Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room -- The Atrium – 99 West 10th Avenue February 13, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Peggy Keppler, Theresa Walch, Mark Schoening, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney; Terry Connolly, Charles Biggs, Zachary Vishanoff, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- November 28, 2005 and January 10, 2006 Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to approve the minutes of November 28, 2005 as amended, and the minutes of January 10, 2006. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Staff: Peggy Keppler, 682-2869 Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend that the City Council consider the proposal presented to the Planning Commission, with the additional requirements that they take a further look at parking lot size, and source control standards. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. III. DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING Staff: Kurt Yeiter, 682-8379 IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 1  B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 2  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue February 13, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Peggy Keppler, Theresa Walch, Mark Schoening, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney; Terry Connolly, Charles Biggs, Zachary Vishanoff, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Ms. Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:30 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, distributed a handout entitled UO Eyes Franklin— Consultant’s proposal would mean big buildings. Mr. Vishanoff expressed his frustration with the University of Oregon’s campus development proposal and lack of consideration for sustainability. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- November 28, 2005 and January 10, 2006 November 28, 2005 Page 1, PRESENT: should read: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Alan Lowe, Planning and Development Department; Page 2, paragraph 5, should read: Mr. Lawless said that Councilor Bettman’s concern was that the definition diverted from the initial definition. He said he had been more interested in exploring going beyond that limited definition of opportunity siting and could be more in the context of overall densification. He said he had hoped for more of a discussion of where other infill could take place. He said he had been happy to see follow up discussion that provided clarification that some infill would be accommodated in other ways. He said tax lot specific opportunity siting still seemed as if it was moving away from the natural infill and absorption rate that neighborhoods would have. He expressed his frustration that the issue was not being looked at holistically. Page 3, paragraph 3, sentence 3, should read: She said modeling was not the ultimate answer but was the information to help determine how variables interacted with each other. MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 1 Page 4, paragraph 2, sentence 1, should read: Ms. Colbath added that there needed to be alternative path language in the process. Page 5, paragraph 8, should read: Ms. Colbath expressed a desire to have another joint meeting before the end of April. Page 5, paragraph 10, sentence 2, should read: She commented that if staff started in January it would be difficult to get on a Council agenda by the end of April. Page 6, paragraph 5, should read: There was general consensus to form an opportunity siting subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Duncan, Hledik, Belcher, and Colbath. Page 6, IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS, insert the following between sentence 1 and sentence 2: Mr. Belcher called for a process discussion on election of officers before the next election. Page 7, paragraph 1, sentence 1, should read: In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding the City of Eugene’s reaction to the amendment that land use issues be postponed until Ballot Measure 37 was resolved, Ms. Muir said the Council had taken action on Goal 5 which superseded the earlier motion to not proceed on anything that could add value to a property. January 10, 2006 No changes. Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to approve the minutes of November 28, 2005 as amended, and the minutes of January 10, 2006. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Mr. Hledik stated for the record that although he had not attended the January 10, 2006 Planning Commission Public Hearing on amendments to the Eugene Code, establishing stormwater development standards, he had listened to the tapes, and reviewed the PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Keppler offered a correction to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) included in the agenda packet for this discussion. The AIS stated that “Attached to this AIS as attachment A are staff’s responses to all of the Planning Commission’s questions and the public testimony. All of the written testimony submitted before the close of the record on January 10th is attached to this AIS.” Ms. Keppler stated the documents had actually been included agenda packet for the January 10, 2006 public hearing. Ms. Keppler distributed the following handouts: • Lone Oaks Paving. • City of Eugene Stormwater Management Rite Aid Willamette Plaza Review. • City of Eugene Stormwater Management Ray’s food Place Review. • Lone Oaks Paving MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 2 Ms. Keppler described the use of pervious Portland cement concrete pavement on Lone Oak Drive in 2005. She said the road was in a commercial area in the River Road/Santa Clara area. She stated that pervious pavers had been used in the parking areas adjacent to the developable sites, consisting of an assisted living complex and a commercial medical office. Ms. Keppler stated that the porous pavement did not treat stormwater, but rather reduced the impervious area that was needed to treat the stormwater. She added that it was necessary to apply subtreatment to the road surface. Mr. Duncan asked if parking stall areas with pervious pavers could be created in parking lots. Ms. Keppler responded that although use of pervious pavers were not currently allowed for streets, she was not aware of any situations in which they would not be allowed for parking lots. Mr. Lawless asked why it would be desirable to use pervious pavers for an entire development to remove an entire system from the treatment process. Ms. Keppler replied that pollutants could be trapped under the pavers, and still not go into the ground water below or into the City system, thus continuing to restrict pollutants from entering the surface waters. Ms. Colbath asserted it was difficult to strike a balance between the original stormwater standards that required impervious surfaces and the new standards that allowed pervious surfaces. Ms. Walch explained there was a difference between development standards that were designed using a water quality design for more frequent, smaller storm events and the flood control system. Mr. Lawless said the issue was about pollutants and how they were trapped and diverted, and how they were infiltrated into the stormwater system, the rivers and streams, as well as the ground water. He added that the pollutants were imbedded in the underlying surfaces and leaching into the ground water. Ms. Walch said staff acknowledged that there was a water quality impact to infiltration as there was with other water quality facilities. The issue was to reduce the level of impact to the system through infiltration. She added the stormwater program had complimentary elements such as the education program that provided information about reducing pollutants at the source using best management practices to compliment the development standards. Mr. Duncan asked if federal requirements for putting less stormwater into the system are resulting in putting more pollutants into the ground water system. Ms. Keppler stated that two federal acts were pushing the water quality issue. The Clean Water Act protected surface waters, while the Safe Drinking Water Act that protected subsurface waters. With the pervious surface waters went down through the pavement and being trapped in the layer between the impervious surface and the ground waters. The underground injection control (UIC) system protects the safe drinking water which required separation between the impact and the ground water elevation. Ensuring minimum separation, which was currently five feet for impervious surfaces, was one requirement. If UIC was used, where there was a pipe underground, a ten foot separation was required. MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 3 Ms. Walch said a decision to use the Portland Manual was made because it had been reviewed by the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for consistency with the Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. All of the best management practices in the Portland Manual had a designation that identified additional requirements through the UIC program. Ms. Walch added that pervious pavement systems were not considered UIC systems. Mr. Belcher asked what types of substances would be able to penetrate the pervious surfaces. Ms. Walch replied there were still studies underway regarding the UIC in which the City of Eugene was participating with other agencies to conduct ground water and dry well monitoring to determine what substances came out of dry wells, and whether it met the drinking water quality requirement. Ms. Keppler stated that in addition to using best management practices, other maintenance activities such as sweeping and periodic cleaning of the system were required. She added that the goal was to make all of the elements work together to ensure that pollutants were not introduced into the subsurface and forgotten about. • City of Eugene Stormwater Management Rite Aid Willamette Plaza Review Ms. Keppler stated that the Rite Aid site was a PUD redevelopment site. She said Phase I had been approved before the new standards were adopted and was currently under construction. Although no impervious area reduction was provided, the project did include an addition of trees to the existing impervious parking area. Trees within the vegetated infiltration basis were not included as impervious surface area reduction. Phase I was not in full compliance with infiltration basis requirements, in that it did not meet the minimum requirements for plants per square foot for large shrubs/small trees. However, the plan exceeded the shrub/large grass like plants density requirement. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Ms. Keppler said the Rite Aid Willamette Plaza development preceded the implementation of the proposed standards. Responding to Mr. Duncan, Ms. Keppler explained if a design was completed on the presumptive method, the facility could be sized based upon actual soil types and infiltration rates, and possibly been sized down, which would allow for use of the facility by multiple developments. Mr. Hledik asked if a developer exceeded the requirements for a facility, could the parking lot be reconfigured in the future without adding to its capacity, with credits generated by the first project. Ms. Keppler said it could be possible with an adjustment of the system development charges (SDCs) or user fees. She added that another technique would be to do a subsurface structural treatment through the vault system. Mr. Schoening added that if the development was initially oversized, the developer would receive an SDC credit, which would preclude the excess capacity being available in the future. • City of Eugene Stormwater Management Ray’s food Place Review. Ms. Keppler explained this was a new development site on River Road, that came in as a site review with related land use applications, that included a subdivision on the east side and MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 4 partitions dividing commercial lots on the west side. She said the grocery store application included some stormwater treatment facilities because the downstream system had capacity issues. The plan built some storage in the swale in the south and east borders. She explained that the proposed landscape could be used in both the swale and in the facilities separating parking lanes. Based upon the SIM form, the facility was somewhat oversized for the system, which may allow more impervious surface. Ms. Keppler said the developer did a good job with this project, and was very close to being compliant with the proposed code. Ms. Colbath said if it was standard for the parking square footage to exceed the building square footage. Mr. Nystrom explained that the ratio of parking to building size depended upon the use of the building, adding that it was quite possible for the parking square footage to exceed the building square footage. In response to Mr. Hledik, Ms. Walch stated that Public Works had maps which illustrated all of the stormwater outfalls into the river system. She added that there was currently no treatment of the stormwater going into the river system throughout the City. However, there were some capital projects, such as that at Royal Avenue and Greenhill Road, and generally in the West Eugene Wetlands, to lay channels back and vegetate to improve water quality. Ms. Keppler added there were few treatments at the outfall areas. Rather, measures had been taken through other programs, such as the street sweeping program, and sedimentation manholes in wetland areas. Responding to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Schoening explained that SDCs were not segregated by water quality versus quantity, but rather by an improvement fee versus a reimbursement fee. The SDCs were used to fund capital improvements throughout the City, some to increase capacity, and some to address water quality. Mr. Duncan asked if passage of the ordinance would result in any dramatic change from current City practices. He expressed concern that the proposed ordinance created any undue cost to projects that would make the projects not feasible, particularly in the case of a large mixed use project or a large employment center. Ms. Walch responded that the proposed ordinance represented a significant change for new developments. However, other jurisdictions in the state have already adopted similar changes, and the local development community were aware of the need for the changes. She added that Portland, where the standards had been in place for over five years, was seeing more creativity from developers and designers for incorporating the green roofs, pervious surface techniques and other techniques. Ms. Walch said there were some adjustments to the ordinance to ensure that it did not create barriers that could not be overcome. Mr. Duncan opined that the economics differed between Eugene and Portland, and asked if there were cities similar in size to Eugene that had adopted new regulations. Ms. Keppler said the City of Springfield had already adopted the new criteria. She added that the development community had been including the new techniques in their design for five or six years. This was due in part because other regulatory requirements to include water quality treatment. By implementing the standards locally, DEQ would expect the City of Eugene, as a phase one agency, to conduct reviews locally. This was a benefit to local developers. MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Lawless asked if SDCs would be reduced dramatically as a result of the requirement for on- site treatment by the private sector, and what would happen to the stormwater system with less funding. He also asked what percentage of acreage was covered by private sector impervious surface. Mr. Schoening stated the capital improvements were funded both stormwater SDCs and utility fees paid on monthly utility bills. He said the Lone Oak project, funded with SDCs, was used as a beta site to demonstrate to the private sector that the City was imposing the same standards on itself as it was requiring of private developers. When the ordinance was adopted, the cost of the project would be covered through the project budget, regardless of whether the project was publicly or privately funded. In response to Mr. Lawless, Ms. Walch asserted that the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) included long term stormwater basin planning, such as neighborhood water quality facilities and waterway restoration projects, that were identified to address existing water quality condition. Ms. Keppler clarified that only a portion of SDCs and user fees were reduced through meeting or exceeding the proposed requirements. Mr. Hledik asked how closely the City of Eugene proposal paralleled that of the City of Springfield. Ms. Walch understood that the City of Springfield applied the new stormwater standards to new industrial/commercial development regardless of impervious area, while they did not apply them to minor subdivisions of three or fewer lots, or single family residences. She said this was consistent with the City of Eugene’s proposal. She added that City of Springfield adopted the Portland Manual with no changes. Referring to page II-4, question 5, Is a person required to cover an oversized tank (such as a refinery tank) as part of the source control requirements? Mr. Duncan asked for clarification of the staff response. Ms. Keppler said it was necessary to verify adherence to the requirements, but there was no need for a second adjustment review. Mr. Nystrom added that if there was another discretionary application, the review could occur for both simultaneously. Ms. Brotherton said even if all of the state and federal standards were met, a blanket approval may not cover all of the source control requirements. Thus, a minimal process would identify those source controls that were not addressed by state and federal standards. Mr. Duncan was concerned about placing unnecessary burdens on potential developments. Mr. Nystrom added that may of these issues have been addressed through Goal 5, although there may be some exceptions under Goal 5 that needed a discretionary process. Ms. Colbath said the impetus appeared to be an effort to ensure that state and federal requirements were being met. In response to Mr. Lawless’ question about page II-7, question 12, Should the Goal 10 findings include the information about oil control facilities adjustments since Goal 10 only applies to MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 6 residential housing?, Ms. Keppler affirmed that this applied only to apartment complexes of four or more units, and did not apply to single family residences. Mr. Lawless found this requirement onerous for a small development, a sentiment with which Mr. Duncan concurred. Mr. Lawless added that he was concerned that this would be imposed on infill types of development that the City was attempting to encourage. Ms. Keppler agreed to find a solution to those concerns. Mr. Nystrom said the standard was actually based on commercial rather than residential development. He added that many infill projects would fit within the criteria. Mr. Duncan asked how a development site would be classified that consisted of mixed use with ground floor commercial with second floor residential. Mr. Nystrom stated that mixed use was complicated to deal with, suggesting that residential projects needed further study. He added that the DAC had focused on commercial, and would willing to follow the Planning Commission lead on residential concerns. In response to Mr. Hledik, Ms. Walch listed the DAC membership: • 2 design engineers from the City of Eugene. • 2 local design engineers. • 1 representative from the neighborhood groups. • 1 representative from the Home Builders Association of Lane County. • 1 representative from the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. • 1 representative from the Citizens for Public Accountability. • 2 representatives from landscape architects. • 1 representative from the DEQ. • 1 UO professor. Mr. Belcher asked for clarification on adjustment review language on pages II-23 and II-24. Ms. Keppler said the purpose was to achieve a balance, rather than removing the requirements. Mr. Belcher asked for clarification regarding page II-8, question 18, Rob Handy: Residents in the River Road area are interested in drainage and asked that natural drainage options in the Santa Clara/River Road area be a priority. Expressed some concern with the exemptions that were built into the program and questioned whether the code language was strong enough. He requested that the City consider using the 2,500 square feet currently being used by the City of Gresham. Mr. Belcher asked if treatment available treatment options included bioswales or drainage ditches. Ms. Keppler replied that although the issue was not part of the ordinance, some of the standards had been indirectly incorporated from the manual for the River Road/Santa Clara area. She added that bioswales were considered acceptable forms of treatment. Ms. Walch summarized the concerns expressed by the Planning Commissioners: • Concern about pervious pavement. • Clarification in the oil control section for application for commercial and industrial uses. • Do no create an adjustment review process for something that would be exempted. MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 7  • Parking requirement adjustment for application to commercial but not residential. Mr. Nystrom explained that the role of the Planning Commission in this legislative matter was to make a recommendation to the City Council. He asked if the Commission was comfortable moving forward, giving staff direction to address its concerns, or if it needed additional information from staff. Based upon the Commission’s discussion, Mr. Nystrom suggested directing staff to develop language for the parking requirement to address mid-size and larger parking lots. Mr. Carroll stated that he was more comfortable addressing general guidelines rather than talking about specific numbers. Ms. Colbath said it was important to capture businesses that had small parking lots, and high volumes of drive through traffic. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend that the City Council consider the proposal presented to the Planning Commission, with the additional requirements that they take a further look at parking lot size, and source control standards. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. III. DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING Mr. Nystrom acknowledged that the item was on the agenda as a place holder. Referring to page 11, paragraph 3, of the draft minutes of the January 19, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Belcher said the first sentence did not accurately reflect his intent. He said he assumed that the City of Eugene would create a list of contract planners from which neighborhoods could select and work with on neighborhood projects. Mr. Duncan reported that both of his City Council buddies were very supportive of the general discussion that had taken place. Councilor Kelly said he would have discussions with both City Manager Dennis Taylor and Mayor Kitty Piercy regarding scheduling a joint meeting with the City Council on this item in April or May. Mr. Kelly asked if the process could be completed in one year. Mr. Duncan said he recently attended a presentation at the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce regarding commercial lands studies, where Jack Roberts commented that results were expected no earlier than April 2006. Mr. Belcher reported that he had talked with Councilor Taylor, but had not had an opportunity to talk with Councilor Ortiz. Ms. Taylor seemed generally supportive, and raised questions of cost. Mr. Hledik reported that Councilor Papé was generally supportive and urged the Commission to keep pushing in the budget process and on the budget calendar. They discussed the importance of balancing interests of various stake holders. Mr. Papé was very keen on the alternate path, and considered it to be a good voluntary approach to the prescriptive process. He asked if the process could be completed in a year. MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 8 Ms. Colbath said Planning Commission had requested staff to schedule the opportunity siting discussion for March in preparation for a subsequent joint meeting with the City Council. She said the subcommittee had met once with the Neighborhood Leaders’ Council (NLC), and was planning to meet again prior to the Planning Commission discussion. Mr. Belcher said the NLC was generally supportive of the Commission’s proposal, but they did have questions regarding costs and neighborhood involvement. Mr. Belcher stated that there several things about neighborhoods represented by Paul Conte, one of which was true and one of which was not. One was there were very few if any parts of the City that were not within neighborhood associations, the exception being most of the UO and South Eugene High School, and any pieces of land recently annexed that had not formally been included in a neighborhood association. Mr. Belcher expressed surprise that not every neighborhood charter stated that people were members if they lived, owned property or had a business in a neighborhood. He said the Commission would need to look into this matter. Ms. Colbath said including businesses, property owners, and landlords in the neighborhood charters was a recent trend. Mr. Carroll reported that Councilor Solomon expressed concern that there was not enough substance in the opportunity siting discussion to demonstrate to her the difference between opportunity siting and a broad brush nodal concept. She was interested in an alternative path development application approach. MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 9 IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Mr. Nystrom reviewed the Commission schedule and said he would distributed a revised calendar via email. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Belcher provided an update on the Council buddies, noting that he was buddy for Councilors Taylor and Ortiz. He added that Mr. Hudspeth was the buddy for Councilor Poling. Mr. Lawless reported that he was a member of the technical advisory committee and steering committee for the Walnut Node. He said the consultants had developed three alternatives that were intended to put some big ideas in front of the larger group to generate discussions on some of the concepts for nodal development. Mr. Lawless said group took a trip to Salem with planning staff to meet with State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development staff to do a preview of how to examine and rearrange viable alternatives offered by neighbors, business owners, the Oregon Department of Transportation and other stake holders. Mr. Lawless said the following issues had been identified: • ODOT had set aside the idea of an I-5 off ramp on Franklin Boulevard, but would support the three jurisdictions if they chose to pursue the idea. • Continued uncertainty with UO planning related to the arena, parking, east campus, and other issues, that were outside of the Walnut Node planning area. • Concern by members of the Fairmont neighborhood regarding traffic concerns. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Lawless said the UO had recognized the significance of the Joe Romania site on Franklin Boulevard. Mr. Nystrom added that the Joe Romania site was not listed as an historic site. Mr. Duncan said the City Council would take action on the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan this evening. He said he had been asked by two City Councilors to request a member of the Planning Commission attend the meeting. Mr. Duncan expressed concern that the Council did not fully understand the Commission’s level of concern, particularly regarding the lack of inclusion of proposed projects in the document, buildable lands issues, and the needs assessment. Mr. Belcher was concerned that the City Council would approve the project list by resolution with no public process on the list. Ms. Colbath said she regularly attended City Council meetings to be available to answer Councilor’s questions on issues that had been addressed by the Planning Commission. She said she had attended the City Council work session at which the PROS Comprehensive Plan was discussed, at which staff had conveyed the Commission’s concerns. She said although the Council had heard those concerns, she did not know if they understood the level of the Commission’s concerns. MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Belcher suggested that the Planning Commission may not always be sufficiently clear in its issues or discussions with Council buddies, and it appeared to him that whatever the Planning Commission was doing, it was not working with the Council. He asked if the Commission had voted to change the draft, would staff have followed that direction. Mr. Duncan asked if the Planning Commission made a recommendation, did not staff have the responsibility of forwarding that recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Nystrom said staff would have followed the Commission’s direction. He added staff was regularly asked by the Council to forward its own recommendations, and stated that PROS staff had iterated that it did differ with the Planning Commission on the project list. Mr. Nystrom said PROS staff had the responsibility of balancing the opinions not only of the Planning Commission but also the DAC and its three years of work on the project. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:29 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc060213.doc MINUTES -- Eugene Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 11