Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue June 13, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Neil Björk- lund, Mike McKerrow, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Plan- ning and Development Department staff; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department staff; Bruce Wild, Francera Verrijt, Jim Spickerman, Diane Wiley, Terry Connolly, Roxie Cuellar, Frank Segarra, Charles Biggs, guests. ABSENT: John Lawless. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MAY 16 AND 17, 2005 III. PC DELIBERATION: GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES Staff: Neil. Björklund, 682-5507 SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue June 13, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Neil Björk- lund, Mike McKerrow, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Plan- ning and Development Department staff; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department staff; Bruce Wild, Francera Verrijt, Jim Spickerman, Diane Wiley, Terry Connolly, Roxie Cuellar, Frank Segarra, Charles Biggs, guests. ABSENT: John Lawless. Ms. Colbath convened the meeting at 11:36 a.m. Ms. Colbath noted consensus from the Planning Commission to reorder the agenda, and to move III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF to the beginning of the agenda. I. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Related to Goal 5, Ms. Muir reported that the City Council approved the following motion at its June 8 meeting: The City Council adopted a motion to direct the City Manager to review and update the Goal 5 wildlife habitat inventory for the south hills using the safe harbor inventory meth- odology in Oregon Revised Statute (OAR) 660-023-0110 in light of new information concerning the presence of the sensitive species pileated woodpecker in substantial areas of the south hills. Ms. Muir said a work session to follow up on the issue had been scheduled for June 27, 2005. Ms. Muir proposed that the Planning Commission continue on its current Goal 5 timeframe with the available information. She suggested that it would be appropriate for commissioners to submit feedback to the council related to the adopted motion. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Muir replied that the commission would be able to use some of the already completed work. She added that if work were added to periodic review, the impact of new work in relationship to the recommendations currently before the commission would need to be evaluated. If the work proceeded outside of periodic review, it would be a separate process. Noting that the Goal 5 work had not been funded for periodic review, Ms. Colbath asked if this work MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting would be funded as part of the City Council motion. Ms. Muir replied there was no funding attached to the motion, adding that staff would discuss that with the council on June 27, 2005. Replying to Mr. Hledik, Ms. Muir said that Goal 5 would soon be acknowledged by the state, and that revision, such as adding newly identified species to the inventory, would occur during periodic review. In response to Ms. Colbath’s question related to where the public would be able to participate in any potential changes to the Goal 5 work, Ms. Muir said the decision about the work program rested with the City Council. Ms. Muir said staff would electronically send an agenda item summary prior to the City Council meeting for commissioner’s to review. Ms. Levis noted that the vote on the motion had been a 4-4 tie that was broken by the mayor. Ms. Muir added that the motion made by Councilor Taylor and seconded by Councilor Kelly, was supported by Councilors Bettman and Ortiz, with Councilors Papé, Poling, Prior, and Solomon voting in opposition. Ms. Muir opined that the State of Oregon would likely comment in some manner for the June 27, 2005 City Council meeting. She added that the metropolitan wide deadline for completion of the Goal 5 work, including Eugene, Springfield and Lane County, was July 1, 2005. All avenues for an extension had been exhausted. She opined that consequences of being out of compliance would likely be iterated for the city, and as she understood the rule, the state could directly apply Goal 5 to land use decisions administered by the city. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Björklund said the issue raised by the council was the possibility that staff erred in applying the safe harbor provisions to the non-stream upland areas. Because pileated woodpecker, an identified sensitive species, was found in that area, it had been suggested that its habitat needed to be included in the inventory under the safe harbor provisions. He said the pileated woodpecker was common throughout the United States, including western Oregon. He confirmed the motion specified the south hills, which was the only pileated woodpecker habitat in Eugene. B. Other Items from Commission There were no other items from the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Colbath explained the procedure for public comment. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County, encouraged the Planning Commissioners to contact City Councilors about the council’s action as specified in the motion as discussed in Agenda Item I. Items from Commission and Staff. She opined that the council did not understand the long-range implications of the motion. She noted that periodic review began in 1994. She expressed concern that by doing all of the work at once, as she understood the council vote, the work would not be completed until 2008, and asserted that sixteen years of periodic review was excessive, and asked commissioners to convey that concern to the City Council. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 2 Regular Meeting II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MAY 16 AND 17, 2005 Mr. Belcher said page 2, paragraph 4 of the May 16 minutes should read: “Mr. Belcher said that both the both the length and area should be considered in changing the lot size width.” Mr. Belcher said page 5, paragraph 3 of the May 17 minutes should read: “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. Ms. Levis, seconded by Mr. Belcher moved to approve the May 16 min- utes and the May 17, 2005 minutes as amended. The motion passed 6:0. III. PC DELIBERATION: GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. Björklund introduced the topic, which was a continuation of staff responses to questions raised by the Planning Commission, and to questions and issues raised in written or oral public testimony. Staff hoped to bring a package of suggested changes, particularly a detailed review of the draft ordinance related to the water resources conservation overlay zone, to the June 27, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Björklund said in addition to Goal 5 issues, Glenn Klein from the City Attorney’s office, would discuss vesting and buildable lands issues, at the June 20, 2005 commission meeting. Mr. Björklund said the Planning Commission deliberations would likely continue into July. • In response to a question about utility line concerns from Mr. Duncan, regarding page 3, paragraph 2 of the agenda summary, Mr. Björklund said conflicts with utility companies and natural resources in Eugene had been addressed on an ad hoc basis over the years. Emer- gency situations needed to be dealt with immediately, and issuing permits on a case by case basis was time consuming and costly. Staff recommended amendments to the /WR overlay zone to allow required maintenance on existing utilities based upon the approach used in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP). Each agency or entity that owned and maintained utility lines with protected Goal 5 resources would submit for staff review a maintenance plan indicating natural resources protection and restoration practices. As long as the entity consis- tently followed the approved approach, repeated submittals would not be required. In response to Mr. Duncan, Mr. Björklund said some existing maintenance plans contained provisions related to salmon habitat, but he had not seen more generic plans that had been adopted by other communities. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Björklund said the city was forbidden by state law to regulate pesticide use in any way, and thus was prohibited from addressing herbicide use along power lines. Ms. Colbath said she was interested in learning how other jurisdictions that had completed Goal 5 work had addressed pesticide use. Responding to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Björklund said that the working model for the definition of utility is in the WEWP. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 3 Regular Meeting  Mr. Hledik stated that it would be helpful to work with the various utilities to develop a sin- gle standard. Mr. Björklund said it would be codified in order to be implemented. There was consensus among the commission to keep the process moving while the utilities’ standard was developed. • In response to Mr. Belcher’s question related to page 3, paragraph 3, Mr. Björklund said that staff had not met with the City Attorney about using a Type II review. Mr. Belcher said he opposed a Type III process, especially if the utilities had individual plans. • In response to Mr. Hledik’s question about page 3, related to new utility lines, Mr. Björklund confirmed that the new utility line language was consistent with the WEWP language, noting that the Goal 5 language needed further review regarding new utility lines through riparian ar- eas. • In response to Ms. Levis’s question regarding number 46 on page 5, Mr. Björklund said Mr. Klein would address how the draft findings compared to the legally required analysis. Mr. Björklund added that paragraph 1, page 6, addressed policy rather than the legal requirement, noting that the Planning Commission may make policy recommendations to the City Council. Ms. Muir added that funding for residential lands monitoring could be part of the annual draft work program presented to the City Council at the annual joint work session. Mr. Björklund stated that the question of where there was sufficient buildable land was a sepa- rate process from the legal process. The perception of whether there was enough buildable land might influence the commission’s decision on whether to protect sites, but those were separate issues from the legally required analysis related to the adopted and acknowledged buildable lands inventories. • In response to Mr. Hudspeth, Ms. Muir said the residential lands monitoring study had been funded once, in 2001. Ms. Muir added there was a guideline in the Metro Plan for jurisdictions to conduct residential lands studies annually. She added that the monitoring was not a state requirement, and ac- knowledged that the City of Springfield was currently conducting the monitoring. • In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said that staff was working to address a footnote related to analyzing the numbers, to determine what had been removed from the inventory and what areas had been redesignated out of the land categories since the buildable lands inventory were completed. The first findings under Goal 9 and 10 was that the proposed regulations did not create unbuildable lots, and therefore staff did not believe that the Goal 5 action would significantly reduce the supply of buildable lands. • Mr. Hledik asked if removal of a lot in a development site as a conservation area would render the lot as unbuildable. Mr. Björklund replied that it would depend on the allowed density on the site. He said the maximum conservation area was used in the analysis, but there were also provisions that allowed for the reduction of the conservation area. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 4 Regular Meeting  • Referring to the south hills corridors, Mr. Duncan noted a significant number of large tax lots that potentially could be subdivided. In that one of the goals was development up, not out, he asked if compensation would be required in cases where the overlay removed the ability to create another buildable parcel by subdividing. Mr. Björklund replied that the existing practice had been that the waterways were set aside, but there was not a specific standard regarding the width of the riparian corridor. He said any situation would need an analysis of what would occur under the current code compared to the Goal 5 requirements. Mr. Duncan asked how loss of additional density could be prevented under the current code. Mr. Nystrom said currently many of the stream corridors were set aside, and thus not devel- oped. The current ordinance provided flexibility to deal with conservation areas, as well as flexible tools in the zoning code that provided options for other ways to achieve the desired density. Mr. Yeiter added that provisions in the ordinance to address Ballot Measure 37 would address the concern expressed by Mr. Duncan. • Mr. Belcher stated that the clause in Ballot Measure 37 said the requirement could be waived or compensation could be given according to Ballot Measure 37, but the proposed ordinance did not provide for compensation. Ms. Muir added that the language could be impacted by action at the current legislative ses- sion that would be reflected in the final language. • Referring to page 4, number 39, Mr. Hledik asked for staff’s reasoning for the statement, “Due to the steep slopes in the area, staff has recommended larger setbacks than for similarly sized streams in flatter areas.” Mr. Björklund said erosion was greater in steeply sloped areas. Many of the streams in the south hills tended to down-cut and side-cut, which resulted from a greater rate of flow, but this factor was not observed in other areas such as in the River Road/Santa Clara or Willakenzie areas. Thus, while the immediate area was more susceptible to erosion and channel degradation, downstream areas were susceptible to sedimentation as the soils washed into the flatter areas. There was a comprehensive program for addressing sedi- mentation from erosion on construction sites, but the provision under consideration was de- signed to address channel integrity of the streams themselves, rather than what occurred during construction. Mr. Björklund explained the process for assigning stream categories used in the Goal 5 analy- sis. • In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Björklund confirmed that the setbacks were horizontal dis- tance rather than slope distance. • Mr. Duncan noted that many people from the Lorane Highway area testified that much of the valley was created by the construction of the highway and a bridge across the creek. The stream corridor was level in that area, but was hidden by dense vegetation. High bank, versus stream bank issues were concerns of those property owners. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 5 Regular Meeting  Mr. Björklund said staff did a GIS calculation of the surrounding slopes to determine whether there were slopes greater than 10 percent and 20 percent, and mapped those areas. Addition- ally, staff analyzed the overall channel gradient, from upper to lower elevation, and deter- mined the total percent gradient of the waterway. Overall the surrounding slopes consisted of a significant portion that exceeded 20 percent, thus meeting the criterion. Mr. Björklund said staff research did not indicate that the ravine was created by road construc- tion. He noted that it had been altered by sewer line and other developments in the area, thus was not a pristine stream. In response to a question by Ms. Colbath, Ms. Siegenthaler explained the methodology used to measure streams and stream segments. • Referring to page 8, number 69, Ms. Colbath asked what kind of contractual relationship did the Riverfront Research Park (RFRP) represent and between whom. • Responding to testimony from Mr. Biggs, Mr. Belcher understood Mr. Biggs’ concern was that a property owner could subdivide his lot so that a significant portion of the setback was a portion of a single lot thereby meeting the 33% threshold that allowed the owner to get a re- duction in the protected area. Mr. Björklund restated the question, saying could a property owner subdivide property in such a way as to meet the 33 percent test, that would allow them to reduce the setback? Mr. Nystrom stated that it was necessary to look at the large picture, adding it was not a com- mon problem, and encouraged the Planning Commission to continue to look at the big issues. He added that there were always issues that did not fit perfectly, and it was difficult to antici- pate all possible variations. • Ms. Colbath noted that the Lane County Board of Commissioners received testimony related to number 69 on page 8. She suggested that staff might want to follow up on that testimony. Ms. Muir noted that the Planning Commission’s record was closed. • Related to number 84 on page 13, Mr. Belcher asked if a property owner needed to be directly impacted by an overlay zone decision to be eligible to appeal such a decision. Mr. Björklund said the provisions provided a process for a property owner who had been re- zoned to get the /WR overlay in error, to provide a mechanism for the property owner to have the errant zoning removed. Mr. Björklund distributed a handout entitled, List of Possible Changes to Staff Goal 5 Recommendations, June 13, 2005, that consisted of responses to every change recommended by staff and discussed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Björklund facilitated a discussion on the recommendations. Recommended Changes to Draft Code Amendments (from staff) • Aubele, June 7 Memorandum – Utilities (code) – Mr. Björklund said the Planning Commis- MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 6 Regular Meeting  sion had provided clear direction to staff. • Heer, June 7 Memorandum – Private access through Goal 5 site (code) – Mr. Björklund said the issue had not been adequately addressed in the draft ordinance, and said that staff would provide additional language to allow for access where no alternate was available. Mr. Björk- lund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the proposed recommendation. • Horn, May 31 Memorandum – Existing garden areas (code) – Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the proposed recommendation. • Segel, May 31 Memorandum – Exemption for existing development (code) – Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the proposed recom- mendation. • Segel, June 7 Memorandum – Draft code regarding Measure 37 (code) – Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the proposed recommenda- tion. • Verrijt, June 7 Memorandum – Site E81, fire hazard (code) – Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the proposed recommendation. Recommended Changes to Site Recommendations (from staff) • Bushnell, Hammer, May 31 Memorandum – New site information on E48 B-2 (site) – Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the pro- posed recommendation. • Guthrie, June 7 Memorandum – Dry creek bed, E57 (site) – Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the proposed recommendation. • Hammer, May 31 Memorandum – riparian area adjacent to E48 B-2 (site) – After revising the recommendation resulting from a Scribner’s error the recommendation read: Regarding 2 adjacent riparian areas: As discussed in response to Question #15 above, staff concludes that the channel adjacent to Mr. Hammer’s property to the south does not meet the state definition for “stream” and therefore vegetated areas adjacent to it do not meet the definition for ripar- ian area. Therefore, staff recommends amending the inventory to remove the areas adjacent to E48 B-2 from the Goal 5 inventory. The area noted by Mr. Hammer as being mapped as riparian habitat adjacent to Ayres Pond consists of an overstory of mostly native trees adjacent ot a small stream that flows into Ayres Pond, with an understory of unknown species that is periodically mowed. Based on review of historical aerial photos, this small stream is a remnant of the historic eastern arm of Dodson Slough. This riparian area lies primarily on the property to the north of that owned by Mr. Hammer. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 7 Regular Meeting  Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the proposed recommendation. • Heer, June 7 Memorandum – Site E37 (site) – Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the proposed recommendation. • O’Dea, June 7 Memorandum – Site WR-3 (site) – Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the proposed recommendation. Mr. Duncan asked what would happen to ongoing, planned projects that several community organizations had put significant funding into, such as walkways and viewing areas. Mr. Björklund replied there was a provision in the draft code that addressed recreational access. Delta Ponds was an area where in order to protect the resource, points of entry were needed that limited access and restricted how the site was used. Mr. Nystrom added this would likely be considered a vesting issue as well. • Paris/Wallace, May 31 Memorandum – Correction to wetland site RSC-37A (site) – Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the pro- posed recommendation. • Rothbard/Baird, May 31 Memorandum – Correction to site boundary for site E37P (site) – Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the pro- posed recommendation. Possible Changes from Planning Commission June 6 Deliberation Meeting • (Duncan) Code provisions that allow bank arming when needed to protect existing structures to near stream. Mr. Duncan said his intent was to have an avenue for emergency protection of existing structures, and that it could include a hierarchy in which “bio-engineering” techniques would be considered first. Mr. Hledik added there needed to be a hierarchy for protection un- der non-emergency situations. Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission to direct staff to develop emergency provisions and for supporting the proposed recommendation. • Revise correction application process in draft section 9.4960 to make it less burdensome on property owner. Consider the following: o (Colbath) Refund of application fees for correction process if it is determined that the City erred in attaching /WR to the subject property. o (Colbath) Refundable deposit of fee. o (Duncan) Two step process using “triage” matrix to sift out the viable correction applica- tions. Ms. Muir noted that a provision for refund of fees currently existed. Ms. Muir added that al- though the Planning Commission could make a recommend to the City Manager about fees, the Planning Commission did not make decisions about fees. Mr. Björklund noted consensus on MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 8 Regular Meeting  the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the proposed recommendation to develop a two-step process for draft section 9.4960. • (Hledik) Revise 9.4930 regarding notice to NPSO. Mr. Björklund noted consensus on the part of the Planning Commission for supporting the proposed recommendation. Mr. Björklund reviewed the necessary follow-up as directed by the Planning Commission. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher asking if there was any concern about public lands having setbacks that differed from private lands, Mr. Björklund said the decision was based on the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis. Where legitimate, conflicting uses, such as active recreation or other recreational facilities on public park lands existed, the uses were weighted the same as a private use. Citing Amazon Park as an example, he said adopted park plans that assigned identified uses to portions of a park allowed for uses such as athletic fields in low value wetland areas. Recreational uses of the parks were important and the low value of the wetlands needed to be weighed against competing public benefits. Mr. Björklund concurred with Mr. Belcher that there were other mechanisms within the public process to allow for protection of wetland resources that were not protected under Goal 5. Mr. Björklund added that other wetlands and streams had been protected before Goal 5 was in place, noting that the park planning process was a significant part of the wetland protections. Mr. Hledik expressed discomfort with the determination of which setbacks were applied to which streams, opining that there was some subjectivity related to the determination. He asked if there was a way in which a property owner could dispute determination of a 40 foot setback versus a 20 foot setback. Mr. Björklund replied that the recommendations needed to flow from the ESEE analysis. He added that staff had not created a set of criteria because the ESEE was a required process that mandated considera- tion of all factors in the ESEE and making a recommendation based upon all of those factors. Mr. Björklund stated that the determinations were based upon key factors for the ESEE analysis for each site. Property owners could argue that those factors did not exist on a particular site, or that the incorrect factors were used, thus negating the analysis. He said that the time to challenge the ESEE analysis was prior to adoption, while under the current structure it was not possible to challenge a determination after adoption. Ms. Muir explained the public notification process that had been used for the Goal 5 process. A direct mail notice was sent to all property owners who owned affected property. The City Council had the authority to initiate code amendments after adoption through a post acknowledgement plan amendment or code revision. Referring to page 5 of the original agenda packet, Mr. Duncan asked how Goal 5 protections would be addressed if the Royal Node Plan was changed or repealed so that the corresponding area was not protected. Mr. Björklund replied that Goal 5 would establish a regulated area that referred to a previously adopted map to define the area in the Land Use Code. If the plan was repealed, the map would still define the protected area. Mr. Nystrom said staff could review what would happen to properties with the City Attorney if the Royal Node plan was repealed. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 9 Regular Meeting Mr. Nystrom reviewed the Planning Commission schedule for completion of Goal 5 and leading up to the joint meeting with the City Council on July 27, 2005. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:37 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050613.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 10 Regular Meeting