Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission City Council Chamber January 10, 2006 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Peggy Keppler, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brother- ton, City Attorney ABSENT: Mr. Hledik, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE CODE, ESTABLISHING STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (CA 05-3) Amendments to the Eugene Code, 1971 to add sections including 9.6790, 9.6791, 9.6792, 9.6793, 9.6794, 9.6795, and 9.6796 (Stormwater Development Standards), amend sections 9.0500, 9.6420, 9.8030, 9.8055, 9.8090, 9.8100, 9.8215, 9.8325, 9.8440, 9.81515 and 9.8520, and delete section 9.6510. Lead Staff: Peggy Keppler (541) 682-2869 SUMMARY MINUTES – January 10, 2006 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission – Public Hearing  MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue January 10, 2006 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Peggy Keppler, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brother- ton, City Attorney ABSENT: Mr. Hledik, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE CODE, ESTABLISHING STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (CA 05-3) Amendments to the Eugene Code, 1971 to add sections including 9.6790, 9.6791, 9.6792, 9.6793, 9.6794, 9.6795, and 9.6796 (Stormwater Development Standards), amend sections 9.0500, 9.6420, 9.8030, 9.8055, 9.8090, 9.8100, 9.8215, 9.8325, 9.8440, 9.81515 and 9.8520, and delete section 9.6510. Lead Staff: Peggy Keppler (541) 682-2869 Ms. Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission. She explained the public hearing procedure. Ms. Colbath introduced staff and Planning Commissioners introduced themselves. Ms. Colbath explained that the purpose of the meeting was to conduct a public hearing of the Eugene Planning Commission on the Amendments to the Eugene Code, Establishing Stormwater Development Standards. Ms. Keppler provided the staff report supported by a PowerPoint presentation. She said that the City Council adopted the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSWMP) in 1993, providing the policy framework for a comprehensive approach to stormwater management. The impetus for the CSWMP came from the need to meet federal water quality mandates. CSWMP included goals, policies, and implementation measures for an integrated, multiple-objective approach to stormwater management. The multiple objectives included flood control, water quality protection and enhancement, and natural resource protection. Mr. Duncan noted that there was not a definition of redevelopment in the Eugene Code (EC). He wondered how one would know what “significant development”, entailed, as used in the CSWMP, if development was not defined in the EC. He further noted that “redevelopment” was also used in the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2006 Page 1 Public Hearing CSWMP. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hledik at the January 9, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Keppler said when measuring flood protection or setting capacity within the City’s stormwater system, flood control storm events, which are larger than the pollution reduction storm events, are used. When undertaking pollution reduction, it is most effective when 80 percent of the stormwater rainfall events are captured and treated. An historical review of the past 50 years of rainfall data indicate that 1.4 inch in a 24-hour period, falling between a one and two year storm event, would meet the threshold for capturing 80 percent of our annual events. In comparison, the minimum requirement for flood control was a five year storm event that is 3.6 inches in a 24-hour period. In response to a question from Mr. Lawless, Ms. Keppler replied that covered drainage areas that could potentially hold pollutants would be required to acquire a permit to drain into the wastewater system. However, the City did not want areas outside the uncovered area put into the wastewater system. Mr. Duncan asked if refinery tanks were included when addressing fuel tanks. Referring to EC 9.6794 as included in the agenda packet, Ms. Keppler noted the applicability and exemptions criteria. She added that fuel farms would most likely have an exemption addressed with double walls. Responding to a question raised at the January 9, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Keppler said the City encouraged property owners to keep existing trees on development sites, adding that property owners received credit for maintaining or planting trees adjacent to the impervious surface. Property owners would have an opportunity to go through the adjustment review process to demonstrate that the existing trees would be protected. Ms. Keppler stated staff recommended that following the public hearing and deliberation, the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the ordinance amending Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code to the City Council. Ms. Colbath opened the public hearing. She noted consensus of the Planning Commission to allow speakers up to five minutes to present testimony. Rob Handy, 455 ½ River Road, Eugene, expressed this appreciation to staff for the informative presentation. He stated he was chair of the River Road Community Organization and a member of the River Road/Santa Clara Task Force, but was speaking as a private citizen. He said residents of the River Road area were interested in natural drainage options, noting the good draining soil made it possible for natural stormwater systems to be compatible with the actions of the area residents. He asked that the natural drainage options in River Road and Santa Clara be prioritized. He said enhancing and maintain- ing the natural drainage systems was important for maintaining water quality, preserving the neighbor- hood character in which there many streets had no curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and relied upon natural stormwater drainage. He said natural systems were cost effective in saving tax payers’ money, and did not degrade over time. Mr. Handy acknowledged some of the dry wells in the area needed to be repaired. Mr. Handy expressed concerns with the exemptions that were built into the program, stating that between the 3,000 square foot threshold and the exemptions, he questioned if the code language was strong enough. He wanted to explore why the City of Gresham had reduced its threshold from 5,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet, and suggested that the City of Eugene consider 2,500 square feet. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2006 Page 2 Public Hearing Noting there were no others who wished to speak, Ms. Colbath closed the public hearing. She opened the floor to questions from Planning Commissioners. Mr. Lawless thanked staff for the good information, and suggested that commissioners could submit their comments to Ms. Keppler. He said the proposed standards stated that the standards did not apply to one and two family dwellings that infiltrate roof top stormwater runoff on site with private systems. He asked why a similar exemption for commercial or industrial applications was not available. Ms. Keppler said this was a current DEQ requirement, and the new standards would address the DEQ regulation of dry wells. She said the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulated the dry well application as a flood control device but that they did not necessarily treat the water. Commercial and industrial sites were required to register the dry wells. In response to Mr. Lawless, Ms. Keppler said she would perform further research to clarify that the proposed standards for surface infiltration facilities and get back to Mr. Lawless. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Keppler replied that public improvements were exempt from going through the building permit or land use process, but the Stormwater Management Manual would be adopted administratively, and that they would be required for both public and private projects through the administrative order. Mr. Duncan noted that the City of Eugene had a green construction task force that was reviewing stormwater issues and guidelines for possible recommendation. He suggested that Ms. Keppler coordinate with that task force. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Keppler said she would thoroughly review the document to ensure that the term redevelopment was deleted from the proposed standards. Mr. Duncan said he was concerned that there was no definition of redevelopment in the EC. Mr. Carroll noted that the advisory committee had looked at the characteristics of incoming permits related to the amount of impervious surface. He asked if staff would be able to analyze what the percentage of change would be if the threshold changed. In response to a question, Ms. Keppler confirmed Mr. Carroll understanding that a pollution storm event of 1.4 inches in a 24 hour period meant that a facility must have the capacity to either retain or otherwise treat that amount of water successfully, was correct. Mr. Carroll asked if there was a tradeoff in designing a system for a large day of rain if the system were more geared to smaller rains. He understood that many of the stormwater born pollutants were present in small, gradual storm events. Ms. Keppler said the facility design was up to 1.4 inches in a 24 hour period, noting that the 1.4 inch criteria did not generally reach the full capacity of the facility when it is also designed for flood control. She added that the goal was to capture 80 percent of the annual rainfall events, so that everything up to 1.4 inches would be treated. She said that 89 percent of the rainfall would be treated until the flood control was activated. Mr. Carroll said that according to the Stormwater Management Manual, pervious surfaces did not trigger pollution reduction and flow control provisions, and asked if there was a significant amount of pervious surface, was there an assumption that water was percolating down into the subsurface, reducing or eliminating the need to accommodate pollution and flow control through other facilities. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2006 Page 3 Public Hearing Ms. Keppler concurred with Mr. Carroll’s understanding, adding that water that infiltrated through the porous surface was not going through a treatment facility, but rather was taken care of it on site, with the pollutants caught before they reached the groundwater. Mr. Carroll asked if staff was concerned about having banks of non-point source pollutants that could be released in non-storm events that would not be treated by a downstream facility. Ms. Keppler said there was controversy related to the porous pavements, and would do further research on the subject. She said that this would be an issue only when the city system had reached capacity, causing the overflow. Mr. Carroll asked if there were standards that addressed how much porous aggregate or piping was required when soil conditions were not very permeable thus creating significant financial burdens that reduce the likelihood that construction would not be feasible in steeply sloped areas. Ms. Keppler said there would be some areas of the city that would not be available for infiltration facilities because poor soils would be identified and mapped. The map would be included in the Stormwater Management Manual. Mr. Carroll noted that the provisions required avoidance of disturbance of natural areas and trees when creating stormwater facilities. He asked if stormwater facilities created through the provisions would be similarly protected in the future. Ms. Keppler said once a development site was required to install stormwater treatment facility, it would be part of the approval documents that will be tied to the land, for which a maintenance agreement would be required. Future owners of the site would know the treatment facility was tied to the site through the deed documents. She added that failure to operate and maintain the stormwater treatment facility would be considered a public nuisance under city code. Parks and Open Space staff would periodically conduct inspections of the sites, and would also respond on a complaint basis. Mr. Carroll asked if tree planting standards included credit for a percentage of impervious surfaces, and if Portland used the same criteria. He inquired about the tree planting credits and their compatibility with existing parking lot landscaping standards. He said canopy trees were required and asked if a land owner could simply add canopy trees to get more credit. He also asked if the approved tree list was reviewed locally. Ms. Keppler said land owners would be compensated a specific square footage for each tree planted, up to the maximum of ten percent. She said she would research the Portland criteria. Ms. Keppler said a land owner would receive credit as long as newly planted trees were within 25 feet of the impervious surface. She said the approved tree list was developed by combining the Portland list with the City of Eugene street tree requirements through the City’s Urban Forester and landscape staff at the Permit and Information Center. In response to a question from Mr. Carroll, Ms. Keppler said current code required developers to identify where stormwater runoff goes and that it does not adversely impact the city system. Developers need to demonstrate that the city system has capacity for their development at full build out. Code does not require the developer to demonstrate they provide capacity for everybody above them. As new develop- ments are proposed, each project is required to demonstrate how much it will change the existing system. At the point when a development would exceed the system’s capacity, the developer would be required to MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2006 Page 4 Public Hearing either upsize the facility or provide detention at their facility. She added when the stormwater basin planning occurred, the city analyzed full capacity for full build out of the basin. Ms. Colbath asked if staff had considered whether potential significant redevelopment would not occur under the new standards. She expressed concern that violations of the standards would be considered nuisance abatement and enforced on a complaint basis. Ms. Keppler said the nuisance abatement was similar to the erosion program, in which staff performed inspections as facilities came on line, and inspected them on an annual or biannual basis. When facilities were not performing adequately or were taken off line, compliance orders that direct applicants to perform corrective action within an identified time period are sent to applicants. In the event that the corrective action is not completed, the nuisance ordinance gives the City the ability to correct the facility at the owner’s expense. Mr. Nystrom said the system of enforcement was unique in Chapter 9, with Parks and Open Space staff taking the lead for enforcement. Mr. Belcher asked if Ms. Keppler would be responding at a later time to questions he had submitted to her regarding constitutionality and one finding, to which she replied she would. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Keppler said development plans would include a drawing attached to the operation and maintenance agreement that would be included in the property title. Mr. Nystrom added that in the case of land use decisions, the operation and maintenance agreement would be part of the land use decision, just as other systems such as tree preservation plans and stormwa- ter capacity issues were included. Mr. Belcher noted that the definition of water quality design storm included the amounts listed, but the definition of flood control design simply referred to a manual. He asked why flood control design was not defined. Ms. Keppler had understood that the format would be consistent, and also understood that the number would not be included. She agreed to research Mr. Belcher’s question, and suggested a solution would be to include the graph in the document. Mr. Belcher stated his preference was to have the numbers included, but also understood the complexity of the issue could preclude inclusion. Mr. Belcher asked if a map illustrating the locations of pervious soils would be available, and asked if it would be included in the subject code, or referenced to another source. Mr. Nystrom opined that it would not be included in the code. Ms. Keppler agreed to research the question and provide the commission with the information. Noting that the City would perform repair and maintenance at the cost of property owners who failed to do so, Mr. Belcher asked if a penalty process was available to continued failures. Ms. Keppler replied that the existing erosion control program included penalties based on the gravity of MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2006 Page 5 Public Hearing infractions, including frequency of corrective action by the City, the history of the property owners, and other factors. She added that the penalty increased over time, with limit of approximately $2,500. Furthermore, each violation consisted of a separate fee. Mr. Belcher expressed concern that only paying the cost offered little incentive for property owners to do the right thing. He asked if systems development charges (SDCs) paid for future upgrades to the systems. Ms. Keppler replied that developers had the option of providing on site detention facilities or paying to upsize the City’s facility. In response to a question from Mr. Lawless regarding the stormwater oil control applicability, Ms. Keppler replied that a 24 hour supermarket with a high customer turnover would be an example. Mr. Duncan asked if tree credits went in both directions when trees were planted within 25 feet of impervious surfaces. Ms. Keppler replied that the credit was divided proportionally between the eligible properties. Ms. Colbath asked Ms. Keppler to provide information at a later date for if the proposed standards addressed prevention of introducing runoff pollutants into the system during periods of heavy storm events. Ms. Colbath closed the public hearing. Mr. Nystrom said the item was scheduled to be brought back to the Planning Commission on February 13, 2006 for deliberation and action that would be a recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Colbath adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc060110ph.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission January 10, 2006 Page 6 Public Hearing