Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue June 27, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Neil Björklund, Gabriel Flock, Mike McKerrow, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department staff; Jim Spick- erman, Kevin Matthews, Diane Wiley, Terry Connolly, Charles Biggs, Bruce Wild, Francina Verrijt, Jim Welsh, guests. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. PC DELIBERATION: GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES Staff: Neil. Björklund, 682-5507 II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue June 27, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President, Jon Belcher, Rick Dun- can, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sulli- van, ex officio member; Neil Björklund, Gabriel Flock, Mike McKerrow, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department staff; Jim Spickerman, Kevin Matthews, Diane Wiley, Terry Con- nolly, Charles Biggs, Bruce Wild, Francina Verrijt, Jim Welsh, guests. Mr. Lawless convened the meeting at 11:35 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There was no one wishing to speak. I. PC DELIBERATION: GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. Björklund expressed appreciation to the Planning Commission for its work on this large, complex process that had been ongoing since the 1980’s. He said the purpose of the meeting was to review the draft ordinance, and reviewed the timeline for the remaining meetings regarding Goal 5. Mr. Duncan asked if the water resource conservation overlay zone included the area of the riparian area, or if that was a separate item and was dealt with separately. Mr. Björklund replied the conservation area was defined to include the mapped riparian area as part of the Goal 5 site. The riparian language was not used in the code because the Goal 5 inventory mapped that site so that the conservation area included riparian vegetation within the site plus any setback that went beyond the site. Mr. Björklund facilitated a discussion of the proposed ordinance. EC 9.4920 – Components of /WR Conservation Area EC 9.4920(1) • 9.4920(1)(a) referred to the Goal 5 water site. The adopted, acknowledged map of all of the Goal 5 sites was also the map of riparian areas. In most cases, the riparian site would either be inside the setback or woven in and out. • As currently written, the code language stated that in the south hills where the stream corridors MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting  were typically narrow, there was no a map of riparian vegetation. The upland wildlife habitat site was defined as 50 feet from the center line rather than by riparian vegetation. A 40 foot setback was applied from the top of the stream bank. Because the code referred to the site boundary, the conservation area would protect the entire corridor, even though not everything inside of it was riparian in character. It had been discovered that the language did not accomplish what was in- tended in the south hills, leaving this area needing further revision. By default, as written, to ad- dress areas not in the south hills, the site boundary was referenced. Thus, when the site boundary went beyond the setback, everything in the site boundary was included. The result was an unin- tended consequence was that the site boundary would always be greater than the setback. • In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Björklund said that in the south hills, bank to bank, streams were typically not more than five to eight feet wide. A 20 foot wide bank to bank distance would be needed for the high bank to fall outside of the setback. He added that based on staff field observations the south hills streams had a clearly identifiable flow channel, and it ap- peared there was never sufficient flow in the channel for it to fill beyond the top of the bank. • In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund confirmed that there were no category ”B” streams in the south hills. Everything in the south hills was either category “C” or category “D”. • In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Björklund stated that as the language was currently written, the conservation area and not the setback was 50 feet. In effect, the outcome was the same. The pro- tected area extended 50 feet, not 40 feet. That was an unintended consequence of the language used to refer to the areas that were included outside of the setback, and the manner in which the south hills were mapped. Mr. Björklund said staff would either rewrite the definition or the way setbacks were calculated, so that the intended outcome actually occurred. Mr. Björklund said the south hills were mapped differently than everywhere else because from aerial photography, it was not possible to discern riparian boundaries, as easily as it was in lowland areas. Thus, it was im- portant to structure the determination in such a way that if there was not a map of riparian habitat, the setback would define the conservation area. • In response to Mr. Belcher’s question, Mr. Björklund confirmed that the land owners would readily be able to determine the setbacks. Mr. Björklund said the development in the south hills was causing the storm water flow to be ”flashy”. Thus it moved quickly through the system, which led to down cutting of the channels, making them easier to identify than before the devel- opment occurred. • In response to Ms. Colbath’s query, Mr. Björklund replied that, generally, there was no side cutting that expanded the channel sideways. Side cutting typically happened when riparian vege- tation was removed, which was what the regulations were intended to prevent. • In response to a question from Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Nystrom there would be some data available to use as a base to determine the exact location of a setback on a site plan. • Mr. Björklund said due to the complexity of the issues, two approaches were offered. The pre- ferred method was measuring the setback from the top of bank. However, if the top of the bank was not apparent due to vegetation or access issues, or if there was no clear break in to topogra- phy, the backup approach was to measure the setback from the high water line. • Mr. Björklund said the issue was simpler in the wetlands because there was no issue of something extending beyond the setback because the site boundary was equal to the wetland boundary, and the setback was measured from the site boundary rather than from something inside the site boundary. EC 9.4920(2) • In response to Mr. Lawless, Mr. Björklund said there was no state statutory or administrative rule requirement that the city update maps when private wetland delineations were completed. When MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2005 Page 2 Regular Meeting  private delineations were done, the information on the maps received by the city was not easily transferable to the geographic information system (GIS). He added that staff had wrestled with the issue of the city taking responsibility for recording decision data from the state. In the past, staff did not know if it received copies of everything that was privately mapped and accepted by the State of Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). Because different property identification systems were used, it was difficult to determine which parcel information applied to. Due to the inconsistency in the data, the city had decided against spending excessive staff time in modifying the maps. Rather, the city determined that the state administered the program, and the state had the authority to say what was and what was not a wetland. EC 9.4920(3) • In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Björklund said the conservation area was currently defined as including two things: everything inside the Goal 5 site, riparian vegetation and stream; and eve- rything inside the setback from the stream. • Replying to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said the language was not an umbrella, but rather a manner to address a situation where riparian and wetland resources met. He added that Goal 5 rules required mapping of riparian and wetland areas, regardless of whether they overlapped. If it was determined that they were important to protect, each resource had to be protected. EC 9.4920(4) • Mr. Björklund said this section addressed the Royal Node area. In order to make the conserva- tion area match up with the defined, protected, drainage corridor areas in the Royal Node Plan, they were deemed equal. EC 9.4920(5) • Mr. Björklund said section five was the exemption, where the list of changes was from previous Planning Commission discussions appeared. Language would be added to indicate that prior uses needed to be legal uses in areas already developed in order to be exempt from the regulations. EC 9.4920(6) • Mr. Björklund said section clarified that if a road separated a stream from a mapped protected resource area, the road was not “jumped” to protect what was on the other side of the road. EC 9.4930 – Permitted and Prohibited Uses EC 9.4930(2) • Mr. Björklund said the uses were identified as permitted and prohibited uses. Language for making changes in an already existing garden area in the conservation area would be added. • Language regarding private access through a Goal 5 site would be added. EC 9.4930(3) • Mr. Björklund said language regarding utility use would be added. • Ms. Siegenthaler said language regarding addressing potential fire hazards, particularly in the south hills would be added. EC 9.4940 – Stormwater Maintenance Easement • Mr. Björklund said this language was added at the request of Public Works. It allowed the city to have stormwater access easements. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2005 Page 3 Regular Meeting  • In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said 4930(3)(c) was intended to allow for public access uses within a conservation area, and would include construction of new facilities, citing major restoration work on habitat at Delta Ponds. • In response to Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Nystrom explained that if an applicant or private party provided public drainage or other public facility that the city was required to maintain, the property owner needed to provide access easements. EC 9.4950 – Adjustments and Exceptions EC 9.4950(1) • Provided link to adjustments provision EC 9.4950(2) • Fair market value provisions EC 9.4960 – Removal of the Overlay Zone The Planning Commission decided at the June 13, 2005 meeting to revise the language to make it less burdensome on the property owner when the city had erred. EC 9.4970 – State Wetland Notification Mr. Björklund stated that this language was mandated by Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). EC 9.4980 – Development Standards Mr. Björklund said the development standards were based upon those applied in the West Eugene Wetlands (WEW). He said these were only applicable under Type II review, either because there was an allowed use with Type II, or a adjustment was being done. They were never applied to outright uses. EC 9.8030 – Adjustment Review - Approval Criteria Mr. Björklund stated this section identified two ways to reduce the setback in addition to the fair market value (fmv) provisions. EC 9.8030(21)(a) • If more than 33 percent of the site had the setback it could be reduced by applying the listed standards. EC 9.8030(21)(b) • Anyone could reduce the setback on any site of any size up to 20 percent either by enhancing the remaining setback area; or by using the setback averaging and maintaining the same total conser- vation area on the site. • In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said the intent of allowing reduction of a setback in one location while expanding in another, was to ensure that the value and function of the resource was preserved to the greatest extent possible. • Mr. Björklund concurred with Mr. Duncan’s assessment that if a stream served as a property line, an adjustment must be made on a property owner’s own site, and could not cross the stream. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2005 Page 4 Regular Meeting  • Following a discussion on specific situations in which either the 20 percent or 33 percent criteria would be applied, Ms. Muir said staff would develop some hypothetical scenarios to determine if the commission’s intent was adequately addressed in the proposed code. • In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Björklund said the data submitted for an adjustment process would be maintained in the project application file. • Mr. Belcher asked how an adjustment would be balanced when the lot line was a stream. Mr. Björklund said the important consideration was ensuring that the more valuable areas were lo- cated. He added the framework had been developed through the WEW Planning process. • Mr. Belcher asked if it was more difficult to define quality in riparian corridors as opposed to wetlands. Mr. Björklund said the corridor function was considered in addition to the quality of the plant communities in riparian corridors. Whereas, wetlands did not usually play a corridor function. Therefore, a highly important corridor may not have high quality plant communities. • Mr. Nystrom suggested that staff would develop some scenarios to address Mr. Belcher’s con- cerns. EC 9.8025 – Adjustment Review – General Requirements EC 9.8025(2) • Mr. Björklund said testimony had been received that the Planning Director should be able to waive a requirement for one of the professionals listed in EC 9.8025(2). He said it was impossi- ble to anticipate every situation and professional that could be competent to perform the work. The proposed language was intended to allow staff to consider other qualified professionals who were not specifically identified in the code. • Mr. Nystrom noted the Planning Commission had previously decided to delete the requirement for an American Institute of Certified Planner (AICP). EC 9.8474 – Standards Review - Modification No comments. Mr. Nystrom said staff would poll commissioners to determine if there would be a quorum for the proposed July 18, 2005 meeting, and send an E-mail confirming the meeting. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Muir advised the Planning Commission that the City Council was conducting a work session tonight regarding the June 8, 2005 motion. She distributed and reviewed a copy of the City Council Agenda Item Summary. She stated that City Manager Dennis Taylor had recommended that the council adopt Option 3. This would allow staff time to complete the current Goal 5 work program as scheduled, and to return with the remainder of the wildlife habitat areas in the south hills to be worked on after the Goal 5 submission. Mr. Hledik asked if the wildlife habitat work would be adopted through a Metro Plan amendment or through periodic review. Ms. Muir said at the conclusion of the current Goal 5 work, periodic review would be completed, at which point, a post acknowledgement plan amendment would be processed with MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2005 Page 5 Regular Meeting the state. Ms. Colbath asked if there was funding available to complete Option 3. Ms. Muir said the City Council motion included language to ensure that the work got on the high priority work program and fully funded. Ms. Muir facilitated a discussion the on the July 27, 2005 joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. She suggested that the focus should be on the Planning Commission work program, with another joint session in six months. Commissioners Belcher, Hledik, and Hudspeth agreed to serve as a subcommittee of the commission to develop the presentation. Ms. Muir said the July 11, 2005 Planning Commission meeting would serve as a work session to prepare for the joint meeting. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Duncan provided a report on the Historic Review Board (HRB). He said the River Road project was moving along nicely. He said the HRB discussed scheduling a joint meeting with the Planning Commis- sion that would include to approval of the HRB workplan; possible bus tour of some of the historic components in the River Road area; and lunch at a historic building. The HRB suggested late August or early September for the joint meeting. Mr. Duncan would work with Ken Guzowski, HRB staff, to schedule the meeting. Following a discussion about the June 28, 2005 public hearing, Ms. Muir concluded a quorum would be present with Mr. Sullivan attending as the ex officio member. Mr. Lawless encouraged commissioners to contact their City Council buddies regarding the Goal 5 process. He said he was meeting with Mayor Piercy on July 1, 2005. Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:35 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050627.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2005 Page 6 Regular Meeting