existing tenant spaces and the amendment clarified that intent. EC9.2760 (table), R-1 rowhouse lots In response to comments from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Nystrom said the amendment began with the R-1 zone’s 50-foot wide minimum for rowhouse lots, which was a mistake. He said the standard in other zoning districts was 20 feet and the commission asked staff to determine whether that was adequate in the R-1 zone. He said staff determined that in communities with more rowhouse development, 18 feet was a common width and the question before the commission was whether that was acceptable and should be applied across other zoning districts as well. Mr. Lawless encouraged the width to be set as low as practical, such as 15 feet, to avoid requiring adjustment reviews. EC 9.2795(3)(a), Exemption from Solar Setback requirement Ms. Colbath noted that staff had modified the amendment pursuant to concerns raised by the commission and asked if other changes were anticipated. Mr. Nystrom replied that the other issue related to steep sloped areas and how properties were held to the Solar Setback requirements given that exception processes currently existed. He said the amendment could remain on the list of possible amendments in the second phase but staff would not push for it. EC 9.6610(1), Time period for election sign exemption Ms. Colbath clarified that the time period requirement applied only to Lane County elections. She asked if an election occurred in a county adjacent to Lane County and the issue was one that Lane County residents were interested in, would Lane County residents be prohibited from putting up a sign for that election. Land Use Management Supervisor Mike McKerrow replied that the prohibition would apply as the goal of the language was to prevent candidates from using an election in another county to “jump the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2005 Page 4 Public Hearing gun” and put up signs ahead of other candidates and use another county’s election as the reasoning. Ms. Colbath used the example of a proposed action in Linn County that would affect the entire Wil- lamette Valley airshed. She asked if Lane County residents would be prohibited from putting up signs related to that election. Mr. McKerrow replied that for an election that was happening in another county and in which Lane County residents could not participate, signs could not be put up based on that election date in another county. Mr. Belcher clarified that signs could still be put up prior to a Eugene election if there were any other non-typical elections such as a recall election in Florence. Mr. McKerrow agreed because Florence was in Lane County. EC 9.6630(1), Installation of signs prior to permit issuance Mr. Hledik asked for clarification of the proposed change from date of approval to date of issuance. Mr. McKerrow explained that the sign was approved by the Building Permit staff and the applicant was contacted to pick up the approved plans and pay any additional fees, at which point the permit was issued. He said that sometimes applicants were notified of approval but installed the sign before paying the additional fees and obtaining the permit. He said the amendment clarified that the permit had to be in possession before the work was done. EC 9.7015, Completeness review Mr. Hudspeth requested an explanation of completeness review and how the proposed amendment applied. Mr. Nystrom said the completeness review was the first formal step in the land use application process and consisted of a review of the application to determine that all the materials were present in order for the formal review to proceed. He said the City had 30 days to complete the review and the amendment clarified some changes in State law to ensure consistency. He said that previously State law did not specify the point at which the 120-day time period was triggered and the amendment clarified responsibilities to reply. Mr. Nystrom said that staff would schedule a future meeting for further deliberations. Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 6:50 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050517ph.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 17, 2005 Page 5 Public Hearing